5 Almeida Street and 129 Upper Street, Islington Retail Impact Assessment 22 October 2008
List of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
3.0 RETAIL POLICY CONTEXT
4.0 DEFINITION OF STUDY AREA
5.0 EXISTING CENTRES HEALTH CHECK
6.0 SHOPPING PATTERNS
7.0 QUANTITATIVE NEED, CAPACITY AND IMPACT
8.0 QUALITATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
9.0 SEQUENTIAL SITE ASSESSMENT
10.0 CONCLUSION
Annex 1: Angel Town Centre Retail Footprint Catchment Annex 2: Household Expenditure: Summary by COICOP Group Current Prices Annex 3: 2001 Census: Population Profile Annex 4: ACORN Profile - Households Annex 5: Proposed Scheme Impact Summary Annex 6: Proposed Scheme Net Gail on Angel Town Centre Annex 7: Retail Footprint London Rankings Annex 8: Proposed Scheme Retail Footprint Catchment Annex 9: Proposed Site Household Expenditure: Summary by COICOP Group Current Prices Annex 10: ACORN Shopper Profile – Households Annex 11: 2001 Census: Population Profile Annex 12: Sequential Test Site Locations
3
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 This report has been prepared in relation to a planning application to redevelop 5 Almeida Street, London N1, currently a mail facility and 129 Upper Street, formerly The Mitre Public House, submitted on behalf of Sager House (Almeida) Ltd.
1.2 This report presents key findings from a detailed evaluation of retail impact levels at the site. It follows a report by retail analysts CACI to Halpern Planning in 2004 to review the impact and market position of a scheme on the adjoining site, granted planning permission in 2007, using a combination of lifestyle data, expenditure models, gravity model simulation and benchmarking techniques.
1.3 CACI have produced an evaluation of the proposals, which considers also the permitted scheme on the adjoining site.
1.4 The submitted application seeks planning permission for:-
“Demolition of 5 Almeida Street and erection of a building over six storeys with two basement levels comprising retail (Class A1/ A3/ A4), office (Class B1) and residential (C3) uses. Alteration and extension of 129 Upper Street with associated access, parking and landscaping.”
Background
1.5 5 Almeida Street was previously a part of the former North London Mail Centre with 129 Upper Street having been a public house formerly known as the Mitre
1.6 In 2007 planning permission was granted for the redevelopment and refurbishment of Buildings A, B, D and F on the adjoining site, the primary objectives of that scheme being to improve the architectural and functional link between Upper Street and the buildings behind, strengthening the existing focal point on Upper Street and enhancing the commercial function of this part of Upper Street to the benefit of the surrounding area.
4 1.7 Although submitted as a standalone application this current proposal is being advanced in the context of the approved scheme on the adjoining site. As such it seeks to build on the objectives. The holistic approach to the site and wider area will enhance the existing focal point on Upper Street, reinforce the nature of the Conservation Area, and integrate more appropriately with the residential areas immediately surrounding.
1.8 The comparison retail market in London has changed since the 2004 analysis. While new centres were anticipated in CACI’s 2004 report, changes in performance, market shares and centre rankings can now better inform the centre’s performance and impacts after the previously anticipated 2010 completion date.
1.9 In line with guidance set out in PPS6 and in Retail Impact Assessment – A guide to best practice, this report undertakes a full and detailed assessment of the retail impact of the proposal in the context of the approved scheme on the adjoining site and reviews the sequential site assessment exercise. Having analysed all relevant considerations the report concludes that there is both a qualitative and quantitative need for the retail development proposed as part of a mixed use scheme and that there are no sequentially preferable sites that would be suitable, available and viable. Furthermore, the need for the development is now far greater than at the time of the permission granted in 2007.
5 2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Location 2.1 5 Almeida Street is enclosed to the North by the rear of properties fronting onto Almeida Street, to the South and West by the adjoining buildings of the former North London Mail Centre site and to the East by the rear of commercial properties facing Upper Street and the site of 129 Upper Street.
2.2 Upper Street includes a variety of retail, restaurant/public house and commercial uses with residential or ancillary storage above.
2.3 The site is close to the edge of the Angel Town Centre boundary and Upper Street provides a distinctive and complementary retail role to Angel, with a mix of retail and restaurant uses.
2.4 The site lies within the Upper Street Conservation Area, which was extended to include the former Mail Centre in June 2001.
2.5 The site enjoys good accessibility by public transport with numerous bus routes, the underground and main line rail services within walking distance. Access to the site is presently via a one way system that requires vehicles to enter from Studd Street and leave via Almeida Street.
Scheme Proposals
2.6 The proposal primarily comprises the redevelopment of 5 Almeida Street and the refurbishment and extension of 129 Upper Street for mixed retail and residential purposes. 5,574 sqm gross retail floorspace will be provided over basement, ground and first floors. This will complement and add to the existing retail offer on Upper Street, along with that approved as part of the development of Buildings B and D.
2.7 On the upper floors of the new building (second to sixth) 78 residential units will be provided in total. These will comprise a mix of one, two and three bedroom flats, split between both private and affordable tenure. Approximately 807 sqm of
6 Class B1 accommodation is also being proposed over basement, ground and first floors.
2.8 Access to the commercial element will be via the new pedestrian link to Upper Street adjacent to 129 Upper Street, The Mitre Public House. This will provide both a visual and functional link with the retail offer on Upper Street and the wider Angel town centre. It will also focus the high pedestrian movements associated with the retail offer onto Upper Street, and away from surrounding residential areas.
2.9 The proposal also involves the refurbishment, alteration and extension of the vacant public house that fronts Upper Street. An extended basement level beneath is proposed as Class A4 use, with the ground floor mainly Class A1/A3 use, with an element of Class A4 use to link with the basement area This, combined with the use of the first floors for Class A3/ A4 retail purposes, will create an appropriate level of activity and draw into the site.
Figure 1: Approved and Proposed Retail Accommodation
Approved Scheme Retail Accommodation
Basement First
A1 Unit B.1 1329 A1 Unit 1.1 215 A1 Unit 1.2 149 Ground A1 Unit 1.3 208 A1 Unit 1.4 171 A1 Unit G.2 132 A1 Unit 1.5 105 A1 Unit G.3 207 A1 Unit 1.6 199 A1 Unit G.4 124 A1 Unit 1.7 170 A3 Unit G.5 219 A1 Unit 1.8 89 A3 Unit G.6 150 A1 Unit G.7 166 Block D A1 Unit G.8 283 A1 Unit G.9 136 A1/A3 Unit G.1 64 A1 Unit G.10 17 A1/A3 Unit G.11 74 A1/A3 Spill Space 95
Total 4302 m2
Proposed Retail Accommodation
Basement First Retail 1678 Retail 1198 A4 Unit 114
Ground 5,574 m2 Unit 1 132 Unit 2 179 Unit 3 83
7 Unit 4 105 Unit 5 712 A4 Unit 134 Total 4335 m2
Retail Offer 2.10 The proposed scheme is submitted as a standalone application. However the proposals relate to and enhance the approved mixed-use scheme on the adjacent site.
2.11 The scheme design creates an additional entrance to the site via the refurbished passageway adjacent to 129 Upper Street, the former Mitre, or alternatively through the Mitre itself, which is extended, rationalised and opened up to draw people back to the new building behind. In this way the new link will create an additional flow of people both into and around the site, whilst also increasing footfall along Upper Street.
2.12 This additional pedestrian activity and footfall will also be to the benefit of the existing retail offer on Upper Street, increasing passing trade in the area and strengthening its role in the wider Angel Town Centre. The enhancement of the visual and functional link to Upper Street is a vital commercial requirement, and creates a distinctive 'Upper Street' character.
2.13 As with the original scheme, the proposed additional retail space is based upon a strong anchor store selling premium House and Home goods, which would generate significant turnover and act as a powerful draw to the centre. The anchor would be supported by a complementary premium goods offer, including multiple retailers and niche independent stores. An attractive and successful centre would hope to achieve a multiple retail offer of up to 75%, which is considered to be an appropriate benchmark for the proposed scheme.
8
3.0 RETAIL POLICY CONTEXT
3.1 This chapter provides a summary of national, regional and local retail policies of relevance to this development.
National Policy
3.2 PPS6 was published in December 2003 and outlines the fundamental objectives of the plan-led approach, protecting the vitality and viability of town centres, focusing trip generating development in areas of high public transport accessibility and promoting consumer choice and an efficient retail sector.
3.3 As well as topic-based objectives, PPS6 lists wider policy objectives (para 1.5):
• “to promote social inclusion, ensuring that local communities have access to a range of shopping, leisure and local services, and that gaps in provision in areas with poor access to facilities are remedied;
• to regenerate deprived areas, creating new and additional employment opportunities and an improved physical environment;
• to promote economic growth of regional, sub-regional and local economies;
• to deliver more sustainable patterns of development, ensuring that locations are fully exploited through high-density, mixed use development and promoting sustainable transport choices, including reducing the need to travel and providing alternatives to car use; and
• to promote good design, improving the quality of public open spaces, protecting and enhancing the architectural and historic heritage of centres, and ensuring that town centres provide an attractive and safe environment for businesses, shoppers and residents.”
9 3.4 Chapter 2 of PPS6 urges regional and local planners to “rebalance” the network of centres to ensure that it is not overly dominated by the largest centres, and that there is a more even distribution of facilities, and that people’s everyday needs are met at the local level. In addition the guidance states that “the scale of development should relate to the role and function of the centre within the wider hierarchy and the catchment served” (para 2.41).
3.5 Chapter 3 covers issues that should be considered by local authorities in determining planning applications, whether they bring forward a development plan allocation, or are on other sites (para 3.1). These largely accord with the stance taken in PPG 6 and the Islington UDP.
Sequential Approach to Retail Development 3.6 The Sequential Approach, as identified in PPG1, PPS6 and PPG13, suggests that in determining appropriate locations for new retail development proposals and other key town centre uses, first preference should be given to available town centre sites, followed by edge-of-centre sites, after which out-of-centre sites can be considered, where they are accessible by a choice of means of transport.
3.7 PPS6 requires new retail floorspace to follow the sequential approach in order to promote sustainable development. The approach to sequential testing is set out in paragraphs 3.13-3.19 of the guidance. Paragraph 3.19 explains that all other sites considered as part of the test should be assessed on the basis of the availability for development, suitability for retail and viability as a development.
3.8 The guidance also notes that not all centres will have sites that are suitable in terms of size, parking, traffic generation or servicing arrangements for large- scale developments in the town centre itself, and that local planning authorities should be sensitive to the needs of retailers and businesses in their approach to town centre planning.
Need 3.9 Paragraph 3.9 of PPS6 explains that need must be demonstrated for any application for a main town centre use which would be in an edge-of-centre or out-of-centre location and which is not in accordance with an up-to-date development plan document strategy. A quantitative need for the development
10 should be demonstrated through an assessment of existing trade across a realistic catchment area. The qualitative need for development may provide additional justification.
Disaggregation 3.10 Furthermore, paragraph 3.15 explains that developers are advised that they should be more flexible when considering alternative sites as part of the sequential approach. If a class of goods can be sold from a site but the preferred format of development is not appropriate, then alternative options relating to scale, format and parking, as well as disaggregation across a wider area, should be considered.
3.11 PPS 6 – Proposed Changes July 2008
3.12 A consultation paper was published in July 2008 proposing changes to the guidance contained in PPS6, particularly in relation to demonstrating need for development. The document acts as a supplement to the existing PPS6 and is not a standalone document. Principally, the amendments relate to the testing of planning applications and the removal of a “needs test”.
3.13 The document places greater emphasis on competition between retails and economic prosperity. The document does not refer to the rebalancing of the network of centres to ensure that there isn’t over-dominance from the largest centres. It is proposed to remove consideration of whether there is a need to avoid an over-concentration of growth in higher level centres (para 2.9);
3.14 In terms of changes to status of existing centres, the advice in the new document is more streamlined. The replacement text no longer requires changes to the status of existing centres or identification of new centres of more than local importance to be addressed at regional level through Spatial Strategies.
3.15 It merely states that any significant changes in role and function of centres should be taken forward through the Development Plan process rather than through planning applications;
11 3.16 The five tests contained in paragraph 2.28 in terms of site selection (including need) remain. However the amended para 2.33 no longer places greater weight to the quantitative need for addition floorspace;
3.17 In terms or assessing quantitative need, the amended paragraph 2.34 highlights that forecast improvements in productivity in the use of floorspace should be for retail development only;
3.18 Large scale developments in local centres are no longer referred to as inappropriate by the new guidance. Reference is merely made to the fact that they are likely to have an impact on the centre and that it is up to the LPA to judge the appropriateness of the scale; of the five tests set out in the existing paragraph 3.4, only site selection (sequential test) and impact remain. The other three tests are removed – need; scale and accessibility;
3.19 Impact assessments are required for applications for retail developments with a gross floor area exceeding 2,500sqm in edge or out of centre sites. Proposals of less than 2,500m2 may require an impact assessment where it is likely to have a significant impact on smaller town centres. This decision will be based on the size and nature of the proposal in relation to the existing centres in the catchment;
3.20 Paragraphs 3.20-3.28 of PPS6, relating to impact, are deleted. However the essence of para 2.21 (assessment of proposal and vitality and viability on Town Centres) remains in the amended para 2.19.c. Impact considerations include:
• How the proposal relates to the Development Plan for the area;
• The impact on the existing, committed and planned public/private investment in a centre/centres in the area and on sites outside the Town Centre;
• Whether an edge-of–centre proposal is of an appropriate scale (gross floorspace) in relation to size and role of its catchment;
• For retail and leisure proposal whether there will be an impact on in- centre trade/turnover. Taking account of current and future consumer expenditure in the catchment area (up to 5 years from the time the application is made);
• The extent to which the proposal will promote or undermine Town Centre vitality and viability in terms of the range, quality and type of goods;
12 • The extent to which the proposal benefits deprived areas and promotes social inclusion and how the proposal will affect employment in the area.
3.21 Where the above points demonstrate that the proposal is likely to have significant adverse impact on the Town Centre, this will normally justify refusal of planning permission. However where identified adverse impacts are likely to be outweighed by significant wider economic, social and environmental benefits arising from the proposal, LPAs are encouraged to consider such proposals favourably.
Regional Policy
London Plan 3.22 The London Plan provides some overall guidelines relating to retail development in the capital. Strategically the Plan seeks to concentrate the supply of retail and leisure facilities and services in the most accessible places, to “reinvigorate town centres and widen their role as accessible and diverse community centres.”
3.23 More specifically the Mayor of London, amongst other things, encourages Boroughs to:
• encourage retail, leisure and other related uses in town centres and discourage them outside the town centres; • improve access to town centres by public transport, cycling and walking;
• enhance the quality of retail and other consumer services in town centres;
• support a wide role for town centres as locations for leisure and cultural activities, as well as business and housing;
• designate core areas primarily for shopping uses and secondary areas for shopping and other uses and set out policies for the appropriate management of both types of area.
3.24 The Plan also explains that Local Authorities should assess retail capacity and need, through sub-regional partnerships where appropriate. “Where need for
13 additional development is established, capacity to accommodate such development should be identified within the UDP following a sequential approach. The LPA should encourage appropriate development on sites in town centres in the network. If no town centre sites are available in the network, provision should be made on the edge of centres in the network.”
3.25 There are many other centres within Central London that are not formally designated as town centres in their own right, within the London network. New developments providing substantial increases in retail floorspace (in excess of 100,000 sqm) have continued to take place, for example within the City of London, without reference to whether individual sites are within, outside or on the edge, of individual ‘town centres’. Whilst Canary Wharf is not designated as a town centre, nevertheless, the development includes substantial retail, restaurants and leisure, predominantly serving the office and local resident population.
3.26 RPG3 para 5.2 states clearly that: “PPG6… is applicable to London, but needs to be applied with care as London has many centres performing different functions.”
3.27 RPG3 further explains that the LPAC network is intended to be flexible: “the hierarchy on which this is based must not be regarded as rigid, rather it is a description of centres at the present on the basis of defined criteria. In the future, some centres may increase their position in any hierarchy, while others may revert to a more local role. Planning activities should seek to guide the future of centres in the light of continuing realistic assessments rather than attempt to maintain a centre at any particular position in the hierarchy.” (para 5.4).
Local Policy
Islington Unitary Development Plan 3.28 The Statutory Development Plan for the area is the Islington UDP, Adopted June 2002.
3.29 Chapter 8 of the UDP outlines the Council’s policies in relation to shopping and town centres. Strategically the Council seeks to “maintain the Nag’s Head and the Angel as the borough’s two town centres, to enhance their role as the focus
14 of retail, business, leisure and community life, and to take measures to improve their prosperity and vitality.” This is further clarified by policy S1 which states that the Council wishes to encourage new investment which enhances the quality and range of services on offer in these centres.
3.30 Policy S14 of the UDP states that the Council will not permit large retail developments outside the town centres, unless it is demonstrated that the scheme “would not have a detrimental effect on the character, viability and vitality of a town centre as a whole, or have a significantly adverse effect on the local environment”.
3.31 Supporting text to this policy notes that whilst the Council supports a sequential approach to retail development, it does recognise that applying this method in a large area like London, which comprises a poly-centric network of complementary centres, is very difficult.
Angel Town Centre Strategy 3.32 Published in March 2004 the Angel Town Centre Strategy sets out Islington Council’s aims and objectives for the centre, provides an economic development strategy and outlines key development proposals.
3.33 As explained in its introduction, the overall development strategy recognises the area around Liverpool Road, Chapel Market and the Upper Street High Pavement as the “shopping centre” within the Town Centre and so encourages new shopping development here. Camden Passage, on the other side of Upper Street is seen as a “specialist retailing area”, acknowledging that most of the businesses here sell antiques.
3.34 The Strategy notes that the majority of vacant sites within the town centre have all been completed and that Development of most of the vacant sites within the Town Centre has now been completed. In accordance with PPG 6 Town Centres and Retail Development, the new PPS 6 Planning for Town Centres and the UDP this document now contains policies which aim to sustain the regeneration which has been achieved in the leisure and retailing economies, and to balance further development of these at Angel with the needs of the Nag’s Head and the potential for large-scale development at King’s Cross.
15 3.35 The aims of the Angel Town Centre Strategy are summarised as follows:
• To sustain and enhance an economically viable and vital Town Centre with a good range of premises for the different town centre uses.
• To strengthen the retailing base by encouraging development to supply more large shop units to meet current demand.
• To widen the range of goods and services provided to meet the needs of people living and working in Islington.
• To increase the amount of employment within the Town Centre.
• To increasing the variety of leisure activities available.
• To ensure all the facilities available within the Town Centre are easily accessible, physically and socially.
• To make the town centre a safe and secure place to be.
• To create a good “entrance” to the Borough.
• To support the development of the A1 Borough Strategy.
• To introduce and encourage measures to make the area and its economic activities greener and more sustainable.
• To improve public transport availability and connections.
• To improve the cleanliness of the town centre and generally enhance the quality of its environment.
• To encourage high quality modern design in all new structures, using sustainable materials and construction methods within the town centre.
16 4.0 DEFINITION OF STUDY AREA
Retail Offer 4.1 In order to establish the catchment of the proposed retail development and hence the area of study, it is first essential to determine the type and mix of retail which will occupy the units.
4.2 The approved scheme on the adjacent site has a floorspace of 5,126 sqm gross (55,158 ft2), and comprises 19/20 units containing a mixture of retail, catering and leisure operators. The application scheme provides 5,574 m2 gross (60,000 ft2) retail floorspace distributed over 9 units. In the same manner as the approved scheme the retail offer is based upon a strong anchor store selling premium House and Home goods, which would generate significant turnover and act as a powerful draw to the centre. The anchor would be supported by a complementary premium goods offer, including multiple retailers and niche independent stores. An attractive and successful centre would hope to achieve a multiple retail offer of up to 75%, which is considered to be an appropriate benchmark for the proposed scheme (see Chapter 7 – Quantitative Need, Capacity and Impact).
4.3 In its local context, this part of Upper Street, to the north of the town centre, already has a number of independent House & Home retailers trading, as well as a mixture of multiple and independent clothing retailers. However, Angel Town Centre has only a limited offer in this market the proposals will, therefore, complement the offer already present, rather than compete with it.
Defining the Catchment Area 4.4 To undertake this assessment we have commissioned a gravity model from retail analysts CACI in order to identify the current retail market position for the surrounding local centres, with potential to be effected by the development.
4.5 Before presenting the analysis it is worth providing a basic introduction to gravity models. Much of the future analysis is based upon this technique and an understanding of the concept and terms will assist the interpretation of findings presented later in the report.
17 4.6 Gravity or spatial interaction models are amongst the most sophisticated and increasingly, the most popular commercial technique for assessing market potential at retail, leisure and financial service outlet locations. Gravity models simulate the trip behaviour of shoppers and offer advantages over traditional assessment techniques by linking the provision of facilities with the consumers’ choice of destination. This allows catchment areas to overlap and the impact of changes in provision such as new retail centres or shopping centre extensions to be accurately assessed.
4.7 Gravity modelling is based on four factors which influence the level of ‘spatial interaction’ between retail centres: the size of demand within an area, the ‘attractiveness’ of facilities, physical distance (or time taken) and the degree of intervening opportunities or level of competition. The models assume that large centres are more attractive to consumers and the closer a consumer is to a shopping destination, the more likely they are to use that centre.
4.8 This analysis is largely performed using Retail Footprint, CACI’s gravity model of comparison shopping patterns. Retail Footprint measures the attractiveness of shopping destinations using a weighted count of the presence of particular retailers in each of over 3,500 retail destinations1. Analysis of retailer exit surveys and credit/debit card transactions has identified a range of common distance, frequency of visit and expenditure characteristics for different types of centre and each retail destination is classified as one of 52 different ‘classes’, describing the way consumers use them.
4.9 The data for CACI’s models are recalibrated annually, using retailer exit surveys & transactional data and provide a robust and consistent framework for assessing retail catchments and market potential. The models are used by retailers and developers to assess demand, and by the GLA as a basis for understanding and predicting inter-borough leakage.
1 In practice, Retail Footprint attractiveness scores (RF Scores) are very closely related to retail floorspace provision, however, the methodology allows the model to incorporate those centres where accurate floorspace statistics are not available, and also for non contributing floorspace (e.g. vacant space, catering space or convenience goods space) to be ignored from the estimate of comparison goods potential.
18 Catchment Area 4.10 To predict the catchment area of the site, CACI’s gravity model takes into account the proposed floorspace, retail offer and mix, in the context of the competing retail centres. Figure 2 summarises the catchment breakdown for the proposed scheme, and Annex 1 shows a map of the Retail Footprint catchment.
Figure 2: The Catchment Summary (75% Multiples)
Angel Town Centre Catchment Predicted 2007
Total Catchment Catchment Shopper Population Market Share Expenditure (£million) Primary 7,892 £524.9 4.1% Secondary 3,940 £686.7 1.5% Tertiary 2,367 £910.9 0.7% Quaternary 1,571 £1,191.2 0.3% Total 15,771 £3,313.9 1.3%
Angel Town Centre Catchment Actual 2007
Catchment Shopper Population Total Catchment Market Potential Market Share Expenditure Potential (£million) (%) (£million)
Primary 11,716 £611.2 £32.0 5.2% Secondary 5,435 £637.2 £14.3 2.2% Tertiary 3,332 £1,045.9 £8.9 0.8% Quaternary 2,241 £1,531.0 £6.1 0.4% Total 22,725 £3,825.4 £61.3 1.6%
Projected Angel Town Centre Catchment Prediction 2010
Catchment Shopper Population Total Catchment Market Potential Market Share Expenditure Potential (£million) (%) (£million)
Primary 9,898 £562.0 £27.1 4.8% Secondary 4,620 £595.3 £12.3 2.1% Tertiary 2,931 £939.8 £7.7 0.8% Quaternary 1,899 £1,335.0 £5.1 0.4% Total 19,349 £3,432.1 £52.2 1.5%
19 4.11 The Primary catchment (where the first 50% of shopping trips originate) extends as far south as Clerkenwell, is restricted to the west by Camden Town and reaches to Hackney to the east. To the north the catchment extends as far as Finsbury Park before market share is reduced. In total, this catchment has resident expenditure worth £611.2 million per annum, of which Angel Town Centre attracts £32.0 million at a market share of 5.2%.
4.12 The Secondary catchment (where the next 25% of shopping trips originate) extends south to the City and Holborn. It remains restricted by Camden Town to the west, but extends east towards the A12 and to Tottenham in the north. In total, this catchment attracts £14.3 million in comparison goods expenditure from a catchment worth £637.2 million equating to a market share of 2.2%.
4.13 The Tertiary catchment (where the next 15% of shopping trips originate) extends southwards accounting for infrequent shopping trips, while extending beyond Camden Town to the west and includes Leyton to the east. This catchment attracts a further £8.9 million per annum accounting for only 0.8% of the total worth of the catchment.
4.14 The Quaternary catchment (where the final 10% of shopping trips originate) attracts a further £6.1 million per annum from a total catchment worth £1,531.0 million. This catchment only accounts for very infrequent shopping trips and has a market share of only 0.4%.
4.15 With a market share of 1.6%, Angel Town Centre is currently the 12th strongest centre within its own catchment (up 6 places from 2004). As would be expected, the West End is by far the most dominant retail centre attracting £1,205.9 million per annum (31.5%) of the residential expenditure within Angel’s Retail Footprint catchment, however this is slightly down on the 2004 figure, when the West End took 32.8% of the centre’s turnover for that year. Strong premium centres including Covent Garden (£207.2 million or 5.4%), Broadgate (£204.3 million or 5.3%), City Cheapside (£119.1 million or 3.1%), and Fenchurch Street (£119.6 million or 3.1%) also compete fiercely within the catchment. Figure 23 (page 52) shows the distribution of the Angel Town centre’s 2007 leakage.
20 Key Retail Centres
4.16 The existing centres within the Borough are all considered within the report, in particular Angel town centre, which is the principal retail centre; the boundary of which lies within 150m of the site. Both Holloway and Old Street (classed as ‘Value Urban Centres’) are assessed, as are Archway and Holloway Rd (classed as ‘Small Urban Centres’). Holloway centre includes the area around the Nags Head Shopping Centre, while Holloway Road separates Angel Town Centre from Holloway, and includes a small concentration of retail to the south of the junction of Hornsey Road and Holloway Road.
4.17 For comparison with the report prepared for the approved scheme on the adjoining site, the centres of Camden Town, Dalston, Kings Cross and Kentish Town are also included. Whilst these centres lie outside of the Borough boundary, they are local to the subject site and are therefore considered.
21
5.0 EXISTING CENTRES HEALTH CHECK
5.1 In order to provide a context within which to assess the impact of the proposed development, guidance relating to retail impact assessments suggests that a full heath check of existing retail centres is carried out to identify current strengths and weaknesses, in terms of retail function, consumer views, accessibility and potential for change.
5.2 Subsequent to the Retail Impact Assessment prepared for the approved development on the adjoining site, LB Islington have commissioned retail consultants Donaldsons to undertake a full retail study of the borough. A first issue of this report was published in 2005, and an updated report is due to be published in September 2008.
5.3 In accordance with the previously submitted Retail Impact Assessment and Donaldsons Islington Retail Study, nine key retail centres have been identified for comprehensive health checks, the principal three being:
• The Angel, Islington • Nags Head, Holloway • Camden Town
5.4 The report will also comment upon six other centres which have also been included in the health check, Though important centres, these are less likely to be affected by the proposed scheme due to their size, retail offer and / or distance from the site.
• Dalston • Archway • Holloway Road • Kings Cross • Kentish Town • Old Street
22 Angel Islington
5.5 Angel Town centre is the largest centre in Islington and is designated in the Draft London Plan and Islington UDP as a major centre. The centre is located just over 1km to the west of Kings Cross, along Pentonville Road.
5.6 The boundary of the town centre as defined by the adopted UDP runs from the north at Islington Green to the centre of N1 in the south. Tolpuddle Street, Pentonville Road & Barnsbury Road create the boundary to this area. There is a large amount of residential property within this boundary which also includes Chapel Market & surrounding shops. Camden Passage is situated to the east of the centre. The remainder of Upper Street is excluded from the definition of the town centre boundary.
5.7 The Donaldsons report notes that Angel Town Centre has “below national average representation of convenience and comparison goods units and an above average number of service units.” On this basis, there are not enough national multiples and comparison goods to ensure higher levels of expenditure retention. However, the services that are provided by the centre are essential to its success. There is a lack of multiple retailers in the centre, though many more have opened since the report was written in 2004.
5.8 Angel Town centre is very accessible by a choice of means of transport especially by public transport. The on-street shopper survey carried out as part of the study indicated that over half of respondents came to Angel Town Centre because it was convenient and accessible, and 42% came because of the centre’s existing attractions.
5.9 The 2005 report concluded that Angel Town Centre is trading well as a vital and viable centre, and that it has a wide diversity of shops and town centre uses. The report notes that prime retail rents have grown and that yields have steadied at between 8 and 9%. A strong pipeline of a variety of retailers wishing to move to Islington exists and a number of high street chains have been fortunate to find space in prime locations since 2005 (Reiss, Fat Face etc). This pipeline will be updated as part of the 2008 Retail Study.
23 5.10 Importantly, the Centre is referred to as having an individual character, making it a destination location rather than a “clone town”. Whilst the report explains that the overall environment is “fair”, a number of drawbacks to the attractiveness of the centre (street cleaning, crossing points, seating) were identified in the report, however, subsequent to this, a number of measures have been introduced which have tackled these issues.
Past Trends and Current Characteristics 5.11 As noted in the previous report and the Town Centre Strategy, Angel Town Centre has been consistently successful as a retail centre over the past decade, and has an established specialist antique function based around Camden Passage. This niche retail experience attracts people from across London as well as significant tourist trade.
5.12 Although the high street has a number of specialist shops over recent years restaurants and bars have become the dominant use in the centre. The centre’s overall catchment area is generally very affluent (see chapter 6 – Shopping Patterns), however there are still a number of relatively poorer areas in the immediate vicinity of the centre, namely the bargain retail of Chapel Market, compared with the more expensive boutiques and jewellers of Upper Street.
5.13 This somewhat unique catchment make-up has no doubt contributed to the ongoing success of the centre. The centre has a generally affluent customer base and the surrounding area has become increasingly expensive in recent years, due to the affluent population influence. Local house prices have risen significantly since 2005. As such the more exclusive shopping elements of Angel Town Centre continue to thrive, whilst the budget shopping at Chapel Market also flourishes.
5.14 The principal shopping centre development in Angel Town Centre is the N1 centre, occupied by a number of national multiples such as Borders, Orange, Yo Sushi, Wagamamas and Vue Cinemas. This has increased the attraction of Angel Town Centre significantly in recent years, and has also perhaps led to a higher concentration of pedestrian flows to the Southern End of Upper Street, dragging trade from the more northern sections of Angel Town Centre. Only two of the units within this centre have changed hands in the past four years, which
24 demonstrates how successful the centre has been. Prior to the development of this centre, there was a lack of suitable accommodation for medium sized high street multiples in Angel, and the development of N1 has gone some way toward filling this gap.
5.15 Convenience provision in the centre is also concentrated to the south of the centre with Sainsburys and Marks & Spencer, as well as the Chapel Street market from Tuesday to Sunday. A Tesco Metro also exists at Islington Green. Outside of the designated centre a further Sainsburys Local Store and a large number of smaller independent convenience shops can be found along Upper Street towards Highbury and Islington station.
5.16 More recently the focus of change in Angel Town Centre has been around Camden Passage, where increasing rents and a decline in the antiques trade has resulted in the gradual influx of fashion shops and boutiques which have begun to reshape the character of this part of the centre. Reiss, Frost French and a number of upmarket cafes now occupy the northern section of the passage. Despite a reduction in antiques traders, this change has led to a more consistent flow of pedestrians through the passage. Previously antiques dealers would operate for only a few days per week, whereas the new businesses open daily.
25 Retail Yield
Figure 3: % Yield for Angel Town Centre
Jan Oct Apr Oct Apr Jan Jul Jan Jun Jan Jul Jan Jul 01 01 02 02 03 04 04 05 05 06 06 07 07
8.5 9 9 8.75 8.75 8.75 8.75 8.75 8.75 8.75 7.5 7.5 7.5
Source: Property Market Report Autumn 2007
5.17 Whilst yields have dropped since the last report in 2004, they are still surprisingly high and variable, which would suggest a high average expenditure per shopper and an element of over-trading. This is likely to be as a result of the high level of small independent outlets and the under representation of high street multiples within the town centre.
Accessibility 5.18 The majority of shopping trips in central London are undertaken by tube or by bus, particularly convenience shopping. As with the majority of central London centres, parking in Angel Town Centre is limited and therefore the majority of shoppers use public transport. The centre is well connected by bus, particularly for shoppers coming from surrounding areas in north and north-east London. Currently fourteen bus routes pass through Angel Town Centre and there are direct bus routes to North London (Upper Holloway, Stoke Newington and Tottenham) along Liverpool Road and Essex Road and to East London (Hackney) along City Road. Routes 73 and 38 are run using higher capacity “bendy” buses operating on a higher frequency. Shoppers coming from further afield for specialist comparison shopping or evening entertainment are more likely to arrive by tube or train. Angel town centre and the southern end of Upper Street are accessible from Angel station (served by Northern City Line Branch) or from Highbury and Islington to the North (served by the Victoria Line) - 10 minutes walk along Upper Street. There is also a railway station at Highbury Corner, which provides First Capital Connect services to north London, and London Over ground services (formerly Silverlink Metro) to Richmond via to West Hampstead and Camden in the west, and to Hackney and Stratford in the east.
26 Figure 4: Accessibility of Angel Town Centre
Subject Subject Matter Data
CarNo. of car parking spaces Off-street 500 On-street 150 Road network 1 Public Transport No. of bus routes 14 No. of buses per hour 187 Overland rail station - Tube station 2 No. of tube lines 2
Retail Mix 5.19 The breakdown of retail below, based on GOAD data and plans, clearly shows a relatively low level of convenience provision. There are also very few comparison multiples within the centre. There is still limited floorspace suitable to accommodate medium to large high street multiples. The lack of high street multiples has been rectified to some extent by the development of the N1 centre and in some cases amalgamation of smaller units, although there is still a lack of suitable units for multiples looking to locate in the area.
Figure 5: Retail Mix and Summary – Angel Town Centre
No. No Units % change Units 2008 2004 Convenience 33 34 +3 Bakers 8 8 0 Butchers 1 1 0 Greengrocers 0 0 0 Grocers 12 12 0 Off Licences / Home Brew 6? 6 0 CTN and Convenience 6 7 +16.7
Comparison 219 220 +0.5 Footwear / Clothing 51 67 +31.4 Furniture 57 41 -28.1 Books and Stationery 17 22 29.4 Electrical 20 19 -5 DIY / Hardware 16 19 +18.8 Gifts, China etc. 10 7 -30 Car Showrooms 3 1 -66.7 Chemists 12 14 +16.7 Variety / Dept. Stores 2 2 0 Florists 5 4 -20 Sports 5 6 +20 Jewellers 10 10 0 Charity 11 8 -27.3
27 Service 170 192 +12.9 Restaurants / Licensed 96 114 +18.8 Premises Hairdressing 28 26 -7.1 Launderette 8 8 0 Travel Agent 4 6 +50 Banks & Building Societies 11 12 +9.1 Estate Agents 22 26 +18.2 Employment Agency 1 1 0
Vacant 60 46 -23.3
Summary of GOAD Data for Angel Town Centre
Total Total Total Total Grand Convenience Comparison Servic Misc. Total e Total Units 34 220 192 46 482 Multiple 11 54 60 1 86 Units Independent 23 166 132 45 396 Units
5.20 Below are the breakdown details which GOAD estimate for floor-space use in the Angel area. At the time of the original report in 2004, this data showed a 5.5% vacancy rate. This has since risen to 7.17% - which represents an additional 5,000 sqft floorspace being vacated. This is however limited mostly to smaller retail units, usually unsuitable for multiples which are
5.21 As observed in 2004, the comparison sector clearly dominates floor-space use, followed closely by the service sector. This is predominantly used by restaurants, cafes & fast-food outlets. The majority of the small convenience floor-space is used by grocery & frozen food retailers.
28 Figure 6: GOAD floor-space data for Angel Town Centre
Floorspace (000s) Sq.ft Sq.m % Convenience Bakers 12.5 1.2 1.74 Butchers 1.4 0.1 0.2 Greengrocers & Fishmongers 0 0.00 0.00 Groceries & frozen foods 79.2 7.4 11.04 Off Licences & Home Brew 4.3 0.4 0.60 CTN & convenience 4.2 0.4 0.59 Comparison Footwear & repairs 9.2 0.85 1.28 Mens, boys wear 3.3 0.3 0.46 Womens, girls & childrens 34.7 3.2 4.84 Mixed & general clothing 29.1 2.7 4.06 Furniture, carpets, textiles 42.7 3.97 5.95 Books, arts/crafts, stationers/copy 43.2 4.01 6.02 Elec, home ent, phones & videos 22.3 2.07 3.11 DIY, hardware & household goods 23.1 2.15 3.22 Gifts, china, glass & leather goods 9.0 0.83 1.25 Cars, motorcycles & accessories 1.6 0.15 0.22 Chemists, toiletries & opticians 21.2 1.97 2.96 Variety, department & catalogue 30.8 2.86 4.29 Florists & gardens 1.5 0.14 0.21 Sports, toys, cycles & hobbies 8.3 0.77 1.16 Jewellers, clocks & repairs 6.5 0.60 0.91 Charity, pets & other comparison 9.4 0.87 1.31 Service Restaurants, cafes, fast food 145.8 13.5 20.33 Hairdressing, beauty & health 37.1 3.44 5.17 Launderettes & dry cleaners 6.5 0.6 0.91 Travel Agents 8.6 0.8 1.20 Banks & financial services 30.2? 2.8 4.21 Building societies 1.9 0.18 0.26 Estate agents & auctioneers 35.9 3.4 5.00 Miscellaneous Employment, careers, PO’s & info 2.4 0.22 0.33 Vacant 51.4 4.78 7.17
Summary of GOAD floorspace data
Sq.ft (000s) Sq.m (000s) % Convenience 101.6 9.44 14.16 Comparison 295.9 27.5 41.25 Service 266 24.7 37.08 Vacant 51.4 4.77 7.17
29 Holloway Road
5.22 Nags Head / Holloway Road is the second largest centre in Islington, as designated in the Draft London Plan and the Islington UDP. The Borough view it as a strategic centre. The A1 runs between Hornsey Road & Seven Sisters Road which is also defined within the UDP as part of the centre. Efforts have been made to expand the retail use on the western side of Holloway Road, although the majority of shops are located on the eastern side. The UDP incorporates both sides of Holloway Road within the defined centre, whilst the London Plan identifies this area as a priority for regeneration. The centre provides 5,000 sqm of retail floorspace.
Past Trends and Current Characteristics 5.23 As identified in the 2004 report, independent convenience retailers dominate the centre, with double the average of outlets. A large number of these outlets are made up of smaller convenience retail. Waitrose, Safeway, Marks & Spencer’s Food Hall and Iceland are the 4 national multiples, with a total number of 47 convenience stores. Small markets selling varieties of low price goods are also bringing customers into the shopping centre.
5.24 The centre is characterised mainly by small low value retailers which run the length of Holloway Road and into the Archway centre to the north. Marks & Spencer, Next, River Island and other high street clothing chains are grouped in and around the Nags Head centre along with other comparison multiples.
5.25 A small percentage of shoppers travel from neighbouring Boroughs (i.e. Hackney) but the majority of shoppers at Holloway Road / Nags Head are from the local area. Potentially the site can draw on higher income catchments to the north.
5.26 A high volume of traffic and busy / crowded pavements due to street trading make the centre a poor local environment, although the number of vacant units is relatively low. The centre is also limited in terms of permeability, due to the barrier created by traffic along Holloway Road, preventing shoppers from crossing from one side of the retail area to the other.
30 Yield Analysis
Figure 7: % Yield for Nags Head / Holloway Road
94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5
Source: Property Market Report Autumn 2002
5.27 Yields in the Holloway Road centre remained steady at 8% from 1996 to 1998, then reduced to 7.5% and remained steady at that level. This indicates that there is relatively strong competition for commercial premises in Holloway Road, which in turn would suggest that there is a healthy pattern of consumer spending. Accessibility 5.28 Holloway Road plays a much more local role than Camden or Angel and as a result, much of its custom arrives by bus, although the centre is also accessible by rail and tube. The centre is served by 11 bus routes which connect to a number of area in North London including Barnet, Finsbury Park and Highgate. Waitrose & Safeway (which is shared with Marks & Spencer) all have car parks and it is probable that a vast proportion of the convenience shoppers therefore drive to the centre. Holloway Road station is the closest station which is served by the Piccadilly line. The Victoria Line runs from Highbury & Islington and Finsbury Park (both 1.5km from Nags Head) and the Northern line runs from Archway (which is also 1.5km from Nags Head).
Figure 8: Accessibility Nags Head / Holloway Road
Subject Subject Matter Data CarNo. car parking spaces Off-street 220 On-street 60 Road network 1 Public Transport No. bus routes 11 No. buses per hour 62 Railway Station 1 Tube station 3 No. tube lines 3
Type of Retail 5.29 Set out below is a breakdown of retail types by outlet based on GOAD paper plans and Centre Summary Reports. In terms of individual unit numbers, the centre is dominated by small independent outlets both in the comparison and the
31 convenience sector. However, the centre’s convenience multiples play a very important role in attracting customers from the surrounding areas.
Figure 9: GOAD data for Holloway Road / Nags Head
No. Units No Units % change 2004 2008 Convenience Butchers 4 4 0.00 Bakers 4 3 -25.00 Greengrocers 4 7 75.00 Grocers 18 23 27.78 Newsagents / Off Licence 5 17 240.00 Comparison Footwear / Clothing 6 29 383.33 Furniture 9 10 11.11 Books 7 7 0.00 Electrical 14 14 0.00 DIY / Hardware 9 9 0.00 Gifts, china etc. 3 2 -33.33 Car Showrooms 3 4 33.33 Chemists 8 8 0.00 Variety / Department Stores 3 3 0.00 Florists 1 1 0.00 Sports 5 6 20.00 Jewellers 6 4 -33.33 Charity 6 5 -16.67 Service Restaurants / Licensed Premises 52 55 5.77 Hairdressing 17 19 11.76 Launderette 7 6 -14.29 Travel Agent 2 3 50.00 Banks & Building Societies 11 11 0.00 Estate Agents 2 2 0.00 Employment Agencies 2 2 0.00 Vacant 15 10 -33.33
Summary of GOAD data for Holloway Road / Nags Head
Total Total Total Total Grand Convenience Comparison Service Misc Total Total Units 47 102 96 10 255 Multiple Units 6 38 22 2 68 Independent 41 64 74 8 187 Units
5.30 From the following tables which detail the floor-space use in Holloway Road, it is evident that nearly half of the total floor-space in Holloway Road is accounted for in the comparison sector. Department, variety & catalogue retailers account for
32 the largest proportion of floor-space. Convenience floor-space is dominated by groceries & frozen foods. Fast food outlets, restaurants and cafes are the largest proportion of service floor-space use. Two percent of floor-space is vacant with banks and financial services also playing a significant part.
Figure 10: GOAD Floor-space data for Holloway Road / Nags Head
Floor-space (000s) Sq.ft Sq.m % Convenience Bakers 6.3 0.59 1 Butchers 4.6 0.4 0.75 Greengrocers & Fishmongers 17.8 1.65 2.9 Groceries & frozen foods 100.4 9.3 16.3 Off licences & home brew 54.8 0.4 0.8 CTN & convenience 15.5 1.4 2.5 Comparison Footwear & repairs 18 1.7 2.9 Men’s, boys wear 7.7 0.7 1.25 Women’s, girls & children’s 14.8 1.4 2.4 Mixed & general clothing 15.8 1.5 2.6 Furniture, carpets, textiles 38.3 3.6 6.2 Books, arts/crafts, 13 1.2 2.1 stationers/copy Elec, home ent, phones & video 19.4 1.8 3.2 DIY, hardware & household 20.7 1.9 3.4 goods Gifts, china, glass & leather 2.9 0.27 0.5 goods Cars, motorcycles & accessories 23.7 2.2 3.8 Chemists, toiletries & opticians 13.5 1.3 2.1 Variety, department & catalogue 62.1 5.7 10.1 Florists & gardens 0.1 0.009 0.02 Sports, toys, cycles & hobbies 17.2 4.6 2.8 Jewellers, clocks & repairs 6.9 0.6 1.1 Charity, pets & other comparison 23.9 2.2 3.9 Service Restaurants, cafes, fast food 73.7 6.8 12.0 Hairdressing, beauty & health 30.8 2.8 5.0 Launderettes & dry cleaners 6.2 0.58 1.0 Travel agents 4.2 0.4 0.7 Banks & financial services 29.1 2.7 4.7 Building Societies 1.3 0.1 0.2 Estate agents and auctioneers 5 0.47 0.8 Miscellaneous Employment, careers, POs & info 5.8 0.5 0.9 Vacant 12.9 1.2 2.1
Summary of GOAD floor-space data
33 Sq.ft (000s) Sq.m (000s) % Convenience 149.4 13.88 24.24 Comparison 298.8 27.69 48.35 Service 150.3 13.97 24.38 Vacant 12.9 1.20 2.09
Camden Town 5.31 Camden Town is designated as a major centre in both the Camden UDP and London Plan. The centre extends from Regents Canal in the north to Mornington Crescent in the south. The centre comprises of one block either side of Camden High Street but main retail areas along the High Street itself and within Camden Lock and Camden Market. Camden Town is based 1km to the west of the centre of Kings Cross. Routes running through to this site are unattractive. The Midland mainline runs between these two areas.
5.32 Camden Town is classed as a ‘neutral / trend’ centre within the London Plan.
Past Trends and Current Characteristics 5.33 Different types of retailing naturally divide Camden Town into a number of different areas. The south end of the high street declined over a number of years due to the big impact of the market to the north end of the high street. However, this seems to have improved in recent years. The majority of the local convenience provision is based between Mornington Crescent and Greenland Street. A Sainsburys Local, Somerfield and Marks & Spencer make up some of the provision, as well as some budget independent retailers. Cafes & take- aways are also dominant in this section. The area still only service a localised market. Charity shops also reside in this area.
5.34 The majority of the high street multiples are based between Camden Town tube station and Delancey Street. The variety of comparison is very poor. Clothing multiples are scarce in this part of the centre and it relies on the shoppers from Stables Market and Camden Lock.
5.35 The area between the tube station and the Lock contains mostly clothing retail, footwear and leather goods shops and independent shops for the young and the tourist market. There is also a growing number of restaurants, clubs & bars. The southern end of Chalk Farm Road holds a number of independent specialist retailers including Arts, Jewellery & bookshops, centred around Stables Market.
34 This is the busiest part of the centre, especially at weekends, and it is one of the most visited places in London.
Yield Analysis
Figure 11: % Yield for Camden
94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 88 76 66 66 66 66 66 66 77
Source: Property Market Report Autumn 2002
5.36 Yields at Camden Town Centre have remained steady at 6.0 for a number of years indicating that there is strong competition for commercial premises. This in turn would suggest that there is a healthy pattern of consumer spending, though yields have increased slightly in recent years.
Accessibility 5.37 Camden Town has very low parking provision, as seen in figure 12. As a result, the majority of people arrive by public transport to shop at Camden Town. Low car use is especially apparent among the under 25 age group who make up the principal customer base for the centre.
5.38 Camden Town is very well-served by bus routes connecting central London, Euston and areas of north London including Highgate, Hampstead, North Finchley and Wood Green. Journeys from further afield including from the east, west and south London are likely to be undertake by tube. Camden Town station is very congested at peak times and is restricted to exit only on Sundays. However, the centre is also easily accessible from Chalk Farm and Mornington Crescent stations. There are plans to expand the capacity of Camden Town tube station in a large redevelopment project spanning 7 years. Camden Town is also relatively accessible by either bus or tube for day visitors arriving into London on mainline rail services to Euston and Kings Cross. In general, though the centre is accessible by public transport, the most frequent services tend to run north to south, making east-west travel more difficult.
Figure 12: Accessibility of Camden Town
35 Subject Subject Matter Data
Car No. of car parking spaces Off-street 442 On-street 158 Road Network No A Roads 3
Public No. of bus routes 11 Transport No. of buses per hour 239 Railway station 1 Tube stations within 1.5km 3 No. tube lines 1
Retail Mix 5.39 The following table summarises the retail provision in Camden Town, based on Goad Plans and Centre Reports published by Goad. The table clearly indicates a high level of independent comparison retailers and a low proportion of multiples. Of particular note also are the large number of restaurants, public houses and bars.
Figure 13: GOAD Data for Camden Town
No. Units No Units % change 2004 2008
Convenience Butchers 1 2 100.00 Bakers 3 1 -66.67 Greengrocers 10 10 0.00 Grocers 16 16 0.00 Newsagents / Off Licence 10 7 -30.00 CTN & convenience 14 17 21.43
Comparison Footwear / Clothing 67 95 41.79 Furniture 20 14 -30.00 Books 24 20 -16.67 Electrical 29 32 10.34 DIY / Hardware 15 17 13.33 Gifts, china etc. 19 18 -5.26 Car Showrooms 5 5 0.00 Chemists 18 17 -5.56 Variety 2 2 0.00 Florists 1 1 0.00 Sports 15 14 -6.67 Jewellers 4 3 -25.00 Charity 15 16 6.67
36 Restaurants / Licensed 111 123 10.81 Premises Hairdressing 35 44 25.71 Launderette 7 6 -14.29 Travel Agent 4 3 -25.00 Banks & Building Societies 13 1 -92.31 Estate Agents 19 10 -47.37 Employment Agency 4 5 25.00
Vacant 35 38 8.57
Summary of GOAD Data for Camden Town
Total Total Total Total Grant Convenience Comparison Service Misc. Total Total Units 53 254 207 38 552 Multiple 14 55 43 3 115 Independent 39 199 164 35 437
5.40 The following table, based on GOAD data, also provides a breakdown of retail floorspace in Camden. In summary, comparison goods floorspace is dominated by electrical goods, clothing and arts/crafts, and convenience floorspace is dominated by groceries and frozen foods. Overall the split of comparison and convenience goods is fairly balanced. Approximately 4.5% of total floor space is vacant.
Figure 14: GOAD floor-space data for Camden Town
Floor-space (000’s) Sq.ft Sq.m % Convenience Bakers 2.1 0.19 0.23 Butchers 0.9 0.08 0.10 Greengrocers & fishmongers 89.2 8.29 9.96 Groceries & frozen foods 136.4 12.67 15.23 Off licences & home brew 7.1 0.66 0.79 CTN & convenience 33 3.07 3.69
Comparison
Footwear & repairs 25.6 2.38 2.86 Mens, boys wear 2.5 0.23 0.28 Womens, girls & childrens 31.2 2.90 3.48 Mixed & general clothing 34.9 3.24 3.90 Furniture, carpets, textiles 15.5 1.44 1.73 Books, arts/crafts, stationers/copy 23.9 2.22 2.67 Electric, home entertainment, phones 51.9 4.82 5.80
37 & videos DIY, hardware & household goods 29.3 2..72 3.27 Gifts, china, glass & leather goods 15.4 1.43 1.72 Cars, motor cycles & accessories 10.3 0.96 1.15 Chemist, toiletries and opticians 26.6 2.47 2.97 Variety, department & catalogue 16.9 1.57 1.89 Florist & gardens 1.0 0.09 0.11 Sports, toys, cycles & hobbies 12.5 1.16 1.40 Jewellers, clocks & repairs 2.0 0.19 0.22 Charity, pets & other comparison 18.0 1.67 2.01
Service
Restaurants, cafes, fast food 152.6 14.18 17.04 Hairdressing, beauty & health 59.2 5.50 6.61 Launderettes & dry cleaners 4.2 0.39 0.47 Travel Agents 1.5 0.14 0.17 Banks & financial services 16.5 1.53 1.84 Building societies 2.8 0.26 0.31 Estate agents and auctioneers 21.2 1.97 2.37
Miscellaneous
Employment, careers, POs & info 7.7 0.72 0.86 Vacant 43.5 4.04 4.86
Summary of GOAD floor-space data
Sq.ft (000s) Sq.m (000s) %
Convenience 268.7 24.97 30.01 Comparison 317.5 29.5 35.46 Service 258 23.97 28.81 Vacant 43.5 4.04 4.86
OTHER CENTRES Kings Cross 5.41 The retail area of Kings Cross lies to the South West of Islington, along Pentonville Road, Euston Road and Grays Inn Road, and at Kings Cross International Railway Station, which acts as a major transport hub generates the majority of trade for local retailers. Kings Cross is identified as an “Average Urban Centre” by CACI consultants.
5.42 The level of existing retail at Kings Cross is rapidly expanding further to the opening of Kings Cross International Rail Terminal in November 2007. The previous retail impact assessment report The new international terminal features
38 a number of kiosk type comparison retail units which serve the high proportion of passing trade. Comparison retail was previously limited and therefore did not adequately serve the local population. As a result much indigenous income previously leaked to the West End and Islington, where higher levels of comparison retail exist.
5.43 Other significant retail developments at Kings Cross include Kings Cross Central, to the west of Islington, and the Kings Cross Regent Quarter Scheme, which has brought forward significant retail development which is likely to have the most impact on Angel, Islington of all surrounding centres.
Kentish Town 5.44 Kentish Town lies to the north west of Islington, on Kentish Town Road which links Camden Town in the south to Archway in the North. The centre is defined as a district shopping and service centre by the Camden UDP.
5.45 The centre is highly accessible by public transport, with Kentish Town station providing links to central London and High Barnet via the Northern Line, and to Luton and Gatwick via Thameslink services. The centre is also served by a number of bus routs from Camden and Central London, and Hampstead and Kilburn to the north and west.
5.46 Kentish Town has a very high proportion of Service provision which primarily serve to local population. This, combined with a high level of convenience retail (15%) leads to a relatively low proportion of comparison retail in the centre (30% compared to the national average of 48%). It can therefore be assumed that the majority of comparison shopping is carried out in nearby Camden Town and elsewhere.
5.47 In summary Kentish town is primarily a local centre providing a convenience service for the local population. A number of smaller independent retailers provide occasional trade from further afield, though the majority of shoppers prefer to comparison shop at Camden Town, where variety and choice is greater. However, comparison retail has shown signs of spreading from Camden northwards towards Kentish Town, and thus it may be the case that levels of comparison retail will start to rise in this area.
39 Dalston 5.48 Dalston (Kingsland) is situated to the north-east of Islington in the London Borough of Hackney. The centre is based around Kingsland High Road which runs north/south from Central London towards Stoke Newington.
5.49 Dalston is the largest town centre in the London Borough of Hackney. It offers a wide range of goods and services, draws trade from a catchment area beyond the Borough boundary and serves a population of more than 200,000. During the 1990’s, Council sponsored schemes achieved major urban regeneration benefits and improvements in Dalston Town Centre, such as Dalston Cross, a development containing a Co-operative Retail Services (CRS) superstore with a retail floorspace of 48,000 sq. ft., 30 shop units and a 380 space car park opened for trading. This scheme improved both the range of shops and shopping facilities for people who live and work in the Borough. There are proposals to further improve the range of shopping and town centre facilities and the environment in Dalston.
Archway 5.50 Archway, to the north of Islington Borough, is designated as a local centre in the Council’s UDP. Archway is also a ribbon-type retail centre based primarily on Junction Road, which links Archway to Tufnell Park, and around the Archway Roundabout, which links the A1 to Holloway Road. Vehicular access to the centre is therefore excellent, with a large number of buses serving key routes to and from Central London. The centre is also served by the Northern Line at Archway station, and is also within walking distance of Upper Holloway overground station, providing links to east and west London.
5.51 The retail mix of Archway comprises a high proportion of comparison retail, serving the local population and passing trade. In terms of overall health, despite its popularity and local usage levels, Archway is very run down in character and is in need of investment and new development.
40 Holloway Road 5.52 The retail area referred to later in this document as Holloway Road comprises a number of small retail units between Highbury and Islington south of Hornsey Road.
5.53 Holloway Road is accessed primarily by buses passing along Holloway Road itself to/from Islington and Central London. The centre is accessible from Holloway Road Tube Station (Piccadilly Line) and Highbury and Islington to the South (National Rail and Victoria Line).
5.54 No individual data from Goad relating to Holloway Road is available. however, the shopping area comprises primarily convenience retail serving the local population. Much of the local demand for comparison shopping is met by nearby centres such as Archway, Camden and Angel. The presence of these larger competing centres means that little growth has occurred in the centre in recent years, and is unlikely to occur in the near future.
5.55 However, Holloway Road has a specific local purpose and it is healthy in terms of its existing role. Despite the poor appearance and environment the centre’s level of convenience retail ensures its survival as being a local stop for those living in the area.
Old Street 5.56 Old Street is situated to the South-east of Islington in the London Borough of Hackney. The centre is based along Old Street itself and feeding routes to the east of Old Street Roundabout which runs north/south from Central London towards Stoke Newington.
5.57 No individual data from Goad relating to Old Street is available. Similar to Holloway Road the shopping area comprises primarily convenience retail serving the local population, with a high proportion of bars, pubs and nightclubs. Much of the local demand for comparison shopping is met by the West End and Angel, and Liverpool Street and Moorgate to the South. The centre’s evening/social economy has grown extensively in recent years, resulting in a loss of many comparison stores and their replacement with other borderline A1/A3 uses such as sandwich bars and coffee shops.
41 5.58 Despite a lack of comparison retail the centre retains its vibrancy through the presence of its service / food and drink and subsequently its health as a centre. It is arguable that there is much room for improvement in terms of the pedestrian/shopper environment, and to some extent the local authority has sought to address this issue through landscaping and cleansing of key focal points. Essentially however, Old Street provides a fair reflection on the overall “well worn” character of Shoreditch. Despite the relatively poor appearance and environment the centre’s evening/night economy and elements of convenience retail result in its success as centre in the context of the more comparison based centres which surround it.
42
6.0 SHOPPING PATTERNS
Current Market Position 6.1 This section places the Islington Borough into current context by analysing its retail centres and understanding the shopping patterns of its residents. It also assesses the impacts of neighbouring developments on retail centres within the Islington Borough over the next few years.
6.2 There are seven centres modelled within Retail Footprint that are within the London Borough of Islington. These range from Angel Town Centre, classed as an ‘Average Urban Centre’ within Retail Footprint, to Finsbury Park, a ‘Small Urban Centre’ with a high proportion of Premium Outlets.
6.3 The Retail Footprint Score (RF Score) represents a weighted count of the retailers present within the centre; this score is further broken down into the proportion of value, mass and premium retailers. The annual market potential refers to the amount of comparison goods expenditure that Retail Footprint estimates to flow into the centre.
6.4 Angel Town Centre is classified as an ‘Average Urban Centre’ in Retail Footprint, and is the most dominant centre within the Islington Borough, with its retail mix currently attracting a market potential of £61.3 million per annum.
6.5 In terms of comparison goods expenditure, as is typical of London Boroughs, the vast majority of expenditure by Islington Borough residents is spent in other locations. Although the Borough also attracts expenditure from non-residents, there remains a very significant net trade deficit.
6.6 This trade deficit is forecast to increase as competing centres strengthen their retail offer, making them more attractive to shoppers from both outside and within the Borough of Islington (See Chapter 7 – Qualitative Need, Capacity and Impact).
6.7 Figure 15 shows the ACORN shopper profile of the proposals compared to that of Angel Town Centre and the London Government Office Region. Annex 10 provides a detailed ACORN profile for the site, and for Angel Town Centre and
43 the proposal combined. While Annex 4 provides a general population report for the site and for the two centres combined.
6.8 The graph in Figure 15 shows the most affluent lifestyle groups on the left with the poorer groups on the right. The proposal’s shopper profile is dominated by “Educated Urbanites”, contributing to 52.1% of the shopper profile, compared to 52.2% of Angel Town Centre’s “No Development” profile and 29.7% of the London Government Office Region. These are young highly qualified people with large disposable incomes. The other key lifestyle group at the other end of the spectrum is Inner City Adversity accounting for 38.6% of the shopper profile and of Angel Town Centre (No Development) and 14.4% of London Government Office Region. There is also a small proportion of the affluent Prosperous Professionals (1.0%) and Aspiring Singles (5.4%) in the proposals profile.
Figure 15: Proposal Shopper ACORN Profile
Proposal London Islington No Dev 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
s s s s p ut e e i ty lies te les li bia ots ies rey i g O i il sh rsi m Ro m ingles d e G Sin bur ioners a v t ban in g s r S d Fami essionals rt Fa a F d en f Ur a e Su en g A u d P n e Har y St e li s t hing Pro ted piring cur l -co ll g ene Affl s e tt d Ri Ci ris ca As S e lue h u u S B ur g o rudent sian Communiti B i ner l erou P A Strug H Wealthy ExecutivesF p Ed In ros Post Industrial Families P
6.9 Figure 16 summarises benchmark analysis for the Angel Town Centre combined with the proposal. CACI have used a combination of ACORN and Retail Footprint to identify retail centres with similar market potential and similar shoppers as Angel Town Centre with the proposal. Holborn, Chancery Lane, Strand, Camden Town and Surrey Quays are amongst the retail centres that have a high correlation with the shopper profile of the increased Angel Town Centre when combined with the proposal.
44 Figure 16: Benchmarks - Angel Town Centre and proposal combined
Market Potential Correlation to Shopper Profile 120 1 110 100 0.95 90 80 0.9 70
60 0.85 Correlation (£ Millions) Market Potential 50 40 0.8
r n e e m n to io g rand ha Lan Quays is y w pstead y Junct den Town e ary Wharf am ncer r m an ha am London - St lapha London - Islin London - Le lborn C London - Bayswat o London - H London - C London - SurLondon - C London - C
London - H
45
7.0 QUANTITATIVE NEED, CAPACITY AND IMPACT
Introduction 7.1 The assessment of quantitative need is essentially an analysis of the capacity of a catchment area to support additional retail development without harm to existing centres. To undertake this assessment we have commissioned a gravity model from retail analysts CACI in order to identify the current retail market position for the surrounding local centres, with potential to be effected by the development. The existing centres within the Borough of Islington (Angel Town Centre, Holloway, Old Street, Archway and Holloway Road) are all considered, as well as the closest centres within Angel Town Centre’s primary catchment area (Camden Town, Dalston, Kings Cross and Kentish Town).
7.2 Taking into account other retail development within the catchment area currently in the pipeline, the market potential for each of the subject centres is forecast for 2010. Incorporated into this is an assessment of the market share of each of the centres within the catchment area, which demonstrates leakage of retail trade. This gives baseline figures from which to assess the impact of the proposed scheme.
7.3 Based upon the amount of retail floorspace and the proposed retail offer, the ‘attractiveness’ of the proposals is forecast, giving a predicted turnover for the scheme. From this the impact of the proposals on Angel Town Centre and the other key retail centres is calculated. Further calculations then demonstrate the net benefits of the scheme in terms of retail attraction and clawback of leakage for the Borough and for Angel Town Centre.
Current Market Position – Islington Borough & Local Key Retail Centres 7.4 This section places the Islington Borough into context by analysing its retail centres and understanding the current shopping patterns of its residents. It also assesses the impacts of neighbouring developments on retail centres within the Islington Borough and other local key retail centres over the next few years.
7.5 Figure 17 includes the Islington Borough’s five centres that are modelled within Retail Footprint. These range from Holloway, classed as a ‘Value Urban Centre’ within Retail Footprint, to Holloway Road, a ‘Small Urban Centre’ with a high proportion of Premium Outlets.
46 7.6 As already identified, the Retail Footprint Score (RF Score) represents a weighted count of the retailers present within the centre, this score is further broken down into the proportion of value, mass and premium retailers. The annual market potential refers to the amount of comparison goods expenditure that Retail Footprint estimates to flow into the centre.
Figure 17: Market Sizes of Key Retail Centres
2004 Report
Annual RF Value Mass Premium Market Centre Class Score Outlets Outlets Outlets Potential (£million) Average Urban London - Angel Centres 130 11.6% 72.1% 16.3% £65.6 London - Holloway Value Urban Centres 137 28.5% 71.5% 0.0% £42.5 London - Old Street Value Urban Centres 24 37.5% 62.5% 0.0% £1.7 London - Archway Small Urban Centres 8 75.0% 25.0% 0.0% £1.3 London - Holloway Rd Small Urban Centres 4 0.0% 25.0% 75.0% £0.1
Current - 2008
Annual Value Mass RF Premium Market Centre RF Class Outlets Outlets Outlets (%) Potential Score (%) (%) (£million)
London - Angel Average Urban Centres 253 7.3% 64.7% 28.1% £61.3 London - Holloway Average Urban Centres 152 26.3% 73.7% 0.0% £54.3 London - Finsbury Park Small Urban Centres 50 0.0% 47.6% 52.5% £19.9 London - Old Street Value Urban Centres 39 35.7% 64.3% 0.0% £4.9 London - Archway Small Urban Centres 16 100% 0.0% 0.0% £3.5 London - Holloway Road Small Urban Centres 7 37.0% 0.0% 63.0% £0.5 London - Camden Town2 Average Urban Centres 268 18.8% 71.5% 9.7% £63.1 London - Kentish Town Value Urban Centres 37 59.9% 40.1% 0.0% £7.6 London - Kings Cross Average Urban Centres 32 0.0% 100% 0.0% £2.3 London - Dalston Value Urban Centres 132 50.2% 49.9% 0.0% £58.7
7.7 Angel Town Centre is classified as an ‘Average Urban Centre’ in Retail Footprint. These are typical London town centres that have a high percentage of mass- market retailers mixed with premium retailers. Figure 2 confirms that Angel is the most dominant centre within the Islington Borough, with its retail mix currently attracting a market potential of £61.3 million per annum.
7.8 However, the figures clearly show that the market potential of Angel has fallen by 7% whilst the potential of all other centres within the catchment have increased.
47 Therefore, whilst the town centre is relatively healthy and has low vacancy rates, it has lost trade to other centres in recent years.
7.9 Over the next few years a number of retail developments will be completed that will have an effect on the market potential of the retail centres within the Islington Borough, these are summarised in Figure 18.
Figure 18: Retail Development Pipeline
Additional Retail Opening Year Centre Development Site Floorspace (predicted) (000s sqft) Westfield London Westfield Shopping Centre 2008 1,800 Former Courts Unit, Staples Corner London – Edgware Road 2008 50 Lower Edmonton Edmonton Green Shopping Centre 2008 148 Hoe Street Walthamstow 2010 77 One New Change City of London - Cheapside 2010 172 London – Stratford Stratford City 2011 1,620
7.10 While these developments will vary considerably in terms of the level of impact they will have on Islington’s retail centres, it is important to make sure that Retail Footprint accounts for all developments with a potential impact.
7.11 For the purpose of modelling the impact of the proposals, developments up to and including the Stratford City development in 2011 have been included.
7.12 Figure 19 shows the previously predicted changes in market potential from 2004 to 2007 for Islington Borough, against the actual figures and those now predicted for 2010.
Figure 19: Islington Borough Balance of Trade 2004 to 2007
2004 Market Predicted Actual 2007 Predicted Change in Change Potential 2007 Market Market 2010 Market Market Potential (%) (£million) Potential Potential Potential (£million) Available Spend £364.0 £365.5 485.1 485.1 £0 0% Retained £32.1 £30.7 61.8 £55.0 -£6.8 -11.0% Attracted £79.2 £74.6 82.6 £67.9 -£14.6 -17.7% Total Market £111.3 £105.3 144.4 £122.9 -£21.4 -14.8% Leakage -£252.8 -£260.2 -£423.3 -£430.1 -£6.8 -1.6%
48 7.13 In total, Islington has a resident comparison goods expenditure of £485.1 million per annum. Of this, £423.1 million is currently being spent outside the Islington Borough, with £61.8 million being spent within the Borough. In addition to this, £82.6 million per annum is being attracted from outside of the Borough. In total, the Islington Council area has a combined market potential of £144.4 4million, which gives net trade balance of -£423.3 million per annum.
7.14 Such a heavy loss of residential expenditure is typical of London Boroughs, however, it is clear from the analysis that Islington’s Trade balance has fallen by significantly more than previously anticipated. Although the available spend has increased much more than previously predicted (up by 33%), the amount of leakage to other boroughs has increased by much more (67%). Despite significant increases in local available spend, the amount of spending attracted to the area from outside the Borough has risen only by 4%.
7.15 The 2010 estimates show a further erosion of Islington Borough’s retail market potential. By 2010, it is predicted that surrounding developments would have increased leakage from Islington by a further £6.8 million, while the amount of expenditure attracted from outside of the Borough will decline by £14.6 million. This equates to a £7.13 million per annum loss in total market potential for the Borough by 2010. The only way to prevent these losses is to increase the strength of the retail offer within the Borough.
7.16 Figure 20 shows the impact of expected regional developments on the individual centres within the Borough. By 2010, Angel Town Centre is predicted to have lost £9.1 million in comparison goods market potential, reducing its market potential by 14.8% to £52.2 million per annum. Holloway is predicted to lose £7.6 million, whereas Finsbury Park is expected to lose £3.3 million. Old Street and Archway are all expected to lose small amounts, however this represents a high proportion of their existing market share.
Figure 20: Expected Performance of Borough Retail Centres, 2007 to 2010
2007 2010 Change in 2004 Market 2007 Predicted Actual Market Market Change Centre Potential Market Potential Market Potential Potential (%) (£million) (£million) Potential (£million) (£million) (£million)
London - Angel £65.59 £62.03 £61.3 £52.2 -£9.1 -14.8% London - Holloway £42.52 £40.63 £54.3 £46.7 -£7.6 -14.0% London – Finsbury Park N/A N/A £19.9 £16.6 -£3.3 -16.5%
49 London - Old Street £1.73 £1.52 £4.9 £4.0 -£0.9 -18.7% London - Archway £1.31 £0.96 £3.5 £2.9 -£0.6 -15.9% London – Holloway Road £0.12 £0.11 £0.5 £0.5 -£0.1 -11.9% London – Camden Town3 £75.16 £71.39 £69.6 £54.5 -£15.1 -21.7% London – Kentish Town £3.27 £3.13 £7.0 £6.8 -£0.2 -3.2% London – King’s Cross £4.57 £4.26 £2.0 £1.8 -£0.2 -7.6% London - Dalston £23.69 £22.35 £55.0 £47.4 -£7.6 -13.7%
7.17 Islington Borough’s market potential has already fallen more than previously predicted, and will find its market potential diminishing over the next five to ten years unless its centres are strengthened through retail development. Since the 2004 audit, the scale and strength of new developments in London has made the comparison retail market more competitive, with this new market environment being manifested as higher anticipated losses for the existing retail centres in Islington Borough to 2010. Angel Town Centre is currently the strongest centre within the Borough and is therefore likely to offer the best returns on any investment in retail developments.
Current Market Position – Angel Town Centre 7.18 Angel Town Centre is the strongest retail centre within the Islington Borough, with a strong mass and premium offer (65% and 28% of outlets respectively). It has a Retail Footprint score of 253, however given current pipeline developments it is expected to experience a fall in trading by 2010, with a comparison goods market potential of £52.2 million per annum by that time.
7.19 Figure 21 breaks down the current total Angel Town Centre Retail Footprint catchment into its Primary, Secondary, Tertiary and Quaternary catchments, while Figure 22 shows how the centre is currently expected to trade in 2010.
Figure 21: Angel Town Centre Catchment Summary 2007
Catchment Shopper Total Catchment Market Potential Market Share (%) Population Expenditure Potential (£million) (£million)
Primary 11,716 £611.2 £32.0 5.2% Secondary 5,435 £637.2 £14.3 2.2% Tertiary 3,332 £1,045.9 £8.9 0.8% Quaternary 2,241 £1,531.0 £6.1 0.4% Total 22,725 £3,825.4 £61.3 1.6%
50 Figure 22: Projected Angel Town Centre Catchment Summary 2010
Catchment Shopper Total Catchment Market Potential Market Share (%) Population Expenditure Potential (£million) (£million)
Primary 9,898 £562.0 £27.1 4.8% Secondary 4,620 £595.3 £12.3 2.1% Tertiary 2,931 £939.8 £7.7 0.8% Quaternary 1,899 £1,335.0 £5.1 0.4% Total 19,349 £3,432.1 £52.2 1.5%
7.20 The Primary catchment (where the first 50% of shopping trips originate) extends as far south as Clerkenwell, is restricted to the west by Camden Town and reaches to Hackney to the east. To the north the catchment extends as far as Finsbury Park before market share is reduced. In total, this catchment has resident expenditure worth £611.2 million per annum, of which Angel Town Centre attracts £32.0 million at a market share of 5.2%.
7.21 The Secondary catchment (where the next 25% of shopping trips originate) extends south to the City and Holborn. It remains restricted by Camden Town to the west, but extends east towards the A12 and to Tottenham in the north. In total, this catchment attracts £14.3 million in comparison goods expenditure from a catchment worth £637.2 million equating to a market share of 2.2%.
7.22 The Tertiary catchment (where the next 15% of shopping trips originate) extends southwards accounting for infrequent shopping trips, while extending beyond Camden Town to the west and includes Leyton to the east. This catchment attracts a further £8.9 million per annum accounting for only 0.8% of the total worth of the catchment.
7.23 The Quaternary catchment (where the final 10% of shopping trips originate) attracts a further £6.1 million per annum from a total catchment worth £1,531.0 million. This catchment only accounts for very infrequent shopping trips and has a market share of only 0.4%.
7.24 With a market share of 1.6%, Angel Town Centre is currently the 12th strongest centre within its own catchment (up 6 places from 2004). As would be expected, the West End is by far the most dominant retail centre attracting £1,205.9 million per annum (31.5%) of the residential expenditure within Angel’s Retail Footprint
51 catchment, however this is slightly down on the 2004 figure, when the West End took 32.8% of the centre’s turnover for that year. Strong premium centres including Covent Garden (£207.2 million or 5.4%), Broadgate (£204.3 million or 5.3%), City Cheapside (£119.1 million or 3.1%), and Fenchurch Street (£119.6 million or 3.1%) also compete fiercely within the catchment. Figure 23 shows the distribution of the Angel Town Centre’s 2007 leakage.
7.25 By 2010, it is predicted that Angel Town Centre will attract £52.2 million per annum in comparison goods expenditure from a catchment worth £3.4 billion.
Figure 23: Leakage Summary for Angel Town Centre Catchment (2007) Centre Name Retail Footprint Class RF Score Leakage Market (£million) Share (%)
London - West End National Centres 2161 £1,205.9 31.5% London - Covent Garden Premium London Non-residential Centres 519 £207.2 5.4% City of London - Broadgate Premium London Non-residential Centres 379 £204.3 5.3% London - Wood Green Value Urban Centres 394 £174.4 4.6% London - Holborn Chancery Lane Average London Non-residential Centres 262 £159.6 4.2% City of London - Fenchurch Street Premium London Non-residential Centres 247 £119.6 3.1% City of London - Cheapside Premium London Non-residential Centres 249 £119.1 3.1% Brent Cross Urban Regional Malls 405 £108.5 2.8% London - Victoria Average London Non-residential Centres 393 £99.7 2.6% Walthamstow Value Urban Centres 257 £85.9 2.2% London - Canary Wharf Premium London Non-residential Centres 275 £71.6 1.9% London - Angel Average Urban Centres (retained) 253 £61.3 1.6% London - Strand Premium London Non-residential Centres 211 £60.6 1.6% London - Knightsbridge Premium London Non-residential Centres 438 £59.9 1.6% London - Fleet Street Premium London Non-residential Centres 161 £57.6 1.5% London – Dalston Value Urban Centres 132 £57.3 1.5% London – Hampstead Premium London Centres 173 £52.8 1.4% London - Holloway Average Urban Centres 152 £52.5 1.4% London - Camden Town Average Urban Centres 268 £51.6 1.3% London - Kings Road Premium London Centres 524 £43.3 1.1% London - Whitechapel Average London Non-residential Centres 74 £35.5 0.9% London - Kentish Town Value Urban Centres 37 £7.5 0.2% London - Archway Small Urban Centres 16 £3.5 0.1% London - Old Street Value Urban Centres 39 £4.9 0.1% London - Kings Cross Average Urban Centres 32 £2.3 0.1%
7.26 The high level of trade leakage experienced by Angel Town Centre, and the Borough as a whole, demonstrates a quantitative need for additional retail floorspace.
7.27 Figure 24 shows the profile of retailers within Angel Town Centre and compares this against the average for ‘Average Urban Centres’. It is apparent that House
52 & Home retailers are poorly represented within this class, with Angel Town Centre not having many multiple (or chain) retailers trading in this sector. The proposal represents a strong opportunity for Angel Town Centre to build on its mix of independent House & Home and Furniture retailers with a high performing multiple offer.
Figure 24: Angel Town Centre Multiple Retailer Profile
London - Angel Average Urban Centre 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%
g r s s s n u es re e ty ices me ods c a c ie ering thi oods v o isure o i C t rv rvi ar nience G Le G Good e V Clo e & H e nal Ca ve Footwea r Se S bl u ellaneo o y a ial Ser c er onal Con r c use s rt u o Leis Mis Pers D H Oth Per Finan Prope
Impact Assessment – The Proposed Site
7.28 The proposal is close to Angel Town Centre, with entrances to the centre leading onto Upper Street to allow for communication links between the retail offer already on Upper Street and the new development. This part of Upper Street already has a number of independent House & Home retailers trading, as well as a mixture of multiple and independent Clothing retailers. The development will complement the range of retail already present within Angel Town Centre.
7.29 To investigate the level of impact caused by the addition of the application scheme to the adjoining approved scheme, CACI have run a number of scenarios using Retail Footprint in order to assess the impact the additional retail space will have on the surrounding markets. These scenarios range from the entire proposal occupied by mainly independent retailers to a format consisting of strong performing multiple retailers. A scenario showing the impact with a full complement of high street retailers has also been included to provide a guide to the impact of a full strength centre with traditional high street retailers. Further scenarios have been run combining the proposal and Angel Town Centre to investigate the cumulative benefits of the proposal trading as part of Angel Town Centre. Figure 25 provides a summary of the scenarios investigated during the analysis.
53 Figure 25: Scenario Summary for Proposal Impact Analysis
Scenario Retail Footprint RF Class Score As a Separate Centre & Consented Scheme: already consented Scheme as a Separate Centre Average Urban Centre 20 0% Multiple Proposal as a Separate Centre Average Urban Centre 26 25% Multiple Proposal as a Separate Centre Average Urban Centre 33 50% Multiple Proposal as a Separate Centre Average Urban Centre 41 75% Multiple Proposal as a Separate Centre Average Urban Centre 48 100% Multiple Proposal as a Separate Centre Average Urban Centre 56 100% Multiple Proposal as a Separate Centre (High St Retailers) Average Urban Centre 61 As part of Angel Town Centre & Consented Scheme:
Already consented Scheme as part of Angel Town Centre Average Urban Centre 273 0% Multiple Proposal as part of Angel Town Centre Average Urban Centre 279 25% Multiple Proposal as part of Angel Town Centre Average Urban Centre 286 50% Multiple Proposal as part of Angel Town Centre Average Urban Centre 294 75% Multiple Proposal as part of Angel Town Centre Average Urban Centre 301 100% Multiple Proposal as part of Angel Town Centre Average Urban Centre 309 100% Multiple Proposal as part of Angel Town Centre (High St Average Urban Centre 314 Retailers)
7.30 The most likely scenario for the proposal is the ‘75% Multiple Retailers (House & Home Retailers)’. This would be representative of a strong anchor that would generate significant turnover and act as a powerful draw to the centre. As the Retail Footprint scores weaken this represents the diminishing strength and performance of the retailers present, with more niche independent retailers trading from the centre. These will have less of a draw than stronger multiple retailers and the performance of the centre will decline accordingly.
7.31 To place the Retail Footprint score for the proposal into context it is worthwhile comparing its score to similar sized shopping centres within London. Figure 26 shows a range of London Urban Shopping Centres operating at a similar floorspace to the proposed development (5,574 sqm gross), and their scores in Retail Footprint. As the Retail Footprint Scores are not based on size of scheme, but instead a measure of the average performance of the comparison goods retailers found in the shopping centres, the actual Retail Footprint Scores can vary across the different sized schemes.
55 Figure 26: Comparable Shopping Centre Scoring Ranges
Floorspace RF Value Mass Premium Centre Name RF Name (sqm net) Score Outlets Outlets Outlets
Liverpool Street Station City of London - Broadgate 7,372 92 11% 65% 23% Oaks Shopping Centre London - Acton 7,107 22 70% 30% 0%
The Green, Butterfly Walk London - Camberwell Green 6,039 14 73% 27% 0%
The Junction London -Clapham Junction 5,639 26 17% 83% 0%
Proposed Site London - Angel 5,574 48 n/a n/a n/a Victoria Place London - Victoria 5,527 69 31% 65% 4%
Hay's Galleria London - London Bridge 5,017 18 0% 100% 0% West One Shopping Centre London - West End 4,371 27 24% 76% 0%
7.32 Figure 27 summarises the impact assessment of the different strength of tenant mix at the site. As would be expected, increased levels of expenditure are drawn away from Angel Town Centre as the strength of retailers are increased, however, even with a full high street offer the impact on Angel Town Centre is only predicted to be approximately £0.3 million per annum (0.6%). With 75% multiples, including strong performing anchors, the impact on Angel Town Centre is predicted to be approximately £0.2 million per annum (0.4%) in total comparison goods expenditure.
56 Figure 27: 5 Almeida Street & 129 Upper Street Impact Assessment
£12.0 £52.1 t £10.0 £52.0
£8.0 £51.9
£6.0 £51.8
Potential (£m) £4.0 £51.7
£2.0 £51.6 Building & Consented Marke
£0.0 £51.5 Islington Market Potential (£m) 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% General Ret ail
Proportion of Multiple Comparison Retailers
7.33 London residents typically have a large choice of retail destinations from which to choose, therefore their expenditure is distributed across a diverse selection of retail centres. With this being the case, the impact of a small development such as this will be spread across a number of centres. Figure 28 summarises impact estimates of the proposal using the 75% multiple scenario. The West End receives the biggest impact in terms of actual expenditure lost, although in percentage terms the effect of the proposal is negligible. Stratford, Covent Garden and Broadgate receive the next largest impacts.
57 Figure 28: Impact Summary of Angel Town Centre with Proposed Scheme – 2010
Annual Impact Centre Name RF Class RF Score (£000) % Impact London - West End Primary Centres 2161 £3,002 0.08% London - Stratford Urban Centres 877 £869 0.05% London - Covent Garden Urban Centres 519 £620 0.22% City of London - Broadgate Urban Centres 379 £597 0.27% London - Holborn Chancery Lane Urban Centres 262 £490 0.24% City of London - Cheapside Urban Centres 309 £439 0.25% Westfield - London Large Urban Regional Mall 889 £322 0.02% City of London - Fenchurch Street Urban Centres 247 £293 0.22% London - Wood Green Urban Centres 394 £274 0.12% London - Dalston Urban Centres 132 £253 0.53% London - Victoria Urban Centres 393 £232 0.09% London - Holloway Urban Centres 152 £221 0.47% London - Fleet Street Urban Centres 161 £192 0.29% Brent Cross Out of Town Regional Malls 405 £179 0.03% London - Strand Urban Centres 211 £157 0.18% London - Whitechapel Urban Centres 74 £154 0.39% London - Camden Town Urban Centres 268 £141 0.26% London - Knightsbridge Urban Centres 438 £139 0.05% Walthamstow Value Urban Centres 257 £131 0.11% London - Canary Wharf Premium London Non- 275 £114 0.06% residential Centres London - Kings Road Urban Centres 524 £102 0.03% London - Hampstead Premium London Centres 173 £87 0.08% London - Old Street Value Urban Centres 39 £13 0.33% London - Kentish Town Value Urban Centres 37 £10 0.14% London - Archway Small Urban Centres 16 £6 0.20% London - Kings Cross Average Urban Centres 32 £4 0.22%
Net Benefits of the Proposal
7.34 Figure 29 illustrates the net benefit of the proposal on the Islington Borough. As the graph shows, the consented development together with the proposal reclaim some of the losses made by centres in the borough to 2010 and will consolidate the retail offer of Angel Town Centre. Net benefits of the adjoining scheme and the proposal for the scenario with 75% multiples is an additional £10.7 million per annum.
7.35 With regard to the other Key Retail Centres being specifically considered by this report the model demonstrates very little impact. The greatest impact is predicted for Dalston, but only at 0.5%. The figure is very low and would not significantly affect this well established centre. The next greatest impact would
58 be on Holloway, but again this only represents a 0.47% impact. On this basis, in terms of drawing existing trade away, the retail impact of the scheme on the identified Key Retail Centres is considered to be negligible.
59 Figure 29: Net Benefit of Proposal Options on Borough of Islington in 2010
Islington Borough Adjoining Development Proposal £150
£140
£130
£120
£110
Market Potential(£m) £100 2007 - Current 2010 - Do Nothing Proposal - 75% Multiples
7.36 In practice, adverse impacts of the scheme will be even lower than those predicted by Retail Footprint. The gravity model is based on like for like competition between centres, when in fact the proposal is planned to be a unique offering of House & Home and Furniture goods. It has already been demonstrated that Angel Town Centre has a low proportion of these retailers, the majority of which are independents, with a number of outlets trading along Upper Street close to where the entrance to the site will be located. These retailers will combine with the proposal to create a critical mass of House & Home goods that is unique to the area and complementary to the town centre offer. CACI believe that this relationship will be mutually beneficial for Angel Town Centre, the proposal, and the retailers situated in currently low pitch areas near the proposed development site.
7.37 Figure 30 displays the results of combining the attractiveness of the proposal to that of Angel Town Centre. Assuming that the retail offer is distinct at each, the benefit of the two centres operating as one would increase the market potential of Angel by £10.7 million to £62.9 million per annum. In total £31.9 million of this will come from the Primary catchment alone, with a higher market share of local expenditure being spent within Angel from this catchment.
60 Figure 30: Angel Town Centre & Proposal Combined
Catchment Pre Proposal 2010 Post Proposal 2010 Change Change % (£million) (£million) (£million)
Primary £27.1 £31.9 £4.8 17.9% Secondary £12.3 £15.7 £3.5 28.3% Tertiary £7.7 £9.0 £1.3 17.0% Quaternary £5.1 £6.2 £1.1 21.2% Total £52.2 £62.9 £10.7 20.5%
7.38 The prime pitch zones within Angel Town Centre would remain the same, with the vast weight of comparison goods retail being centred on the N1 precinct. Angel Town Centre has a Retail Footprint Score of 253, whereas the proposal as a co-dependent centre accounts for an additional Retail Footprint score of 48. So while the proposal will help to draw shoppers north along Upper Street, it will not disrupt the balance of the town centre but instead improve the pitch and therefore the performance of the retailers currently trading from this part of Upper Street. The result will be a significant linked spend between the site and other retail provision in Angel Town Centre, improving clawback of leakage to other centres.
Figure 31: Competing Multiple House & Home Retailers Distance Company Postcode RF Centre Name (Miles) Oliver Bonas EC4V 2BU London - Fleet Street 2.0 Oliver Bonas EC4A 3BF London – Holborn Chancery Lane 1.9 Oliver Bonas EC4V 6DU City of London - Broadgate 2.0 Swarovski WC2E 8PA London – Covent Garden 2.7 Cath Kidston WC2H 9JE London – Covent Garden 2.4 Nauticalia WC2E 8RF London - Covent Garden 2.7 Sofas UK W 1T 2AG London - West End 3.0 Delcor Furniture W 1T 2EU London - West End 3.0 The Pier W 1T 7PL London - West End 3.0 Lombok W1T 7PL London - West End 3.0 Swarovski W 1B 4JA London - West End 3.5 Habitat W1T 7PJ London - West End 3.0 Heals W1T 7LQ London - West End 3.0 John Lewis W1C 1DX London - West End 3.6 Debenhams W1C 1JG London - West End 3.5 BHS W1C 1DL London - West End 3.3 Futon Company W1T 7NP London - West End 2.4 Feather & Black W 1T 4SZ London - West End 2.5 Multiyork W1T 4TW London - West End 2.4 Bo Concept W1T 7NH London - West End 2.4 Waterford Wedgwood W 1J 9EH London - West End 3.5 Habitat W1B 4TB London - West End 3.5 Distance Source: The AA
61 7.39 The development has the potential to offer a unique retail offer, creating a critical mass of premium House & Home goods that has the potential to draw shoppers to Angel in increased numbers. Figure 31 shows the distribution of some House & Home and Furniture retailers within close proximity to Angel. The selection is restricted to multiple retailers, but clearly shows a gap in the market with the closest competitor’s situated around 2.0 miles away around Holborn Chancery Lane and the City. The West End has the strongest concentration of these retailers, but with the exception of out of town shopping, concentrations of House & Home retailers are limited.
7.40 Annex 7 shows the London Retail Footprint rankings. In terms of London centre rankings, Angel Town Centre currently ranks 63rd based on comparison goods spend, and is predicted to fall 5 places by 2010 with the emergence of White City and the development at London Bridge. With the proposals, Angel Town Centre would rise to 60th position in the London Retail Footprint rankings.
7.41 Retail Footprint achieves a correlation coefficient of 0.9 with the ODPM'S turnover data for London Retail Centres, and previous surveys consistently show similarly high levels of correlation between Retail Footprint and surveys that have been commissioned to support its predictions. Past work on behalf of the GLA employed Retail Footprint to model flows between Boroughs and has been used to inform the Examination in Public of the London Plan. Retail Footprint has been developed in a series of iterations over the past 15 years, and is widely considered to be the most robust gravity model on the market.
Conclusions 7.42 Over the next few years a number of retail developments will be completed that will have an effect on the market potential of the retail centres within the Islington Borough. Our report in 2004 identified a potential loss of £6.0 million in market potential per annum in Islington, with increased losses to follow with the completion of proposed developments by 2010. In reality, the loss in market potential since 2004 has been greater than anticipated, and this decline is predicted to continue. The only way to prevent these losses is to increase the strength of the retail offer within the Borough.
62 7.43 As our figures show, there is a very high proportion of trade leakage from the Borough to other centres, along with low vacancy rates and evidence of overtrading demonstrate a clear need for additional retail floorspace. In 2004, 69% of borough spend was leaked to other centres. At the time, it was predicted that this would increase to 71% in 2007. However, the percentage of trade leakage has increased by much more, and at present 87% of the Borough’s market potential is spent elsewhere. This situation is likely to worsen by 2010, with 89% leakage predicted.
7.44 Impacts of the proposals will be spread across a number of centres, with the majority of its expenditure being diverted from the West End. With 75% multiple retail operators in the proposals, including strong performing anchors, the impact on Angel Town Centre is only predicted to be approximately £0.4 million per annum in total comparison goods expenditure. Assessment of the other Key Retail Centres addressed by this report also demonstrate, for the most part, a negligible impact in terms of both absolute and proportional turnover.
7.45 Angel Town Centre has a low proportion of House & Home and Furniture retailers, all of which are independents, with the majority of outlets trading along Upper Street close to where the entrance to the site will be located. These retailers will combine with the proposals to create a critical mass of House & Home goods that is unique to the area and complementary to the town centre offer. This relationship will be mutually beneficial for Angel Town Centre, the site, and the retailers situated in currently low pitch areas near the proposed development site.
7.46 Surrounding Angel Town Centre, House & Home and Furniture retailers are under represented with no strong concentrations of these retailers existing outside of the West End. The proposals represents an excellent opportunity for Angel Town Centre to build on its current mix of independent House & Home and Furniture retailers with a high performing multiple offer.
7.47 The proposals will help to draw shoppers north along Upper Street, it will not disrupt the balance of the town centre due to the weight of retail surrounding the N1 precinct, but instead improve the pitch and therefore the performance of the retailers currently trading from this part of Upper Street.
63 7.48 Assuming that the retail offer is distinct at each, the benefit of the two centres operating as one would increase the market potential of Angel Town Centre by £10.7 million to £62.9 million per annum. In total £31.9 million of this will come from the Primary catchment alone, with a higher market share of local expenditure being spent within Angel Town Centre from this catchment.
7.49 The proposal is a unique style of development that will provide an attractive concentration of lifestyle goods not currently seen in London outside of the West End. Operating within an affluent catchment it will draw increased levels if shoppers into the Angel Town Centre and help strengthen both the town and borough in the face of competing developments.
64 8.0 QUALITATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Qualitative Need 8.1 The retail element of the scheme proposes a House and Home offer, with a principal anchor store, complemented by smaller units and cafés, sufficient to achieve a ‘critical mass’ of variety and floorspace. Such a range of goods is not present with Angel, or indeed any of the Key Retail Centres addressed in this report; the only comparable offer being in the West End.
8.2 It is recognised that PPS6 places greater weight on quantitative need than qualitative need. However, as referred to in paragraph 3.35 and 3.11 of the guidance, qualitative need is also relevant, particularly in the case of this application.
8.3 Whilst the Angel Town Centre boundary is due to be reviewed through the Local Development Framework Process, the site is defined as being ‘edge-of-centre’ and has been assessed on this basis. The site has excellent pedestrian links to the centre of Angel, with shops, cafés and restaurants lining the route.
Transport and Accessibility
8.4 Angel Town centre attracts limited car-borne trade at present and as with the original 2004 application it is not considered that the proposed scheme will have any tangible impact on traffic generation or congestion (see submitted Transport Impact Assessment).
8.5 By contrast the site has excellent public transport links and is accessible by a choice of means of travel, including underground train, bus, foot and bicycle (for which additional customer cycle parking is proposed).
8.6 Given the excellent links between the site and the town centre the potential for linked trips is very high. Customers travelling to and from the site from the south and west, including those travelling by underground train, will all travel through Angel Town Centre. The contrast between the retail offer available within the proposed scheme and that of the town
65 centre supports the opportunity for linked trips, allowing customers to visit two complementary centres in one journey.
Impact on Vitality and Viability of Existing Centres
8.7 In line with paragraph 4.3 of PPS6, as an edge-of-centre site the proposed scheme must also be considered in terms of its qualitative impact on existing centres.
8.8 As is demonstrated in the following chapter, Angel Town Centre has little capacity for new retail development, and the potential sites that have been identified are either unviable, unsuitable or unavailable within a reasonable period of time. The town centre is highly accessible, but survey data demonstrates that it is not the main shopper destination for comparison goods, which is borne out by the high proportion of trade leakage to other centres. However, the vacancy rate for the town centre remains low and demonstrates evidence of over-trading.
8.9 The proposed retail offer does not compete with that of Angel town centre, but proposes a range of predominantly House and Home goods, not available in any of the identified Key Retail Centres. Based upon the proposed retail offer, with 75% multiple retailers, the assessment of the quantitative impact of the scheme clearly demonstrates that there would be a negligible impact (0.7%) on Angel Town Centre in terms of diverted turnover.
8.10 In light of this position the proposed scheme is not considered to be likely to impact negatively on the vitality or viability of the existing town centre, either through a diversion of public or private investment. The proposed scheme will not impact upon the quality, attractiveness or character of the existing centre, its physical condition, or the services that it provides and is unlikely to result in an increase in vacancy rates, which are presently low.
8.11 As an equal consideration, PPS6 identifies the importance of considering the likely effects on the town centre if the proposal does not go ahead. As has been identified, the impact of current trends and pipeline retail developments within the catchment area of the site will be to reduce the
66 turnover of Angel Town Centre by 15% by 2010. While there is likely to be a very small diversion of trade from existing retailers in the town centre, there will also be a significant net benefit for Angel Town Centre in terms of turnover, whether considered as separate centres or as part of a combined retail offer.
67
9.0 SEQUENTIAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Identification of Alternative Sites 9.1 A sequential approach has been taken in considering the location of this development. Adopting this approach means that first preference should be for town centre sites, where suitable sites or buildings suitable for conversion are available, followed by edge of-centre sites, district and local centres and only then out-of-centre sites in locations that are accessible by a choice of means of transport.
9.2 The subject site is within 150m of the Angel town centre boundary, to which it has excellent physical linkages, being connected to the town centre by shops along the northern part of Upper Street. The site is therefore defined by PPG6 as being ‘edge-of-centre’ and it is therefore necessary to assess any sequentially preferable town centre sites and edge of centre sites closer to a town centre boundary.
Evaluation in terms of suitability, viability and availability 9.3 In accordance with the requirements of PPS6) a full survey of Angel Town Centre and the Nags Head Centre was carried out on the 3rd November 2007. This assessment has been prepared in line with advice set out in PPS6 and the RICS publication “Retail Impact Assessment – A guide to best practice” (published 2000). With reference to PPS6 the following factors are examined for each alternative site:
• Suitability – the current use of the site, the size of the site and its capacity to accommodate the type of development proposed; traffic and highway issues; the relationship between the development plan strategy and the proposals.
• Availability – the ownership and ease of site assembly; the availability for development within a reasonable period of time (up to two years).
• Viability – the financial viability of the development in relation to development costs and projected values.
68 9.4 The site requirements for the proposal are as follows: -
• Capacity for a premium stores, complemented by sufficient smaller units to achieve a critical mass of retail;
• Contribution to the mixed use scheme proposed for the whole application site;
• Highway access and capacity for projected deliveries and servicing (see submitted Transport Impact Assessment);
• Compatibility of Development Plan Policy with proposed use;
• Availability within a reasonable time period;
• Financially Viable.
9.5 Where potential sites for the proposed retail floorspace are identified within the sequential test report an examination of options for achieving different forms of layout, servicing etc. are considered.
9.6 A review of sites in and around the Angel Town Centre and Holloway Road retail areas was undertaken as part of the 2004 Retail Impact Assessment. This list of sites has now been reviewed. A total of 16 sites have been identified, of which 9 are located in the designated town centre. Of these 9 sites, 4 key sites are identified in the Angel Town Centre Strategy for potential redevelopment for retail. A summary of our findings is set out below, and full details of the sequential test assessment for each site can be found in Annex 12 of this report.
Sainsburys, Liverpool Road 9.7 The existing Sainsburys supermarket site is identified in the Council’s town centre strategy as a site for potential retail redevelopment, given its central location and links to the existing retail core. Whilst the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed scheme’s retail elements, given the successful operation of the current Sainsburys store, British Land have again confirmed that
69 they are not looking to sell or develop the site. As such the site is not available within a reasonable timescale.
52-64 Chapel Market 9.8 Another site identified in the strategy is that to the rear of Iceland, Chapel Market, and the surrounding properties. Again, whilst this is a central location, the number of landowners with interests in the site would make the site difficult to assemble. In particular, Iceland have confirmed that despite impending takeover of the company, it would be unlikely to sell its store given the excellent location and levels of trade. As a result, the site is not available within a reasonable timescale.
Bank of Scotland, Islington High Street 9.9 This site is the most central to the core retail area of all sites identified in the strategy, and large enough for the retail element of the proposals. However, the building forms the London headquarters of the Royal Bank of Scotland and other businesses who have expressed no desire to vacate. The prime location of these offices accord with very high land values, which could not be sustained by the proposed retail offer.
Torrens Street 9.10 An application for redevelopment of this site for offices was submitted in 1999, however this has been held in abeyance for some time. Whilst in a central location in terms of distance from the main centre, the main pedestrian link to the site would be via an alley through an existing office development. It is our understanding that the owner’s aspirations for the redevelopment of the site, do not include retail, and it is therefore not available or liable to become so within a reasonable timescale.
Edge of Centre Sites 9.11 The remaining sites investigated in the plan were all considered to be unsuitable for the proposed retail, on the basis of size, availability and viability. A detailed analysis of each site can be found in the schedules provided in Annex 12.
70 Summary 9.12 It has been already noted in this and other reports that there are very few opportunities for retail development in Angel Town Centre, as a result of rapid development in the past 20 years. On the basis of CACI data it would appear that Angel Town Centre has in fact outgrown its existing town centre boundary and suffers from overcrowded shopping streets and over trading.
9.13 We have confirmed that the sites identified in the Angel Town Centre Strategy are not suitable for the proposed development, for reasons of unavailability within a reasonable timescale and from our search of other sites our search of the area cannot be described as having any potential for large scale redevelopment for retail within the next 5 years, and as such none are suitable for the proposed scheme’s retail elements.
9.14 The alternative edge of centre sites also identified in the study are also unsuitable, primarily due to availability and viability. In particular, sites at Nags Head, Holloway are by no means ideal locations for the type of retail proposed in the scheme, nor does the catchment population have a requirement for such retail.
9.15 It should again be highlighted that the proposed development is also in an edge of centre location and therefore should only be assessed against sites closer to a town centre boundary than the proposals. None of the sites assessed are a great deal closer to the boundaries of Angel Town Centre or Nags Head Centre and as such the difference between the locations are essentially negligible.
9.16 On the basis of these results, it is considered that this is the only suitable location for the retail development, and is the only site of a suitable size available within a reasonable timescale. The sequential test therefore demonstrates that the proposal complies with local, regional and national policies relating to the location of retail developments.
71 10.0 CONCLUSION
10.1 The subject site lies just to the north of the Angel Town Centre boundary, with excellent pedestrian links and high accessibility, and is therefore defined as an ‘edge-of-centre’ site.
10.2 The scheme proposes 5,574 sqm gross retail floorspace, designed as part of a mixed use scheme adjacent to the previously approved North London Mail Centre scheme. The retail element will be accessed from Upper Street and is based upon a strong anchor store selling premium House and Home goods, which would generate significant turnover and act as a powerful draw to the centre. The anchor would be supported by a complementary premium goods offer, including multiple retailers and niche independent stores. An attractive and successful centre would hope to achieve a multiple retail offer of up to 75%, which is considered to be an appropriate benchmark for the proposed scheme.
10.3 This report has been prepared to address relevant issues of sequential site selection, and quantitative and qualitative need, capacity and impact and as requested by London Borough of Islington.
10.4 The study area has been discussed with London Borough Islington and defined using a gravity model, prepared by retail analysts CACI. The model simulates the trip behaviour of shoppers and offers advantages over traditional assessment techniques by linking the provision of facilities with the consumer’s choice of destination. This allows catchment areas to overlap and the impact of changes in provision, such as new retail centres or shopping centre extension to be accurately assessed.
10.5 In all, nine retail centres have been considered in detail, the principal three being the Angel Town Centre, Nags Head and Camden Town. Each of the centres has been subjected to a ‘health check’, which examines their past trends and current characteristics, public perceptions, accessibility and retail yields and mix. This health check provides a context within which to assess the impact of the proposed development.
72 10.6 An assessment of shopping patterns then places Islington Borough into context by analysing its retail centres and understanding the shopping patterns of its residents. This assessment details the ACORN shopper profile of local residents and identifies the significant net trade deficit of expenditure to retail centres outside the Borough.
10.7 A full analysis of quantitative need, capacity and impact has also been undertaken, which analyses the capacity of the catchment area to support additional retail development without harm to existing centres.
10.8 The report has been written with reference to the Retail Impact Assessment issued in 2005 in relation to the adjoining North London Mail Centre development.
10.9 Over the next few years a number of retail developments will be completed that will have an effect on the market potential of the retail centres within the Islington Borough. By 2010 there will be a loss in market potential within the Islington Borough of £7.13 million per annum, with increased losses to follow with the completion of proposed developments by 2010. The only way to prevent these losses is to increase the strength of the retail offer within the Borough.
10.10 The very high proportion of trade leakage from the Borough to other centres, along with low vacancy rates and evidence of overtrading demonstrate a clear need for additional retail floorspace. Trade leakage has increased to 87% of borough spend – significantly more than predicted in the 2004 report.
10.11 Impacts of the proposals will be spread across a number of centres, with the majority of its expenditure being diverted from the West End. With 75% multiple retail operators in the proposals, including strong performing anchors, the impact on Angel Town Centre is only predicted to be approximately £0.2 million per annum in total comparison goods expenditure. Assessment of the other Key Retail Centres addressed by this report also demonstrate, for the most part, a negligible impact in terms of both absolute and proportional turnover.
10.12 Angel Town Centre has a low proportion of House & Home and Furniture retailers, all of which are independents, with the majority of outlets trading along
73 Upper Street close to where the entrance to the site will be located. These retailers will combine with the proposals to create a critical mass of House & Home goods that is unique to the area and complementary to the town centre offer. This relationship will be mutually beneficial for Angel Town Centre, the proposed site, and the retailers situated in currently low pitch areas near the proposed development site.
10.13 Surrounding Angel Town Centre, House & Home and Furniture retailers are under represented with no strong concentrations of these retailers existing outside of the West End. The proposals represents an excellent opportunity for Angel Town Centre to build on its current mix of independent House & Home and Furniture retailers with a high performing multiple offer.
10.14 The proposals will help to draw shoppers north along Upper Street, it will not disrupt the balance of the town centre due to the weight of retail surrounding the N1 precinct, but instead improve the pitch and therefore the performance of the retailers currently trading from this part of Upper Street.
10.15 Assuming that the retail offer is distinct at both the site and Angel Town Centre, the benefit of the two operating as one would increase the market potential of Angel Town Centre by £10.7 million to £62.9 million per annum. In total £31.9 million of this will come from the Primary catchment alone, with a higher percentage of local expenditure being spent within Angel Town Centre.
10.16 The Proposal is a unique style of development that will provide an attractive concentration of lifestyle goods not currently seen in London outside of the West End. Operating within an affluent catchment it will draw increased levels if shoppers into the Angel Town Centre and help strengthen both the town and borough in the face of competing developments.
10.17 In addition to the quantitative impact of the development a qualitative impact assessment has also been undertaken, which considers transport, accessibility and the impact of the proposed development on the vitality and viability of existing centres.
74 10.18 Angel Town Centre attracts only limited car-borne trade at present and it is not considered that the proposed scheme will have any tangible impact on traffic generation or congestion.
10.19 By contrast the site has excellent public transport links and is accessible by a choice of means of travel, including underground train, bus, foot and bicycle.
10.20 Given the excellent links between the site and the town centre the potential for linked trips is very high. The contrast between the retail offer available within the proposed scheme and that of the town centre supports the opportunity for linked trips, allowing customers to visit two complementary centres in one journey
10.21 The proposed retail offer does not compete with that of Angel Town Centre, but proposes a range of predominantly House and Home goods, not available in any of the identified Key Retail Centres. Based upon the proposed retail offer, with 75% multiple retailers, the assessment of the quantitative impact of the scheme clearly demonstrates that there would be a negligible impact (0.7%) on Angel town centre in terms of diverted turnover.
10.22 In light of this position the proposed scheme is not considered to be likely to impact negatively on the vitality or viability of the existing town centre, either through a diversion of public or private investment. The proposed scheme will not impact upon the quality, attractiveness or character of the existing centre, its physical condition, or the services that it provides and is unlikely to result in an increase in vacancy rates, which are presently low.
10.23 As an equal consideration, PPS6 identifies the importance of considering the likely effects on the town centre if the proposal does not go ahead. As has been identified, the impact of pipeline retail developments within the catchment area of the site will be to reduce the turnover of Angel town centre by over 15% by 2010. While there is likely to be a very small diversion of trade from existing retailers in the town centre, there will also be a significant net benefit for Angel in terms of turnover, whether considered as separate centres or as part of a combined retail offer.
75 10.24 Finally, due to the edge-of-centre location of the site, a full sequential site assessment has been undertaken, which analyses the suitability, availability and viability of 16 other town centre and edge-of-centre sites for retail provision.
10.25 On the basis of these results, it is considered that this is the only suitable location for the retail development, and is the only site of a suitable size available within a reasonable timescale. The sequential test therefore demonstrates that the proposal complies with local, regional and national policies relating to the location of retail developments.
10.26 It has been demonstrated that there is both a qualitative and quantitative need for the retail development proposed as part of this mixed use scheme- and that there are no sequentially preferable sites that would be suitable, available and viable. It is therefore concluded that the application proposals meet the guidance laid down in PPS 6 and subsequent Parliamentary Statements and are in accordance with an up to date Development Plan strategy.
76
Annex 1: Islington Town Centre Current Retail Footprint Catchment Annex 2: Islington Household Expenditure Annex 3: Islington Population Profile Annex 3: Islington Population Profile Annex 3: Islington Population Profile Annex 4: Islington ACORN Profile - Households Annex 4: Islington ACORN Profile - Households Annex 4: Islington ACORN Profile - Households Annex 5: Building C & Consented Scheme Impact Summary
Scenario Class RF Score Building C Islington Islington Market market Town Centre Potential potential Impact (£million) (£million) Building C 0% Multiples (House & Home) Average Urban Centre 26 £3.6 £52.0 -0.4% Building C 25% Multiples (House & Home) Average Urban Centre 33 £5.0 £51.9 -0.5% Building C 50% Multiples (House & Home) Average Urban Centre 41 £6.9 £51.9 -0.7% Building C 75% Multiples (House & Home) Average Urban Centre 48 £8.4 £51.8 -0.8% Building C 100% Multiples (House & Home) Average Urban Centre 56 £10.0 £51.7 -0.9% Building C 100% Multiples (General Retail) Average Urban Centre 61 £11.1 £51.7 -1.0% Annex 6: Building C & Consented Scheme Net Gain on Islington Town Centre
Scenario Class RF Score Building C Islington Islington Market market Town Centre Potential potential Impact (£million) (£million) Building C 0% Multiples (House & Home) Average Urban Centre 26 £3.6 £52.0 £3.4 Building C 25% Multiples (House & Home) Average Urban Centre 33 £5.0 £51.9 £4.7 Building C 50% Multiples (House & Home) Average Urban Centre 41 £6.9 £51.9 £6.5 Building C 75% Multiples (House & Home) Average Urban Centre 48 £8.4 £51.8 £7.9 Building C 100% Multiples (House & Home) Average Urban Centre 56 £10.0 £51.7 £9.6 Building C 100% Multiples (General Retail) Average Urban Centre 61 £11.1 £51.7 £10.6 Annex 7: Retail Footprint–All London Top 100 Centre Rankings
Centre Name Class RF 2007 2010 (No 2010 (Post Score Building C Building C Development) Development) Rank Rank
London - West End National Centres 2161 1 1 1 London - Stratford Value Urban Centres 201 35 2 2 Westfield - London Large Urban Regional Mall 889 n/a 3 3 Kingston-upon-Thames Premium Metropolitan Towns 804 2 4 4 Croydon Premium Metropolitan Towns 718 3 5 5 Bromley Premium Metropolitan Towns 683 4 6 6 Brent Cross Urban Regional Malls 405 5 7 7 Romford Quality Metropolitan Towns 509 8 8 8 London - Kings Road Premium London Centres 524 6 9 9 Ilford Average Metropolitan Towns 412 7 10 10 Sutton Quality Metropolitan Towns 433 9 11 11 Harrow Average Metropolitan Towns 400 12 12 12 London - Covent Garden Premium London Non-residential Centres 519 10 13 13 London - Victoria Average London Non-residential Centres 393 11 14 14 London - Knightsbridge Premium London Non-residential Centres 438 13 15 15 Enfield Quality Metropolitan Towns 273 14 16 16 Uxbridge Average Metropolitan Towns 459 16 17 17 Hounslow Average Metropolitan Towns 343 19 18 18 Ealing Broadway Quality Metropolitan Towns 379 15 19 19 London - Wood Green Value Urban Centres 394 18 20 20 City of London - Broadgate Premium London Non-residential Centres 379 17 21 21 London - Battersea Power Station Urban Regional Mall 201 n/a 22 22 London - Holborn Chancery Lane Average London Non-residential Centres 262 21 23 23 London - Canary Wharf Premium London Non-residential Centres 275 20 24 24 Richmond - Surrey Quality Metropolitan Towns 380 22 25 25 Bexleyheath Average Metropolitan Towns 281 24 26 26 City of London - Cheapside Premium London Non-residential Centres 249 27 27 27 Wimbledon Average Urban Centres 378 25 28 28 London - Beckton Gallion's Reach Super Parks 160 23 29 29 City of London - Fenchurch Street Premium London Non-residential Centres 247 26 30 30 London - Lewisham Value Urban Centres 295 29 31 31 Walthamstow Value Urban Centres 257 28 32 32 Edgware Average Metropolitan Towns 180 31 33 33 Orpington Average Metropolitan Towns 206 36 35 34 London - Hampstead Premium London Centres 173 32 34 35 Romford - The Brewery Major Shopping Parks 89 30 36 36 Wembley Average Metropolitan Towns 116 49 37 37 Greenford - Westway Cross Retail Park Major Shopping Parks 72 33 38 38 Barnet Average Metropolitan Towns 156 39 39 39 Woolwich Value Urban Centres 205 47 40 40 London - Surrey Quays Average Purpose Built District Centres 123 37 41 41 London - Tooting Average Urban Centres 164 40 42 42 London - Strand Premium London Non-residential Centres 211 38 43 43 London - Streatham Value Urban Centres 118 44 44 44 London - Kensington Average Urban Centres 432 34 45 45 London - Tottenham Hale Retail Park Retail Parks 44 329 46 46 London - Clapham Junction Average Urban Centres 239 46 47 47 London - Tandem Centre Retail Park Retail Parks Majority Fashion 58 48 48 48 Barking Average Metropolitan Towns 179 41 49 49 Croydon - Valley Park Retail Park Retail Parks Majority Fashion 70 51 50 50 London - Putney Average Urban Centres 268 45 51 51 Croydon - Purley Way Retail Parks Minority Fashion 111 52 52 52 Lower Edmonton Value Urban Centres 64 74 53 53 Eltham Average Urban Centres 179 50 54 54 London - East Ham Value Urban Centres 189 43 55 55 London - Wandsworth Value Urban Centres 191 53 56 56 London - Hammersmith Average Urban Centres 296 42 57 57 London - Fleet Street Premium London Non-residential Centres 161 54 58 58 North Finchley Average Urban Centres 123 56 59 59 London - Islington Average Urban Centres 253 63 68 60 London - Staples Corner Retail Park Retail Parks Minority Fashion 110 58 60 61 Feltham Value Urban Centres 54 105 61 62 London - Baker Street Average London Non-residential Centres 86 55 62 63 London - Greenwich Shopping Park Major Shopping Parks 68 59 63 64 London - Brixton Average Urban Centres 147 61 65 65 London - Camden Town Average Urban Centres 268 60 64 66 Richmond - Richmond (Kew) Retail Park Major Shopping Parks 69 57 66 67 Beckenham Average Metropolitan Towns 75 66 67 68 London - Kilburn High Road Value Urban Centres 157 64 69 69 London - Dalston Value Urban Centres 132 67 70 70 London - Peckham Value Urban Centres 141 70 72 71 London - Holloway Average Urban Centres 152 69 71 72 West Ealing Value Urban Centres 107 68 73 73 London - Bayswater Average Urban Centres 247 65 74 74 Chiswick Average Urban Centres 211 62 75 75 Wimbledon Village Better Local Centres 67 75 76 76 Orpington - Nugent Shopping Park Retail Parks Majority Fashion 41 77 77 77 New Malden Average Metropolitan Towns 67 76 78 78 Barkingside Value Metropolitan Towns 67 71 79 79 London - Whitechapel Average London Non-residential Centres 74 73 80 80 New Malden - Shannon Corner Retail Park Retail Parks Minority Fashion 57 79 81 81 Palmers Green Average Urban Centres 72 78 82 82 Chingford - Old Church Road Value Urban Centres 61 72 83 83 Ruislip Value Urban Centres 76 80 84 84 London - Catford Value Urban Centres 75 81 85 85 London - Waterloo Premium London Non-residential Centres 89 83 86 86 Dagenham Value Urban Centres 80 82 87 87 London - Friern Bridge Retail Park Retail Parks Minority Fashion 44 88 88 88 London - Muswell Hill Average Urban Centres 91 89 89 89 Hayes Value Urban Centres 74 90 90 90 Hornchurch Value Metropolitan Towns 70 91 91 91 London - Beckton Triangle Retail Park Retail Parks Minority Fashion 68 84 92 92 London - Balham Value Urban Centres 60 95 93 93 Enfield - Enfield Retail Park Retail Parks Minority Fashion 32 92 94 94 London - Fulham Broadway Average Urban Centres 129 86 95 95 London - London Bridge Premium London Non-residential Centres 76 96 96 96 Southall Value Urban Centres 53 94 98 97 London - Paddington Average London Non-residential Centres 59 85 97 98 London - Holborn Kingsway Premium London Non-residential Centres 76 97 99 99 Southgate Average Urban Centres 51 101 100 100 Annex 8: Building C & Consented Scheme Retail Footprint Catchment Annex 9: Building C & Consented Household Expenditure Annex 10: Building C & Consented Shopper ACORN Profile - Households Annex 10: Building C & Consented Shopper ACORN Profile – Households Annex 10: Building C & Consented Shopper ACORN Profile – Households Annex 11: Building C & Consented Shopper Population Profile Annex 11: Building C & Consented Shopper Population Profile Annex 11: Building C & Consented Shopper Population Profile Annex 12: Sequential Test Analysis Full Schedule and Photographs Sequential Test Analysis
Site: 1 – 32-64 CHAPEL MARKET AND 84-94 WHITE LION STREET
Suitability
Existing Use Market barrow storage / Council storage area.
Rear servicing to retail units on Chapel Market
Size and Capacity 4020 sqm Suitable for retail use, though not large enough to accommodate proposed retail at ground floor level.
Traffic and Highway Issues Good vehicular access from White Lion Street
Suitable Pedestrian Access from Chapel Market
Statutory Development Plan Allocation Identified in the Angel Town Centre Strategy as having potential for redevelopment for town centre uses.
Availability
Ownership and Ease of Site Assembly Market Barrow Storage Area in Council Ownership – no other suitable locations for storage of market equipment nearby.
Other service areas privately owned – Iceland / Legal and General confirmed unwilling to sell.
Available within reasonable timescale No - Private owners unwilling to sell
Viability
Financial Viability of the development Unknown, though site assembly likely to be costly
Conclusion Site is suitable for retail development, though current owners unwilling to sell land. Therefore land will not be available within a reasonable timescale. In addition land purchase costs are likely to be high. Sequential Test Analysis
Site: 2 – SAINSBURYS STORE AND CAR PARK
Suitability
Existing Use Supermarket and associated car park
Size and Capacity 8910 sqm
Traffic and Highway Issues Good central location, excellent vehicular and pedestrian access
Statutory Development Plan Allocation Identified in the Angel Town Centre Strategy as having potential for redevelopment for town centre uses.
Availability
Ownership and Ease of Site Assembly British Land owns the entire freehold – confirmed that they will not be looking to sell site in near future.
Current lease to Sainsbury
Available within reasonable timescale Not available - current retail store in operation, car park fully utilised.
Current store thriving.
Viability
Financial Viability of the development Site purchase costs too high, given central location and importance of site for Sainsburys.
Conclusion Site suitable for retail, but not owners have confirmed that they are not looking to sell the site. Financial viability unknown but purchase costs likely to be too high. Sequential Test Analysis
Site: 3 – 1-7 TORRENS STREET
Suitability
Existing Use Vacant Buildings
Size and Capacity 1370 sqm
Traffic and Highway Issues Close to main centre, but separated by office development, hence pedestrian access only reasonable.
Good public transport links.
Limited vehicular access.
Statutory Development Plan Allocation Identified as an area of opportunity in Islington UDP.
Availability
Ownership and Ease of Site Assembly One ownership – owners have not expressed an interest in selling the site.
Available within reasonable timescale No – owner due to progress with redevelopment of the site for offices given long term involvement/ negotiation with Council.
Viability
Financial Viability of the development Potential decontamination costs as a result of previous use as metal works
Conclusion Suitable for retail uses, though not on scale proposed. Site not available due to owner’s proposed redevelopment of the site for offices. Cost of land likely to be high due to central location and possible decontamination works. Sequential Test Analysis
Site: 4 – ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND, UPPER STREET
Suitability
Existing Use Bank and Offices (Head Office)
Size and Capacity 1400sqm
Traffic and Highway Issues Central to tube and bus networks.
Vehicular access from both Angel High Street and Torrens Street.
Good pedestrian access from all directions.
Statutory Development Plan Allocation Identified in the Angel Town Centre Strategy as having potential for redevelopment for town centre uses.
Availability
Ownership and Ease of Site Assembly Bank of Scotland Head Offices
Available within reasonable timescale Site owners not willing to sell site in near future due to strategic nature of site and potential for redevelopment.
Viability
Financial Viability of the development Central location – therefore high cost of land purchase.
Conclusion Site excellent opportunity for retail development, however a long established office use exists and owners not seeking to sell site for redevelopment. Strategic location for Head Offices means that site purchase likely to be too costly. Sequential Test Analysis
Site: 5 – 18-26 PARKFIELD STREET
Suitability
Existing Use Car Park and Service Yard
Size and Capacity 740 sqm
Traffic and Highway Issues Reasonably central to tube and bus networks.
Vehicular access from both Angel High Street and Torrens Street.
Currently poor pedestrian access from all directions.
Statutory Development Plan Allocation Identified in the Angel Town Centre Strategy as having potential for redevelopment for transport uses.
Availability
Ownership and Ease of Site Assembly Multiple ownership – Five different owners.
Many own other surrounding property. Site assembly difficult.
Available within reasonable timescale No – number of owners / surrounding land interests involved would delay assembly
Additional pressure to develop as transport hub.
Viability
Financial Viability of the development Set behind main retail street. Cost of site assembly likely to be too high.
Conclusion Central location but not ideal for retail – set behind main retail street with one access from Upper Street. Council has also identified potential for creation of a transport hub. Site assembly difficult due to number of land interests. Also resulting in likely high cost of land purchase. Sequential Test Analysis
Site: 6 – WHITE LION STREET/BARON STREET
Suitability
Existing Use Residential Use (new development) Ground floor retail (vacant)
Size and Capacity 75 sqm limited retail floorspace Limited capacity for modern retail requirements
Traffic and Highway Issues Set away from main retail core –
Pedestrian access reasonable
Public transport reasonable
Statutory Development Plan Allocation Housing allocation (now fulfilled)
Availability
Ownership and Ease of Site Assembly Peachdrive Properties Ltd - New redevelopment – retail space vacant
Available within reasonable timescale Retail space – yes Entire site – not available – new development recently occupied.
Viability
Financial Viability of the development Potential use of the retail unit as part of the retail mix limited by size and location of the unit in relation to the main retail core.
Conclusion Site unsuitable for level of retail provision or any element of proposed retail mix. Site unavailable for redevelopment – new scheme recently completed. Site purchase likely to be reasonable but location not suitable in terms of commercial viability. Sequential Test Analysis
Site: 7 – VACANT GARAGE, WHITE LION STREET
Suitability
Existing Use Private Car Park
Size and Capacity 70 sqm potential however for three-four storey development
Limited capacity for modern retail requirements
Potential for residential development.
Traffic and Highway Issues Set away from main retail core – vehicular access reasonable.
Pedestrian access reasonable
Public transport reasonable
Statutory Development Plan Allocation Within Conservation Area
Availability
Ownership and Ease of Site Assembly National Tyre Service Ltd Jessica Koppel
Available within reasonable timescale No – current lease not due to expire in near future.
Viability
Financial Viability of the development Long way from retail core – lower footfalls
Limited trade on what is not a retail street – therefore unlikely to be financially viable.
Conclusion Limited capacity for retail Away from main retail area - footfalls too low to satisfy retailer requirements. Not available within reasonable timescale. Purchase costs likely to be high due to residential potential. Sequential Test Analysis
Site: 8 – 50-56 PENTON STREET and 99 CHAPEL MARKET
Suitability
Existing Use Ground floor retail, vacant above
Size and Capacity 300sqm – medium site (5 small units)
Traffic and Highway Issues Good pedestrian links
Away from main public transport provision of Angel.
Reasonable vehicular access.
Statutory Development Plan Allocation Allocation for housing development in the Islington UDP
Availability
Ownership and Ease of Site Assembly Ownership unknown. Vacant above ground, current property under refurbishment.
Available within reasonable timescale No - Property appears to be under redevelopment internally suggesting recent purchase and current reconfiguration/ refurbishment
Viability
Financial Viability of the development Buildings in poor state of repair, promising retail frontage but secondary in nature. Unlikely to be financially viable location in comparison to subject site in terms of footfall.
Conclusion Site limited in size for proposed retail or elements of retail. Site not available – under refurbishment Too far from main shopping area to attract occupiers – hence current vacancy Cost likely to be reasonable but commercially unviable location. Sequential Test Analysis
Site: 9 – 95 CHAPEL MARKET
Suitability
Existing Use Vacant Retail Unit
Size and Capacity 50 sqm unsuitable for national multiples
Limited capacity for modern retail requirements
Traffic and Highway Issues Good pedestrian access along Chapel Market
Poor vehicular access
Long distance from main public transport hub
Statutory Development Plan Allocation No allocation
Availability
Ownership and Ease of Site Assembly Site available – on market
Available within reasonable timescale Yes
Viability
Financial Viability of the development Financially viability limited due to location away from main retail core.
Possible reconfiguration of format Not possible in such a small unit.
Conclusion Site too small for even smallest element of proposed retail mix. Site is available, but lies too far from main retail area for any scheme to be commercially viable. Sequential Test Analysis
Site: 10 – SOBELL SPORTS CENTRE CAR PARK
Suitability
Existing Use Car Park
Size and Capacity 700 sqm
Traffic and Highway Issues Public transport links reasonable
Reasonable/poor pedestrian access from nearest centre
Vehicular access reasonable
Statutory Development Plan Allocation Leisure Use
Availability
Ownership and Ease of Site Assembly Owned by Islington Council - ongoing use as leisure centre –
Important facility as highlighted by Islington UDP
Available within reasonable timescale No - Council not looking to sell one of its key leisure facilities.
Viability
Financial Viability of the development Too far from main centre to be financially viable for retail development
Conclusion Site not suitable for retail development – not sustainable and too far in walking distance from retail area. Council not looking to sell the car park – site not available. Too far from main shopping area to be commercially viable. Sequential Test Analysis
Site: 11 - 107-115 SEVEN SISTERS ROAD
Suitability
Existing Use Car Wash/ Vacant land / depot
Size and Capacity 808 sqm
Reasonable capacity
Traffic and Highway Issues Good access from Camden Road and Holloway Road
Reasonable public transport links
Pedestrian access from main shopping area reasonable, but fair distance from core
Statutory Development Plan Allocation Area of Opportunity
Availability
Ownership and Ease of Site Assembly IC Construction Ltd Recent purchase for redevelopment
Available within reasonable timescale Not available - chosen developer for site.
Viability
Financial Viability of the development Site costs likely to be high due to capacity of site for residential.
Limited footfalls away from central area
Conclusion Site suitable for retail development at ground floor, but not available – developer selected for redevelopment scheme. Site purchase costs likely to be high and footfalls limited – limiting commercial viability Sequential Test Analysis
Site: 12 – 117-127 SEVEN SISTERS ROAD
Suitability
Existing Use Single storey secondary retail
Size and Capacity 900 sqm
Reasonable capacity for retail, though currently fragmented
Traffic and Highway Issues Good vehicular access from Seven Sisters Road
Reasonable public transport links
Pedestrian access from main shopping area reasonable, but fair distance from core
Statutory Development Plan Allocation No allocation
Availability
Ownership and Ease of Site Assembly Islington Council Co-Operative Group Ltd
Available within reasonable timescale No - Owners not looking to sell site.
Viability
Financial Viability of the development Site costs likely to be high due to capacity of site for large residential scheme.
Limited footfalls away from core
Conclusion Site suitable for retail, though too far from main core to attract multiples. Site not available Commercial viability limited due to high purchase costs and lower footfalls Sequential Test Analysis
Site: 13 – KWIK FIT, CAMDEN ROAD
Suitability
Existing Use Garage (currently used)
Size and Capacity 120 sqm
Limited capacity for modern retail requirements
Traffic and Highway Issues Good access from Camden Road and Holloway Road
Reasonable public transport links
Pedestrian access reasonable
Statutory Development Plan Allocation No allocation
Availability
Ownership and Ease of Site Assembly Mr and Mrs Tuffnell Not actively looking to sell site
Available within reasonable timescale Garage in full operation Not available
Viability
Financial Viability of the development Footfalls too low – commercially unviable Site costs likely to be high due to capacity of site for residential.
Conclusion Limited capacity for retail, not even any elements of proposed scheme. Site not available – currently in operation Footfalls too low – not likely to be commercially viable. Sequential Test Analysis
Site: 14 – CORNER OF CAMDEN ROAD/HOLLOWAY ROAD
Suitability
Existing Use Public House at ground floor
Office at first and second floor
Size and Capacity 200sqm
Potential for development on three storeys
Traffic and Highway Issues Good access from Holloway Road
Reasonable pedestrian access from main centre, although on “secondary” side of main retail street.
Good public transport links into/ out of London
Statutory Development Plan Allocation No allocation
Availability
Ownership and Ease of Site Assembly Highlands Investments Ltd Currently occupied on all floors Ground floor being refurbished
Available within reasonable timescale Refurbishment suggests ongoing lease Site not available
Viability
Financial Viability of the development Site costs likely to be high Lower footfalls on western side of Holloway Road Commercially unviable
Conclusion Site suitable for retail at ground floor but unlikely to accommodate any elements of proposed scheme. Site not available. Commercial viability limited. Sequential Test Analysis
Site: 15 – LAND ADJACENT TO ODEON, HOLLOWAY ROAD
Suitability
Existing Use Private Car Park / Storage Area for Cinema
Size and Capacity 400 sqm
Traffic and Highway Issues Good vehicular access from Holloway Road
Pedestrian Access reasonable, limited linkage to centre by major junction
Transport links excellent via bus routs north and south.
Statutory Development Plan Allocation No allocation
Availability
Ownership and Ease of Site Assembly Odeon Cinemas Ltd. Not available. Odeon not looking to sell land.
Available within reasonable timescale No.
Viability
Financial Viability of the development Reasonable location commercially. Site costs too high.
Conclusion Site suitable for retail, though not level of provision in proposed scheme. Site not available for purchase. Commercially reasonable location but site purchase costs likely to be too high. Sequential Test Analysis
Site: 16 – 439 HOLLOWAY ROAD
Suitability
Existing Use Vacant Garage
Size and Capacity 140 sqm site area
Limited capacity for modern retail requirements
Traffic and Highway Issues Good vehicular access from Holloway Road
Good bus links
Pedestrian access from Holloway reasonable Statutory Development Plan Allocation No allocation
Availability
Ownership and Ease of Site Assembly Single Owner – straightforward site assembly
Available within reasonable timescale Yes – currently for sale
Viability
Financial Viability of the development Cost of site likely to be reasonable
Too far from main pedestrian areas to be commercially viable
Conclusion Site too small for proposed development, and too small for any elements of proposed retail scheme Site is available, though away from main footfall areas and hence not commercially viable. Site Photographs
Site: 1 – 32-64 CHAPEL MARKET AND 84-94 WHITE LION STREET
Site: 2 – SAINSBURYS STORE AND CAR PARK Site: 3 – 1-7 TORRENS STREET
Site: 4 – ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND, UPPER STREET Site: 5 – 18-26 PARKFIELD STREET
Site: 6 – WHITE LION STREET/BARON STREET Site: 7 – VACANT GARAGE, WHITE LION STREET
Site: 8 – 50-56 PENTON STREET and 99 CHAPEL MARKET Site: 9 – 95 CHAPEL MARKET
Site: 10 – SOBELL SPORTS CENTRE CAR PARK Site: 11 - 107-115 SEVEN SISTERS ROAD
Site: 12 – 117-127 SEVEN SISTERS ROAD Site: 13 – KWIK FIT, CAMDEN ROAD
Site: 14 – CORNER OF CAMDEN ROAD/HOLLOWAY ROAD Site: 15 – LAND ADJACENT TO ODEON, HOLLOWAY ROAD Site: 16 – 439 HOLLOWAY ROAD