MEDWAY COUNCIL
RETAIL NEEDS STUDY
CL11788/PW/SPe
March 2009
Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners Ltd 14 Regent’s Wharf All Saints Street London N1 9RL
T 020 7837 4477 Offices also in: F 020 7837 2277 Cardiff [email protected] Manchester www.nlpplanning.com Newcastle upon Tyne
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 The Study ...... 1 Content of the Report ...... 1 2.0 OVERVIEW OF RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL LEISURE TRENDS...... 2 Retail Trends ...... 2 Leisure Trends...... 5 3.0 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT ...... 8 National Policy...... 8 Regional Planning Guidance ...... 14 Local Planning Context...... 16 4.0 THE SHOPPING HIERARCHY AND CATCHMENT AREA ...... 20 Major Shopping Centres in Medway and the Surrounding Area...... 20 Socio-Economic Characteristics within Medway ...... 25 Summary and Conclusions...... 28 5.0 DEFINING MEDWAY’S NETWORK OF CENTRES ...... 29 The Designation of Shopping Centres...... 29 6.0 HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ...... 33 Survey Structure...... 33 Food and Grocery Shopping...... 34 Non-Food Shopping...... 35 Internet Purchases...... 42 Town/ District Centre Performance...... 42 Leisure Activities...... 43 Key Messages from the Household Survey Results...... 45 7.0 CHATHAM CITY CENTRE...... 47 Introduction...... 47 Mix of Uses and Occupier Representation ...... 47 Accessibility and Movement ...... 51 Environmental Quality...... 52 Summary of Chatham’s Strengths and Weaknesses ...... 53 8.0 GILLINGHAM DISTRICT CENTRE...... 54 Introduction...... 54 Mix of Uses and Occupier Representation ...... 54 Accessibility and Movement ...... 58 Environmental Quality...... 59 Summary of Gillingham’s Strengths and Weaknesses...... 60 9.0 HEMPSTEAD VALLEY DISTRICT CENTRE...... 61 Introduction...... 61 Mix of Uses and Occupier Representation ...... 62 Accessibility and Movement ...... 64 Environmental Quality...... 65 Summary of Hempstead Valley’s Strengths and Weaknesses...... 66
LON\R11727-008 (Final Report)
10.0 RAINHAM DISTRICT CENTRE ...... 67 Introduction...... 67 Mix of Uses and Occupier Representation ...... 67 Accessibility and Movement ...... 70 Environmental Quality...... 71 Summary of Rainham’s Strengths and Weaknesses ...... 72 11.0 ROCHESTER DISTRICT CENTRE...... 73 Introduction...... 73 Mix of Uses and Occupier Representation ...... 74 Accessibility and Movement ...... 76 Environmental Quality...... 77 Summary of Rochester District Centre’s Strengths and Weaknesses...... 78 12.0 STROOD DISTRICT CENTRE ...... 80 Introduction...... 80 Mix of Uses and Occupier Representation ...... 81 Accessibility and Movement ...... 83 Environmental Quality...... 84 Summary of Strood District Centre’s Strengths and Weaknesses ...... 85 13.0 THE NEED FOR NEW RETAIL DEVELOPMENT ...... 87 Introduction...... 87 Methodology and Data...... 87 Population and Spending...... 88 Existing Retail Floorspace ...... 91 Existing Spending Patterns 2008...... 91 Quantitative Capacity for Additional Convenience Floorspace...... 94 Quantitative Capacity for Additional Comparison Floorspace ...... 97 The Qualitative Need for Retail Development ...... 99 Occupier Demand...... 103 Conclusions ...... 104 14.0 THE NEED FOR COMMERCIAL LEISURE / OTHER TOWN CENTRE USES...... 106 Introduction...... 106 The Potential for Leisure and Entertainment Uses ...... 106 Conclusions on Commercial Leisure ...... 116 15.0 SCOPE FOR ACCOMMODATING GROWTH ...... 118 Floorspace Projections ...... 118 Accommodating Future Growth ...... 119 Potential Development Opportunities ...... 121 Evaluation of Potential Development Sites...... 122 16.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 123 Meeting Shopping Needs in Medway ...... 123 Commercial Leisure Development within Medway ...... 126 The Overall Class A1 to A5 Uses ...... 126 The Role of Shopping Centres ...... 128 Criteria for Meeting Assessing Development Proposals...... 130 Chatham City Centre – Strategic Objectives ...... 131 District Centres – Strategic Objectives ...... 133 Local and Village Centres and Neighbourhood Parades – Strategic Objectives...... 134 Future Strategy Implementation and Monitoring...... 135 LON\R11727-008 (Final Report)
APPENDICES
Appendix A Study Area and Existing Retail Facilities
Appendix B Convenience Retail Assessment
Appendix C Comparison Retail Assessment
Appendix D Operator Requirements
Appendix E Household Survey Results
Appendix F Site Evaluation
LON\R11727-008 (Final Report)
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Benchmark Turnover Expected turnover of existing retail floorspace based on national averages which the identified available expenditure can be measured against.
Class A1 Commercial units classed as retail or shop uses within the Use Classes Order.
Class A1 Services Non-retail uses classed as A1 within the Use Classes Order, such as hairdressers, travel agents and dry cleaners.
Class A2 Commercial units classed as financial or professional services, for example banks and building societies, within the Use Classes Order.
Class A3/A4/A5 Commercial units classed as food or drink outlets, for example pubs, restaurants and takeaways, within the Use Classes Order.
Convenience Goods Consumer goods purchased on a regular basis, including food and groceries and cleaning materials.
Comparison Goods Durable goods such as clothing, household goods, furniture, DIY and electrical goods.
Dodona Research A consulting firm specialising in the cinema industry.
Experian A data consultancy who are widely used for retail planning information.
EGi A published source of information providing known retail and leisure operators’ space requirements in towns across the country.
Goad Plans Town centre plans prepared by Experian, which a based on occupier surveys of over 1,200 town centres across the country.
Gross floorspace Total external floorspace including exterior walls.
Higher order Durable goods which tend to be high value, bought on an occasional basis comparison goods and/or where customers are most likely to shop around and compare products in different shops e.g. adult fashion items, high value electrical goods, jewellery, furniture etc. Customers are usually prepared to tend to travel further to purchase these items.
Lower order Durable goods which tend to be lower value, bought on a regular basis comparison goods and/or where customers are less likely to shop around e.g. small household goods, books, pharmaceutical and toiletries. Customers are less likely to travel long distances to purchase these items.
Market share The proportion of total consumer expenditure within a given area taken Penetration rate by a particular town centre or shopping facility.
MHE Management Horizons Europe (MHE) Retail Shopping Index is a database of over six thousand retail locations that enables the user to rank and sort the UK’s shopping venues against a range of different criteria (including market size; location type; market position; and sector
Multiple traders National or regional ‘chain store’ retailers.
Net floorspace Retail floorspace devoted to the sale of goods, excluding storage space.
Zone A Rent The annual rental charge per square foot for the first 20 foot depth of a shop unit, which is the most suitable measure for standardising and comparing rental levels.
LON/R11788-07 (Final Report)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose of the Study
1. Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners (NLP) were commissioned by Medway Council to prepare a town centre, retail and leisure study, including an assessment of the main Chatham City Centre together with the five district centres of Strood, Gillingham, Rainham, Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre and Rochester. The study assesses the future need for additional retail, commercial leisure facilities and other town centre uses. The study includes:
• a survey of 1,001 households within Medway and parts of neighbouring authorities;
• a postal canvas of over 300 national/regional multiple retailers and leisure operators, in order to ascertain their potential space requirements in Medway.
The Potential for Retail Development
Convenience Retailing (Food and Grocery)
2. An assessment of available expenditure and existing shopping patterns suggests that convenience goods sales floorspace within Medway is collectively trading about 14.1% above the expected levels, £56.65 million above average.
3. In qualitative terms, there is no obvious locational area of deficiency in food store provision within the Medway urban area. Any food store proposals located on an edge of centre site or outside the main centres should be considered against the sequential approach. Some of the capacity could be accommodated within existing vacant premises or small redevelopments within the main centres.
4. The quantitative capacity analysis indicates there is potential for additional convenience goods sales floorspace within Medway. Over and above the current commitments, surplus expenditure at 2016 could support between 4,249 and 5,607 sq m net of large food store sales floorspace and between 2,550 and 3,364 sq m net of small store/shop sales floorspace.
Comparison Retailing (Non-Food Durable Goods)
5. In the short term the development strategy should encourage the implementation of commitments and the reoccupation of vacant shops premises within the designated centres for Class A1 retail use (comparison and convenience use).
6. The development strategy for Medway should seek to enhance Chatham City Centre’s current position in the shopping hierarchy, and where appropriate improve the City’s existing market share of expenditure.
7. The quantitative capacity analysis indicates that existing commitments will not absorb all projected growth in expenditure up to 2016, even based on constant market share and baseline population growth. As a minimum there could be scope for about 23,800 sq m gross of comparison floorspace within Medway up to 2016 and a further 34,000 sq m gross between 2016 and 2021, over and above commitments.
LON/R11788-07 (Final Report)
8. Vacant shop units within designated centres should make a contribution towards accommodating some of this floorspace projection. Other opportunities need to be identified to accommodate at least up to 2016.
9. In qualitative terms, the shopping centres within Medway are all located close to each other particularly Strood, Rochester and Chatham and their primary catchment areas overlap. The main centres collectively provide a reasonably good range of comparison shops (393 units with sales floorspace of 86,396 sq m net), including a range of national multiples and independent specialists. However, the choice of shopping could be improved. Existing provision predominantly caters for the middle and lower end of the market, and caters poorly for the upper end of the market.
10. Medway is well provided for in terms of retail warehouse facilities. Retail parks, located outside of the defined centres, provide about 37,000 sq m (net) of comparison goods floorspace, or over 42,000 sq m (net) if Strood Retail park is included). This accounts for about 28% of all comparison sales floorspace within Medway. These retail warehouse facilities offer a good range of comparison goods and are occupied almost exclusively by national multiples. These figures exclude the extant planning permission for 14,400 sq m gross of retail warehousing at Anthony’s way in Strood.
Commercial Leisure and Entertainment Facilities
11. Medway has a good range of commercial leisure, entertainment and cultural facilities, and residents also have good access to facilities outside the authority including London. The existing cinema provision within Medway suggests there is limited potential for further cinema facilities in the short to medium period. There may be scope for new private health club facilities and this may increase in the future if membership rates increase. There is also theoretical scope for a bingo facility along with nightclub and casino facilities, but there appears to be limited operator demand.
The Hierarchy and Role of Medway’s Centres
12. Chatham City Centre is the main comparison shopping destination and the main focus for employment, leisure, entertainment and cultural activities. As the main centre, Chatham should compete with other large regional/sub-regional centres such as Maidstone, Bromley and Canterbury. In order to maintain and enhance this role, Chatham City Centre should be the focus for major retail developments, large scale leisure and other uses that attract large numbers of people including major cultural, tourism and community facilities. The strategy should focus on the re-occupation of vacant floorspace and the delivery of major new development to provide at least 30,000 sq m of additional floorspace.
13. The defined District Centres are expected to complement the City Centre by providing for bulk convenience food shopping and a range of comparison shopping facilities and other services. The future priority for District Centres should be to consolidate and maintain their roles as important centres. The strategy should focus on the implementation of existing commitments and the re-occupation of vacant floorspace. Opportunities for small scale development to provide additional shop premises should be encouraged, and the priority should be for additional convenience shopping facilities and lower order comparison shopping. Higher order comparison shopping should be focused in Chatham City Centre.
14. Local and Village Centres should be maintained to ensure they provide basic food and grocery shopping facilities, supported by a limited choice and range of
LON/R11788-07 (Final Report)
comparison shops selling lower order comparison goods (bought on a regular basis) and a range of non-retail services and community uses.
15. Local and Village Centres and Neighbourhood Parades should continue to serve small catchment areas focused on their respective local communities.
Future Strategy Implementation and Monitoring
16. There are a number of broad areas of possible action the Council could pursue in order to maintain and enhance the role of shopping centres within Medway, as follows:
• application of guidance within PPS6, particularly relating to need and the sequential approach in determining out-of-centre retail and other development proposals that generate significant numbers of trips;
• improving the range and choice of shops and services in all centres (where appropriate in terms of scale) by encouraging intensification, development and the re-occupation of vacant premises, and continuing to promote the centres.
• maintaining the generally high quality environment within each centre;
• measures to improve accessibility and public transport to the town, neighbourhood and village centres in order to encourage more residents to shop in their nearest centre, which may involve maintaining an appropriate level of car parking at a competitive cost and safeguarding and improving public transport services;
• implementation of policies within the development plan to protect retail and other desirable town centre uses; and
• measures to bring forward development opportunities to improve the availability of modern premises suitable for new occupiers.
17. The recommendations and projections within this study are expected to assist the Council in preparing development plan policies over the coming years and to assist development control decisions during this period.
LON/R11788-07 (Final Report)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Study
1.1 Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners (NLP) were commissioned by Medway Council to prepare a town centre, retail and leisure study, including an assessment of the main Chatham City Centre together with the five district centres of Strood, Gillingham, Rainham, Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre and Rochester, to satisfy the requirements of PPS6: Planning for Town Centres (March 2005). The objectives of the study are to provide:
• a qualitative analysis of the existing retail and leisure facilities within Medway in order to identify the role of each centre and the relationship between the centres and neighbouring authorities;
• a quantitative and qualitative need assessment for new retail facilities within Medway to 2026, including an assessment of both food and non-food retailing • an assessment of existing development commitments and allocations in Medway and the identification of the suitability sites to meet any demand.
Content of the Report
1.2 Section 2.0 provides an overview of retail and commercial leisure trends. Section 3.0 provides an overview of the national, regional and local planning policy context. Section 4.0 provides a description of the shopping hierarchy in Medway and the surrounding area. Section 5.0 examines Medway’s network of centres.
1.3 Sections 6.0 summarises the results of a household survey. Sections 7.0 to 12.0 provide town centre health checks for Chatham, Gillingham, Rainham, Rochester, Strood, Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre.
1.4 Sections 13.0 and 14.0 set out an analysis of shopping and commercial leisure needs within Medway and assess the ability of existing facilities to meet the needs of the community. Section 15.0 assesses the opportunities to accommodate the future need for new retail and leisure development, including an initial appraisal of potential development sites. Section 16.0 assesses the town centre and strategic objectives and sets out recommendations and conclusions.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 1
2.0 OVERVIEW OF RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL LEISURE TRENDS
2.1 An assessment of the need for retail and leisure facilities in Medway is set out in Sections 12 and 13 of this report. In the section below, we provide an overview of recent trends within the retail and leisure sectors.
Retail Trends
2.2 Past retail trends indicate that expenditure has consistently grown in real terms in the past, generally following a cyclical growth trend. The underlying trend shows consistent growth and this trend is expected to continue in the future, particularly for comparison goods.
Figure 2.1: Retail Spending Trends
300000
250000
200000
Spending on Convenience Goods 150000 Spending on Comparison Goods Spending (£M)
100000
50000
0
0 4 8 2 6 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 8 0 0 1 1 19 1982 198 1986 198 1990 199 1994 199 1998 200 20 200 20 200 20 201 20 2016 Year
Source: Experian Briefing Note 6.0 (Oct 2008)
2.3 In the past expenditure growth has fuelled the growth in retail floorspace, including major out-of-centre development particularly in the 1980’s and 1990. The economic downturn suggests that past rates of growth during the past few years are unlikely to be achieved in the short term. However, the underlying trend over the medium and long terms is expected to lead to a need for further retail floorspace.
2.4 New forms of retailing have emerged in recent years as an alternative to more
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 2
traditional shopping facilities. Home/electronic shopping has also emerged with the increasing growth in the use of personal computers and the Internet. Trends within this sector may well have implications for retailing within Medway. The growth in home computing, Internet connections and interactive TV may lead to a growth in home shopping and may have effects on retailing in the high street.
2.5 On-line shopping has experienced rapid growth since the late 1990s but in proportional terms the latest available data suggests it remains an insignificant percentage of total retail expenditure. Recent trends suggest continued strong growth in this sector. However, there is still uncertainty about its longer-term prospects and the potential effects on the high street.
2.6 Experian has recognised the potential impact of retailing on the high street and has provided future projections. Experian’s Retail Planning Note 2.3D (Dec 2005) (page 1) states:
“The current scale and scope for the expansion of the selling of retail goods over the internet (e-tailing) has increasingly become an issue in retail planning… A major uncertainty, however, concerns projected growth rates…goods sold over the internet may still come from conventional retail outlets (i.e. sales made over the internet may still be taken from shelves of normal shops), so there is an additional uncertainty over e-tailing’s precise impact on current and future space requirements.”
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 3
Figure 2.2: Future Growth in Special Forms of Trading
10.00%
9.00%
8.00%
7.00%
6.00%
Convenience 5.00% Comparison Percentage 4.00%
3.00%
2.00%
1.00%
0.00% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Year
Source: Experian Briefing Note 6.0 (Oct 2008) 2.7 In addition to new forms of retailing, retail operators have responded to changes in customers’ requirements. For example, extended opening hours and Sunday trading increased significantly in the 1990s. Retailers also responded to stricter planning controls by changing their trading formats. For example, some major food operators have introduced smaller store formats capable of being accommodated within town centres, such as the Tesco Metro, Sainsbury Central/Local store and Marks and Spencer’s Simply Foods formats. Food operators have also entered the local convenience store market, for example Tesco Express store and convenience stores linked with petrol filling stations. The entrance of European discount food operators such as Aldi, Lidl and Netto has also been rapid during the last decade.
2.8 Food store operators have also commenced a programme of store extensions, particularly Tesco, Sainsbury and Asda. These operators, faced with limited growth in food expenditure, have attempted to increase the sale of non-food products within their food stores, including clothing and electrical goods.
2.9 Comparison retailers have also responded to recent market conditions. The bulky goods retail warehouse sector has rationalised and there have been a number of mergers. For example there are fewer DIY operators, following the acquisition of Do It All, Great Mills and Wickes by Focus DIY. B&Q and Homebase developed very
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 4
large ‘category killer’ retail warehouses (some exceeding 10,000 sq m gross), but more recently have scaled down their stores. Other traditional high street retailers have sought large out-of-centre stores, for example Boots, TK Maxx and Poundstretcher. Matalan has also opened numerous discount clothing stores across the country. Sports clothing retail warehouses including JJB Sports and Decathlon have also expanded out-of-centre. These trends have already been evident across the Country.
2.10 The economic downturn has had, and is likely to continue to have, an impact on the retail sector, e.g. Woolworth, Borders and MFI are notable victims. The demand for premises within the bulky goods sector, particularly furniture, electrical and DIY, is particularly weak at present.
2.11 Within town centres, some high street multiple comparison retailers changed their format. High street national multiples have increasingly sought larger modern shop units (over 200 sq m - 2,150 sq ft) with an increasing polarisation of activity into the larger regional and sub-regional centres. The continuation of these trends may also influence future operator requirements in Medway.
2.12 For example, factory outlet centres have been developed across the country as an alternative to fashion shops within town centres. These developments are usually large and can provide over 10,000 sq m of comparison retailing, focusing primarily on fashion items and clothing, offering designer clothing at discounted prices. A number of large factory outlet developments have emerged across Great Britain and draw from a wide catchment area, including the Dockside Shopping Centre in Chatham.
Leisure Trends
2.13 The demand for commercial leisure facilities has increased significantly during the last 20 years. The growth in the commercial leisure sector was particularly strong during the late 1980s and again in the mid 1990s. Average household expenditure on leisure services increased in real terms by 93% between 1984 and 1995 (source: Family Expenditure Survey). Average household expenditure on leisure services increased by a further 53% between 1995 and 2005. The latest (2006) average household expenditure on leisure services is nearly £3,500 per annum. However, many analysts consider that the commercial leisure market has now reached saturation in some sub-sectors.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 5
Figure 2.3: Trends in Expenditure on Leisure Services
70
60
50
40
30
20 Average Weekly Household Expenditure(£)
10
0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Year
Source: Family Spending Report (2007) by ONS 2.14 The mid-1990s saw the expansion of major leisure parks. These leisure parks are generally anchored by a large multiplex cinema and offer other facilities such as ten- pin bowling, bingo, nightclubs, health/fitness clubs, themed destination restaurants, pub/restaurants, children’s nurseries and budget hotels. Commercial leisure facilities have typically been located on the edge of town centres or out-of-centre, with good road access. Many leisure uses have also emerged on retail warehouse parks. Examples of major leisure parks are available in Rochester, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells.
2.15 The cinema market remains an important sector because cinemas often anchor leisure developments, providing footfall for other uses. However, growth in this sector has slowed significantly in recent years with many areas reaching saturation levels. Many cinema operators have suspended or curtailed their expansion plans. Some cinema operators such as City Screen, Mainline Pictures and Reeltime Cinemas have opened new or taken over small cinemas in recent years. The expansion of other sectors has slowed, including ten-pin bowling and bingo. However, other sub-sectors have remained strong in recent years, in particular the private health and fitness market, with a number of multiple operators seeking premises across the UK, e.g. LA Fitness, Fitness First and Esporta. Nevertheless, the health and fitness sector is also
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 6
reaching saturation point in some areas and is likely to be affected by the current down turn in the economy.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 7
3.0 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT
National Policy
3.1 PPS6: Planning for Town Centres (March 2005) sets out the Government’s policies on town centres, retail, commercial leisure and other town centre uses.
3.2 The Government’s key objective for town centres (this covers city, town, district and local centres) is to promote their vitality and viability by planning for growth and development of existing centres and promoting and enhancing existing centres, by focusing development in such centres and encouraging a wide range of services in a good environment, accessible to all.
3.3 Other Government objectives that need to be taken account of in the context of the key objective are set out in paragraph 1.4:
• Enhancing consumer choice by making provision for a range of shopping, leisure and local services, which allow genuine choice to meet the needs of the entire community and particularly socially excluded groups;
• Supporting efficient, competitive and innovative retail, leisure, tourism and other sectors, with improving productivity; and
• Improving accessibility, ensuring that existing or new development is, or will be, accessible and well served by a choice of means of transport.
3.4 Regional planning bodies (RPB’s) and local planning authorities (LPAs) are advised in paragraph 1.6 to implement the Government’s objectives for town centres, by planning positively for their growth and development. They should therefore:
• develop a hierarchy and network of centres;
• assess the need for further main town centre uses and ensure there is capacity to accommodate them;
• focus development in, and plan for the expansion of, existing centres as appropriate, and at the local level identify appropriate sites in development plan documents;
• promote town centre management, creating partnerships to develop, improve and maintain the town centre and manage the evening and night-time economy; and
• regularly monitor and review the impact and effectiveness of their policies for promoting vital and viable town centres.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 8
3.5 Paragraph 2.1 states that in order to deliver the Government’s key objective, RPB’s and LPA’s should actively promote growth and manage change in town centres, define the network and a hierarchy of centres, each performing their appropriate role to meet the needs of their catchment, and adopt a pro-active, plan-led approach to planning for town centres, through regional and local planning.
3.6 The main town centre uses to which PPS6 applies are outlined in paragraph 1.8:
• retail (including warehouse clubs and factory outlet centres);
• leisure, entertainment facilities and the more intensive sport and recreation uses (including cinemas, restaurants, drive-through restaurants, bars and pubs, night-clubs, casinos, health and fitness centres, indoor bowling centres and bingo halls);
• offices, both commercial and those of public bodies; and
• arts, culture and tourism (theatres, museums, galleries and concert halls, hotels and conference facilities).
3.7 Paragraph 1.9 of PPS6 also acknowledges that housing will be an important element in most mixed-use, multi-storey developments.
3.8 PPS6, paragraph 2.15 to 2.17 offers specific guidance to LPA’s on the role of plans at local level, including the need to work in conjunction with stakeholders and the community to:
• assess the need for new floorspace for retail, leisure and other main town centre uses, taking account of both quantitative and qualitative considerations;
• identify deficiencies in provision, assess the capacity of existing centres to accommodate new development, including, where appropriate, the scope for extending the primary shopping area and/or town centre, and identify centres in decline where changes need to be made;
• identify centres within their area where development will be focused, as well as the need for any new centres of local importance, and development strategies for developing and strengthening centres within their area;
• define the extent of the primary shopping area and the town centre, for the centre in their area on their proposal map;
• review all existing allocations and reallocate sites which do not comply with this policy statement;
• identify and allocate sites in accordance with the considerations on site selection and land assembly e.g. assessment of need, appropriate scale of development, sequential approach, impact and accessibility;
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 9
• develop spatial policies and proposals to promote and secure investment in deprived areas by strengthening and/or identifying opportunities for growth of existing centres, and to seek to improve access to local facilities; and
• set out criteria based policies, in accordance with this policy statement, for assessing and locating new development proposals, including development on sites not allocated in development plan documents.
3.9 PPS6 also indicates that in addition to defining the extent of the primary shopping area for their local centres, LPA’s may distinguish between primary and secondary frontages. Primary frontages should contain a high proportion of retail uses, while secondary frontages provide opportunities for flexibility and diversity of uses. Policy should make clear which uses will be permitted in such locations.
Demonstrating Need for development
3.10 PPS6 require Council’s to undertake assessments of need for other non-retail town centre uses, i.e. commercial leisure and office development. This study assesses the retail and commercial leisure needs of Medway.
3.11 PPS6 states in paragraph 2.33 that:
‘in assessing the need and capacity for additional retail and leisure development, local planning authorities should place greater weight on quantitative need for additional floorspace for the specific types of retail and leisure developments. However local planning authorities should also take account of qualitative considerations. In deprived areas which lack access to a range of services and facilities, and there will be clear and demonstrable benefits in identifying sites for appropriate development to serve the communities in there areas, additional weight should be given to meeting these qualitative needs’.
3.12 In assessing quantitative need for additional development, local planning authorities should assess the likely future demand for additional retail and leisure floorspace, having regard to a realistic assessment of the existing forecast population levels, forecast expenditure for specific classes of goods to be sold, within the broad categories of comparison and convenience goods and for main leisure sectors and forecast improvements in productivity in the use of floorspace.
3.13 With regards to assessing the qualitative need for additional development, paragraph 2.35 states that a key consideration will be to provide for consumer choice, ensuring that:
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 10
• an appropriate distribution of locations is achieved, subject to the key objective of promoting the vitality and viability of town centres and the application of the sequential approach, to improve accessibility for the whole community; and
• provision is made for a range of sites for shopping, leisure and local services, which allow genuine choice to meet the needs of the whole community, particularly the needs of those living in deprived areas.
3.14 Other local issues, although not necessarily elements of ‘need’, can be important material considerations.
Appropriate Scale of Development
3.15 PPS6 also requires that local planning authorities ensure that the scale of opportunities identified is directly related to the role and function of the centre and its catchment. Paragraph 2.41 states:
‘The aim should be to locate the appropriate type and scale of development in the right type of centre, to ensure that is fits into that centre and that it complements its role and function’.
3.16 For city and town centres, PPS6, paragraph 2.43 states that where a need has been identified, LPA’s should seek to identify sites in the centre, or failing that on the edge of the centre, capable of accommodating larger format developments. Paragraph 2.42 indicates that in most cases it is likely to be inappropriate to include local centres within the search area to be applied under the sequential approach for large scale developments.
3.17 The guidance places greater emphasis on the regeneration of town centres, particularly smaller centres and the need to define a network of centres, and where appropriate to plan for the decline of some centres. Local authorities are expected to set indicative upper limits on the scale of new floorspace appropriate in different types of centres.
The Sequential Approach
3.18 PPS6 sets out the sequential approach to site selection for new retail development (paragraph 2.44), namely that first preference should be existing centres where suitable sites or buildings for conversion are, or are likely to become available, taking account of an appropriate scale of development in relation to the role and function of the centre, followed by edge-of-centre locations, with preference given to sites that are or will be well-connected to the centre and only then out-of-centre sites, with preference given to sites which are or will be well served by a choice of means of
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 11
transport and which are close to the centre and have a high likelihood of forming links with the centre.
3.19 Further to this LPA’s should, in consultation with stakeholders (including the development industry) and the community, identify an appropriate range of sites to allow for accommodation of the identified need. Paragraph 2.45 emphasises the need for flexibility and realism from both LPA’s and developers and operators in discussing the identification of sites,
‘LPA’s should be sensitive to the needs of the community and stakeholders, including developers and operators and identify sites that are, or are likely to become available for development during the development plan period and which allow for the accommodation of the identified need, including sites capable of accommodating a range of business models’.
3.20 The factors that should be taken into account in considering business models are scale, format, car park provision and the scope for disaggregation.
3.21 In selecting sites for allocation, the LPA should also consider the degree to which other considerations, including specific local circumstances, may be material to the choice of appropriate locations for development, and these include physical regeneration, employment, economic growth and social inclusion.
3.22 The guidance clearly states that local planning authorities should plan positively for growth by making provision for a range and choice of shopping and services. If a ‘need’ for new development is established, it will be necessary to identify opportunities to meet that need. PPS6 indicates that local authorities should allocate sufficient sites to meet anticipated demand for the next five years. PPS6 also suggests that an apparent lack of sites of the right size and in the right location should not be construed as an obstacle to site allocation and development to meet this need. Local planning authorities should consider the scope for effective site assembly using their compulsory purchase (CPO) powers, to ensure that suitable sites within or on the edge of centres are brought forward for development.
3.23 This suggests the onus is placed on the Council to identify sites to accommodate the 5-year demand for development. This study provides floorspace projections up to 2026. Therefore, it may not be appropriate for the Council to seek to identify opportunities to accommodate projections up to 2026 at this stage.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 12
3.24 PPS6 also suggests that where growth cannot be accommodated in identified existing centres, local planning authorities should plan for the extension of the primary shopping area if there is a need for additional retail provision or, where appropriate, plan for the extension of the town centre to accommodate other main town centre uses. Extension of the primary shopping area or town centre may also be appropriate where a need for large developments has been identified and this cannot be accommodated within the centre. Larger stores may deliver benefits for consumers and local planning authorities should seek to make provision for them in this context. In such cases, local planning authorities should seek to identify, designate and assemble larger sites adjoining the primary shopping area (i.e. in edge-of-centre locations).
Proposed Changes to PPS6 (10th July 2008)
3.25 On 10 July 2008, the Department of Communities and Local Government published a Consultation Document on proposed changes to PPS6 Planning for Town Centres. The Consultation Paper proposes replacing the current ‘need’ and ‘impact’ tests set out in PPS6 with a new ‘impact test’.
3.26 The aim of the document is to address the unintended effects of the current guidance. The key Government objective to promote the vitality and viability of town centres remains, as does much of the Government’s guidance on Positive planning and the Plan-led approach.
3.27 However, other objectives which should be taken into account, or wider Government objectives that may be relevant include:
• Promotion of competition between retailers; • Raising the productivity growth rate of the UK economy; • Encouraging investment in deprived areas; • Building prosperous communities by improving economic performance; • Helping to tackle climate change; and • Consideration of terrorism as well as crime 3.28 The need for local authorities to consider quantitative and qualitative need remains. However, Councils are also expected to have regard to the strategic objectives set out in the Regional Economic Strategy and use relevant market information and economic data.
3.29 The importance of seeking a good mix of shops and services in a centre is also referred to, with the role of smaller shops specifically noted. Authorities are encouraged to seek to promote competitive town centre environments.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 13
3.30 Suggested changes to Chapter 4 of PPS6 includes a list of key indicators that LPAs should collect and use to monitor the health of their town centres, including:
• The proportion of vacant street level property and the length of time properties have been vacant; • Land values and the length of time key sites have remained undeveloped; and • Perception of crime and occurrence of crime including safety and security issues relating to the threat of terrorism. 3.31 The Proposed Changes to PPS6 were the subject of consultation until 3 October 2008.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport (PPG 13, March 2001)
3.32 The key objectives, set out at paragraph 4 of PPG13 are to integrate planning and transport, in order to:
“▪ promote more sustainable transport choices for both people and for moving freight;
▪ promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport; and
▪ reduce the need to travel, especially by car.”
3.33 The Guidance advises that planning policies should seek to promote the vitality and viability of existing town centres, which should be the preferred locations for new retail and leisure developments. When this development cannot be accommodated in or on the edge of existing centres, it may be appropriate to combine the proposal with existing out-of-centre developments.
Regional Planning Guidance
Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9) (2001)
3.34 The regional planning framework for the South East is provided by RPG9, approved in 2001. Policy Q5 states that the Region’s network of larger town centres should be the focus for major retail, leisure and office developments, to support an urban renaissance, promote social inclusion and encourage more sustainable patterns of development. The supporting text to the policy at paragraph C advises local authorities to:
• assess the need for retail, leisure and office development in their area;
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 14
• identify which town and district centres should be the preferred locations for growth; • apply the sequential approach in identifying retail development sites; • avoid extending existing edge-of-centre and out-of-centre development while more central options exist.
3.35 Advice is also given regarding setting up town and district centre improvement strategies and management schemes. RPG9 is set to be superseded once the South East Plan (Regional Spatial Strategy) is adopted.
South East Plan (RSS)
3.36 The Secretary of State’s Proposed Changes to the South East Plan (Regional Spatial Strategy) were published for consultation between 17 July 2008 and 24 October 2008. Once approved by government the South East Plan will be adopted.
3.37 This SoS’s proposed changes identify a hierarchy of centres for the South East including both primary regional centres and secondary regional centres. These centres are where major retail and leisure development will be focused, i.e. development 10,000 sq m gross or more. Chatham is defined as a primary regional centre together with Maidstone and Bluewater/ Ebbsfleet, whilst secondary regional centres include Gravesend, Sittingbourne and Dartford. These regionally significant centres are likely to undergo the most significant change across the range of town centre uses and are where pro-active strategies for town centre development will be particularly important.
3.38 The draft RSS identifies Thames Kent Gateway as a sub-regional strategy area which encompasses the authority areas of Dartford, Gravesend, Medway and Swale. Within this sub-regional area Chatham and Bluewater/Ebbsfleet are the primary regional centres. Bluewater will only accommodate a limited amount of additional floorspace if it maintains its specialist regional role for comparison goods shopping, whilst in Ebbsfleet limited ancillary retail floorspace will be provided. The plan indicates that Chatham will be developed as a major town centre at which mixed retail, leisure and services uses will be concentrated together with, on a smaller scale, Dartford, Gravesend and Sittingbourne.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 15
Kent and Medway Structure Plan (July 2006)
3.39 The Kent and Medway Structure Plan was adopted in July 2006. The Structure Plan has been saved for three years or until it is replaced by the South East Plan.
3.40 The Strategic Hierarchy of Retail and Service Centres is outlined in Table EP4. The town centres in Medway are identified in the hierarchy as follows:
• Sub Regional Town and City Centres - Chatham
• Urban Service Centres - Rochester - Gillingham - Rainham - Strood - Hempstead Valley
3.41 The Structure Plan emphasises that Chatham is the largest of the towns in Medway but has been performing below its significant potential the aim is to turn Chatham Centre and Waterfront into a thriving city centre devoted to living, working learning, shopping, leisure and culture.
3.42 Policy ME1 relates to Medway and states that:
“Proposals to regenerate Medway should focus upon the Medway Waterfront including central Chatham, Rochester Riverside and at Strood…Major new town centre investment at Chatham on a scale appropriate to one of the region’s principal urban centres will be supported, particularly in relation to new public transport capacity, employment provision, retail, cultural, tourism and leisure facilities.”
Local Planning Context
Medway Local Plan
3.43 The Medway Local Plan was adopted on 14 May 2003. From the 28 September 2007 only the saved policies from the Local Plan apply, following the introduction of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and Secretary of State’s Direction letter.
3.44 Saved Strategic Policy S5 is entitled ‘Medway’s “city” centre’ and indicates that Chatham town centre will be developed as a major, multi-use ‘city’ centre to meet the needs of Medway residents. Sites are identified in the Plan for future retail development and any major comparison retail proposals should be located on these. The policy also permits additional convenience foods provision where such proposals
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 16
are well related to the core area. Other uses that support the vitality and viability of the town centre and its environmental quality will be supported.
3.45 Chapter 6 of the Local Plan specifically deals with Town Centres and Retailing. Para 6.2.1 sets out a hierarchy of centres within Medway as follows:
• Main Retail 1 City Centre: Chatham;
• District Centres: Strood, Gillingham, Rainham, Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre, Rochester;
• Local Centres, Village and Neighbourhood Centres: 74 defined centres at this level;
• Retail Parks: Gillingham Business Park, Horstead Retail Park, Strood Retail Park; and
• Freestanding Stores: Courtney Road, Gillingham, Maidstone Road, Chatham.
3.46 The Local Plan as saved sets out specific policy towards the city centre and each of the defined district centres. These are examined in detail below.
3.47 Policy R2 concerns comparison retailing in Chatham, and states that any proposals which would undermine the strategy or vitality and viability of the centre will not be permitted. This includes proposals for comparison goods facilities of over 2,500 sq m (gross). Policy R2 supports qualitative improvements to the convenience floorspace in the defined Chatham area and additional provision.
3.48 Policy R3 ‘Chatham - the Brook and High Street’ supports the refurbishment or replacement of the former indoor market, existing superstore and associated multi- storey car park in this part of Chatham for alternative retail and/ or other uses.
3.49 In respect of Strood, Gillingham and Rainham District Centres in Medway, the Local Plan (Policies R4 to R6) indicates that within the defined Core Areas only Class A1, A2 or A3 use or other uses appropriate to a district centre will be permitted if they support their vitality and viability. Such uses should be compatible with the specialist and tourism related character of the centre or cater specifically for the day to day needs of the local residential population. Specific areas are allocated for retail development in these centres as follows:
• Strood: land at the south of Commercial Road is identified as appropriate for a replacement retail warehouse park incorporating a convenience food store of up to 6,000 sq m (now implemented).
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 17
• Gillingham: land at High Street/ Skinner Street/ Jeffery Street/ James Street allocated for retail development including a food store of up to 2,000 sq m (gross).
• Rainham: The Orchard Precinct is allocated for refurbishment, reconfiguration and/ or an extension to include a food store of up to 2,000 sq m (gross).
3.50 In terms of Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre, the Local Plan (Policy R7) indicates that development will be limited to minor extensions that do not result in a net increase in retail floorspace, together with improvements to existing retail facilities.
3.51 With respect to Rochester (Policy R8), within the defined Core Area class A1, A2 and A3 uses and other appropriate uses will be permitted where they support the vitality and viability of the centre. However, any such uses must be compatible with the specialist and tourism related character of the centre or specifically serve the daily shopping needs of the local resident population.
3.52 The location of defined local centres, village shops and neighbourhood centres in Medway is set out in Policy R10. In such locations, development that would involve the loss of existing shopping facilities will not be permitted unless this would result in an improvement to local amenity or the provision of community facilities outweighs the loss.
3.53 The Local Plan supports the use of the sequential approach towards site selection for business, cultural and leisure uses, with the preferred location for such uses being within the main centres Chatham, Strood, Gillingham and Rainham, followed by edge of centre sites (Policy R11).
3.54 Policy R13 states that retail uses will be subject to the sequential approach in line with national policy guidance, with the first preference being Core Areas of Chatham, Strood, Gillingham and Rainham, followed by sites on the edge of these centre and afterwards sites within or adjacent to one of the defined Local Centres, Village and Neighbourhood Centres.
3.55 Within or on the edge of Chatham, Strood, Gillingham, Rainham and at a smaller scale Rochester Core Areas, mixed-use developments are considered suitable subject to scale, design and impact on vitality and viability (Policy R12).
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 18
Supplementary Planning Guidance
3.56 The following Supplementary Planning Guidance or Supplementary Planning Documents have been published for Medway.
1. Rochester Riverside Development Brief (Adopted July 2004);
2. Wainscott Development Brief (Adopted April 2004);
3. Grange Farm Development Brief (Adopted November 2004);
4. Chatham Centre and Waterfront Development Brief (Adopted July 2004);
5. Star Hill to Sun Pier Planning and Design Strategy (Adopted May 2004);
6. Gillingham Waterfront Development Brief (Adopted June 2004);
7. Pentagon Development Brief (Final Consultation Draft September 2005);
8. Temple Waterfront Development Brief (Adopted October 2006);
9. Strood Riverside Development Brief (Adopted September 2006);
10. Gillingham Town Centre Planning Framework (Adopted July 2007); and
11. Chatham Centre and Waterfront Development Masterplan (to be published soon).
Medway Local Development Framework
3.57 Medway Council is at an early stage in the production of the Local Development Framework (LDF), which will eventually replace the adopted Local Plan (as saved). Although a Core Strategy Document and Housing and Mixed Use development plan documents have been produced, these were withdrawn in October 2007 following comments made by the SoS.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 19
4.0 THE SHOPPING HIERARCHY AND CATCHMENT AREA
Major Shopping Centres in Medway and the Surrounding Area
4.1 Chatham is the main shopping centre within Medway and is of sub-regional importance in providing retail goods and services. This centre is influenced by major shopping destinations surrounding Medway, including Maidstone, Bromley, Canterbury, Tunbridge Well, Lakeside and Bluewater according to the Medway Local Plan (Para 6.2.3 p.176). Supporting Chatham are the five District Centres of Gillingham, Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre, Strood, Rainham and Rochester, which are in turn supported by 74 local centres, village and neighbourhood centres as defined in the Medway Local Plan, in addition to the Dockside Shopping Centre, other out-of-centre retail parks and freestanding shopping destinations (Para. 6.2.1 P.176).
Figure 4.1: Location of Main Centres in Medway
Strood Gillingham 1 3 Rochester Chatham 4 2 Rainham 5
Hempstead Valley
Source: NLP
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 20
4.2 Management Horizons Europe’s UK Shopping Index 2008 provides an index of retail centres on the basis of a weighted score for multiple retailers represented in each centre. Management Horizon’s rank for centres in Medway, catchment area and other shopping centres in the sub-region is shown in Table 4.1 below.
Table 4.1 Management Horizons Europe Shopping Index (2008)
Venue Rank MHE Index Score Bluewater Shopping Centre 25 321 Bromley 32 300 Maidstone 41 277 Lakeside Shopping Centre 65 242 Tunbridge Wells 69 240 Canterbury 82 244 Dartford 163 161 Gravesend 173 155 Chatham 188 150 Tonbridge 285 107 Sittingbourne 355 91 Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre 393 84 Sevenoaks 405 82 Gillingham 477 72 Strood 694 51 Sheerness 797 45 Aylesford Retail Park 914 39 Faversham 959 37 Rainham 959 37 Chatham, Walderslade 1,325 27 Dockside Shopping Centre 1,175 31 Sittingbourne Retail Park 1,590 22 Rochester 1,789 19 Horstead Retail Park 1,789 19 Strood Retail Park 2,133 15 Chatham, Twydall 2,779 10 Chatham, Lords Wood 3,120 8 Chatham, Luton 3,120 8 Gillingham Business Park 3,321 7 Chatham, Wayfield 3,870 5 Gillingham, Brompton 4,666 3
4.3 The catchment areas of the centres listed above overlap to a large extent. Bluewater is the ranked as the highest shopping destination at 25th nationally, attributable to the concentration of national multiple retailers that it contains and the range of goods available and strengthen of anchor stores.
4.4 It is evident that Chatham is ranked significantly lower than its main competing centres in the sub-region, achieving a Management Horizons Europe (MHE) score of only 150 and a ranking of 188th which is below that of Bromley (ranked 32nd),
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 21
Maidstone (41st), Lakeside Shopping Centre (ranked 65th), Tunbridge Wells (69th) and Canterbury (82nd). Chatham is also ranked below Dartford (163rd) and Gravesend (173rd). Although the Management Horizons Europe (MHE) is only one indicator of the performance of a centre, it does suggest Chatham as the main centre in Medway is under-performing in terms of its provision of national multiple representation, and in particular representation from high order multiples that would ensure is more competitive in relation to its rival centres in the sub-region.
4.5 Of the District Centres in Medway, as would be expected Hempstead Valley achieves the highest rank of 393rd, in light of the high number and good quality national multiple retailers that it contains. This is followed by Gillingham (ranked 477th), Strood (694th), Rainham (959th) and Rochester (1,789th). These centres, with the exception of Rochester, appear to be performing adequately compared with other centres outside Medway of a similar level of the retail hierarchy, given that their role is predominately in the provision of convenience goods and services, and to a lesser extent comparison goods, they would not be expected to achieve a significantly higher ranking in the Management Horizons Europe (MHE) Shopping Index.
4.6 A number of local centres in Medway are also recorded by MHE, comprising Walderslade (1,325th), Twydall (2,779th), Lordswood (3,120th), Luton (3,120th), Wayfield (3,870th) and Brompton (4,666th). Dockside Shopping Centre is ranked below all of the district centres and Walderslade Local Shopping Centre with a ranking of 1,175th despite its selection of fashion multiple brands. Horstead Retail Park (1,789th), Stood Retail Park (2,133rd) and Gillingham Business Park (3,321st) are also ranked by MHE, although at a much lower rank than the defined centres in Medway.
4.7 The relative performance and importance of town centres can be demonstrated by reviewing commercial yields and Zone A rental levels achieved for retail property. Retail yields for the established centres in the sub-region are shown in Table 4.2 and a comparison of Zone A rental levels is shown in Table 4.3.
4.8 Commercial yields are a measure of property values, which enables the values of properties of different size, location and characteristic to be compared. The level of yield broadly represents the market’s evaluation of risk and return attached to the income stream of shop rents. Broadly speaking low yields indicate that a centre is considered to be attractive and, as a result, more likely to attract investment and rental growth than a centre with high yields.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 22
Table 4.2: Retail Yields in Chatham, Gillingham and Other Centres
Centre Yield (%) 04/02 10/02 04/03 01/04 07/04 01/05 07/05 01/06 07/06 01/07 07/07 01/08 07/08 Canterbury 5.25 5.25 5.25 5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4 4 4 4 4 Tunbridge Wells 5.5 5.5 5.75 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.50 5.5 5.5 5 4.75 4.75 5 Maidstone 5.5 5.5 5.75 6 6 6 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.5 5 5 5.25 Tonbridge 7.5 7.5 7.5 6 6 6 6 6 6 5.5 5 5 5.25 Chatham 9.5 9.5 9 8 7.5 7 6.5 6.25 6.25 6 5.75 5.75 5.75 Sittingbourne 8.5 8.5 8.5 9 8.5 8.5 7.75 7.75 6.75 6.75 6 5.75 5.75 Bromley 5.5 5.5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5.75 5.75 6 Dartford >10 >10 >10 9 8.5 8 7.75 7.75 7.75 7.5 7 6.5 6.25 Gravesend >10 >10 >10 9 8.5 8 7.75 7.75 7.75 7.5 7 6.5 6.25 Gillingham >10 >10 >10 10 9.5 9 8.5 7.75 7.75 7.5 6.75 6.5 6.5 Source: Valuation Office Agency (Dec 2008)
4.9 The Valuation Office Agency (VOA) record trend data relating to retail yields in established centres. It should be noted that the reporting of locations with a yield of 10% or over throughout the time series are not included on the assumption that such locations are not of major interest in terms of retail property investment.
4.10 Table 4.2 demonstrates the yields in Chatham and Gillingham, the only centres within Medway for which such data is recorded, and other competing centres in the sub- region over the April 2002 and July 2008 period.
4.11 According to the VOA, Chatham achieved yields of 9.5% at April 2002 which steadily declined over the 2002 to 2008 period, and were recorded as being 5.75% at July 2007. This represents a decline of 39% in yields over the period, reflecting increasing strengthening confidence. The yields recorded in Chatham at July 2007 are higher than those in Canterbury (4%), Tunbridge Wells (5.25%) and Tonbridge (5.25%), but higher than those in Sittingbourne (5.75% and Bromley (6%). In addition, the yields recorded in Chatham have recorded by the greatest proportion compared to other competitor centres.
4.12 In terms of Gillingham, yields were only recorded accurately from January 2004 at 10%, with yields prior to this period being greater than 10%. Since January 2004, yields in Gillingham have steadily fallen to July 2008 at which point they were 6.5%. On this basis, it appears that investor confidence in Gillingham has improved in 2002, and although yields are higher than all the other centres in Table 4.2, this is still a strong performance in light of its district centre status.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 23
4.13 Prime Zone A retail rents in shopping centres are recorded by Colliers CRE, and as with yields the only centres in Medway for which such information is recorded are Chatham and Gillingham. This data is shown in Tale 4.3 below, together with the rents achieved in other centres in the sub-region.
Table 4.3: Retail Rents in Chatham, Gillingham and Other Centres
Annual Zone A Retail Rents £ per Sq M Centre 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Bluewater - 3,767 3,875 3,498 3,552 3,875 4,306 4,413 4,413 4,467 4,467 Bromley 1,453 1,722 2,153 1,884 2,260 2,260 2,368 2,368 2,422 2,476 2,530 Canterbury 1,884 1,938 1,938 1,991 1,991 1,991 1,991 2,260 2,422 2,422 2,476 Maidstone 1,399 1,399 1,399 1,399 1,399 1,399 1,507 1,615 1,507 1,615 1,615 Tunbridge Wells 1,076 1,238 1,238 1,238 1,238 1,292 1,292 1,345 1,507 1,615 1,615 Chatham 915 915 861 861 915 969 969 1,076 1,130 1,130 1,023 Tonbridge 484 484 484 484 484 538 592 646 646 646 646 Sittingbourne 431 431 431 431 431 484 484 538 538 538 538 Dartford 377 377 323 323 431 431 431 431 484 538 538 Gravesend 431 431 431 431 431 431 484 538 538 592 592 Gillingham 377 377 377 377 377 377 431 431 431 484 484 Source: Colliers CRE
4.14 Table 4.3 highlights the disparity between the rents achieved in Bluewater (£4,467 per square metre at 2008) compared to other centres in the sub-region. This reflects high demand from national multiples for representation in Bluewater, reflecting the wide catchment from which it draws shoppers and the high levels of footfall recorded.
4.15 Chatham achieves rents of £1,023 per sq m at 2008 which is somewhat lower than its main competitor centres of Bromley (£2,530 per sq m), Canterbury (£2,476 per sq m), Maidstone (£1,615 per sq m) and Tunbridge Wells (£1,615 per sq m). Rents from Chatham have fluctuated over the last ten years. At 1998 and 1999 rents were recorded as being £915 per sq m, although this fell to £861 per sq m at 2000 where they remained in 2002. They subsequently rose to a peak of £1,130 between 2006 and 2007, before receding slightly to their current level. By contrast, the Prime Zone A rents of the majority of centres in Table 4.3 have risen steadily between 1998 and 2008.
4.16 Gillingham recorded the lowest Prime Zone A rents out of any centre in Table 4.3 at £484 per sq m at 2008. At 1998 rents in Gillingham were £377 per sq m, equating to an increase of 28% over the 1998 to 2008 period. This is reflective of Gillingham’s position in the shopping hierarchy.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 24
Socio-Economic Characteristics within Medway
4.17 Shopping needs may vary considerably, often related to socio-economic characteristics. For example, residents without access to a car or those on low incomes will have different needs to those who are mobile by car or who enjoy higher income. Lower income groups without access to a car may be less able to travel to shopping facilities and may also be socially excluded from high priced shops, therefore, the availability of discount or value retail facilities may be important for these groups. The socio-economic characteristics of Medway have been examined and compared with the county and national averages.
4.18 We have assessed Medway against the Kent County and National averages, bearing in mind that as a Unitary Authority, Medway is not included in the Kent County figures.
4.19 Car ownership in Medway (77% of households) is slightly below the Kent average (78.4%), but is above the UK average (72.6%), as shown in Table 4.4. A lower proportion of households have two or more cars in Medway compared with Kent although this is higher than the UK. This may be an indication of lower levels of affluence and mobility than in surrounding areas of Kent, but they are still higher levels than the UK average.
Table 4.4: Car Ownership 2001
% Households 2001 Characteristic Medway UA Kent UK Average Car Ownership Two or more 33.3 34.9 28.8 One 43.7 43.5 43.8 None 23.0 21.6 27.4
Sources: 2001 Census of Population
4.20 Medway has a reasonable proportion of economically active adults in employment as shown in Table 4.5. The proportion of economically active is slightly higher than the Kent average and the national average. The unemployment rate is higher than the Kent average but lower than the national average. The proportion of retired residents is lower than both the Kent and national averages. The proportion of residents looking after home/family is slightly higher and the proportion of students is slightly lower than both the Kent and national averages.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 25
Table 4.5: Economic Activity 2001
% People aged 16-74 Status Medway UA Kent UK Average Employed 64.5 62.2 59.6 Unemployed 3.5 2.8 4.4 Looking after home/family 7.8 7.2 6.4 Students 5.6 6.1 7.2 Retired 11.8 14.7 13.4 Other inactive 6.8 7.0 8.9
Sources: 2001 Census of Population
4.21 The age structure in Medway varies slightly from the Kent and national averages. Medway has younger age structure than the Kent and national averages with lower proportions of adults aged 60+. The proportions of children aged 0 to 14 and adults aged 15 to 44 are slightly higher than the Kent and national averages, as shown in Table 4.6. The proportion of adults ages 45-59 is comparable to the national average and slightly lower than the Kent average.
Table 4.6: Age Structure 2001
% of Population 2001 Status Medway UA Kent UK Average Children 0-14 21.1 19.1 18.9 Adults 15 to 29 19.4 17.1 18.8 Adults 30 to 44 23.5 21.6 22.6 Adults 45 to 59 18.9 19.9 19.0 Adults 60 to 74 11.5 14.0 13.0 Adults 75 + 5.7 8.3 7.4
Sources: 2001 Census of Population
4.22 Medway has a similar ethnic mix when compared with the Kent average, both of which have a lower proportion of ethnic minorities than the average for England. However, Medway does have a notably higher proportion of Asian residents than Kent, as shown in Table 4.7.
Table 4.7: Ethnic Groups 2001
% of Population 2001 Status England Medway UA Kent Average White 94.6 96.9 90.9 Mixed 1.1 0.8 1.3 Asian 2.95 1.4 4.6 Black/Black British 0.7 0.4 2.3 Other 0.65 0.5 0.9
Sources: 2001 Census of Population
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 26
4.23 This socio-economic analysis indicates that the profile of residents is somewhere between the profile of residents in Kent and the profile of residents in the UK as a whole. Medway has higher levels of car ownership than the national average and lower unemployment, but Medway has a lower level of car ownership and higher unemployment when compared to Kent.
4.24 These characteristics suggest that some households in Medway are not as mobile as households in Kent and may not have the ability to travel for shopping and leisure purposes. However, this may be more indicative of Medway as a built up area with public transport links, in comparison to Kent which has many rural areas.
4.25 Local residents will generally want access to all forms of shopping, although more affluent households may be more selective and may be prepared to travel further for certain types of shopping.
4.26 The level of accessibility to shopping centres/stores, in terms of the convenience to the home or work, is an important consideration for customers. The distance (or time) customers are prepared to travel for each type of shopping will vary. For example, residents in the main towns might reasonably expect to have easy walking access to local shops (for daily top up purchases). Employees working within or near the town centres may also expect to find shopping facilities within easy walking distance to meet their lunchtime needs.
4.27 For bulk or main food shopping, residents should be able to visit a supermarket that provides a reasonable range of goods by car or public transport within the wider locality. Residents may be prepared to travel further for higher order comparison goods purchased on an occasional basis, such as Christmas gifts, fashion, furniture or electrical goods. For example, customers will be prepared to travel to larger centres for these occasional shopping trips.
4.28 The household shopper survey results demonstrate that residents tend to visit a diverse selection of shopping centres and leisure destinations. A high proportion of residents in the study area regularly shop in Maidstone, Chatham, Gravesend and at Bluewater Shopping Centre. These shopping patterns are likely to continue in the future.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 27
Summary and Conclusions
4.29 The analysis of the shopping hierarchy and commercial property indicators demonstrates that Chatham is the main centre within Medway, but it is ranked significantly below Maidstone and Canterbury in the shopping hierarchy and is just below Gravesend and Dartford. The other town centres in Medway are significantly below Chatham in the shopping hierarchy.
4.30 The socio-economic analysis indicates that the profile of residents in Medway is slightly different to those in Kent, with a slightly higher unemployment rate, lower car ownership and a younger population. However, there are higher levels of mobility within Medway than the national average, allowing residents to travel outside Medway for shopping and leisure uses. These patterns are likely to continue in the future.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 28
5.0 DEFINING MEDWAY’S NETWORK OF CENTRES
The Designation of Shopping Centres
5.1 PPS6 indicates that local planning authorities should adopt a positive and proactive approach to planning for the future of the centres within their areas1, whether planning for growth, consolidation or decline. Local planning authorities are expected to set out a vision and strategy for the pattern and hierarchy of centres, including local centres, within their area. This strategy should set out how the role of different centres will contribute to the overall vision for their area.
5.2 The sequential approach indicates that town, district and local centres are the preferred location for the main town centre uses including retail and leisure development. Some forms of development may be more appropriate in smaller centres, if there are localised areas of deficiency. The key issues are the nature and scale of retail/leisure development proposed and the catchment area the development seeks to serve. Development should normally be consistent in terms of scale and nature with the character and role of the nearest centre. Therefore, development plan policies should provide clear advice in this respect.
5.3 PPS6 suggests that local authorities should adopt policies that enable town, district and local centres to meet the needs of residents in their area2. The sequential approach indicates that the first preference for new developments should be within centres followed by edge-of-centre sites in town and district centre locations. Out-of- centre sites are last in the order of preference3.
5.4 The distinction between city, district and local centres within Medway is important when applying the sequential approach. The nature, role and location of proposed retail/leisure schemes need to be considered when applying the sequential approach. Future development plan policies in Medway must continue to define which centres are city, district or local centres within the context of PPS6, in order to avoid confusion when applying the sequential approach. The current Local Plan defines Chatham as a City centre at the top of the hierarchy of centres.
5.5 Annex A of PPS6 provides guidance on the definition of centres. PPS6 also provides some clarification on the designation and role of centres. Table 1 of PPS6 describes
1 PPS6 (March 2005) Para 2.15 2 PPS6 (March 2005), Para 2.1
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 29
the characteristics of different centres. It suggests that city centres are the highest level of centre and will often be a regional centre and will serve a wide catchment. Town centres are usually the second level of centres after city centres and, in many cases, they will be the principal centre or centres in a local authority’s area. In planning the futures of town centres, local planning authorities should consider the function of different parts of the centre and how these contribute to its overall vitality and viability. District centres are not defined within the South East Plan (RSS).
5.6 The hierarchy of centres in the Medway Local Plan is broadly consistent with the definitions in PPS6. With Chatham reflecting the ‘City centre’ definition in PPS6, although the centre is not currently serving a regional role with a wide catchment area. If Chatham is to fulfil a city centre role then significant improvements will need to be implemented.
5.7 The other centres (Gillingham, Hempstead Valley, Rainham, Rochester, Strood, to varying degrees, fall between the PPS6 description for “Town centres” and ‘District centres’. These centres provide more than the PPS6 description for district centres, but generally serve their respective districts of Medway urban area. Medway urban area is adequately served by district centres and in our view there is no need to development new district centres.
5.8 Below district centres, PPS6 does not provide sub-divisions for local centres. However, the footnote to Table 1 in Annex A of PPS6 indicates that small parades of shops of purely neighbourhood significance are not regarded as centres for purposes of the policy statement. PPS6 states that local centres include a range of small shops of a local nature, serving a small catchment. Typically, local centres might include, amongst other shops, a small supermarket, a newsagent, a sub-post office and a pharmacy. Other facilities could include a hot-food takeaway and launderette.
5.9 The Urban Task Force’s, Towards an Urban Renaissance Report (1999)4, chaired by Lord Rogers, set out principles for sustainable settlements. It provides guidance adapted from the University of the West of England’s Sustainable Settlements Guide. It sets out catchment population estimates required to support different facilities, and the types of centres these facilities might be located. The extent of the catchment area of each type of centre is also provided, as shown in Table 5.1.
3 PPS6 (March 2005), Para 2.44 4 Towards and Urban Renaissance, Final Report of The Urban Task Force, published by DETR in 1999. LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 30
Table 5.1: Urban Task Force Centre Criteria
Type of centre Extent of Catchment Possible Catchment Area (radius) Facilities Population City 4-10 km Stadium City Cathedral City City hall City Theatre City Town or District 2-6 km Sports centre 25,000 - 40,000 District centre 25,000 - 40,000 Library 12,000 - 30,000 Health centre 9,000 - 12,000 Neighbourhood 400-600m Community offices 7,500 Community centre 7,000 - 15,000 Pub 5,000 - 7,000 Post office 5,000 - 10,000 Local hubs 150-250m Primary School 2,500 - 4,000 Doctor 2,500 - 3,000 Corner shop 2,000 - 5,000
5.10 The report suggests that District Centres should typically have a catchment area of 2 kilometres in radius (population 25,000 to 40,000), and should have larger shops/superstores, a health centre, church, meeting facility and library. Neighbourhood centres are expected to have a smaller catchment area, i.e. 400 to 600 metres radius (about 10 minutes walk) and a catchment population of 5,000 to 15,000. As minimum they will include a primary school, post office, pub, community centre and possibly a health centre and secondary school. Small local hubs have a smaller catchment area (150 to 250 metres – population 2,000 to 4,000) which represents a short walking distance (not more than 5 minutes) and may include a primary school.
5.11 Based on the hierarchy of centres in PPS6, the South East Plan and the Local Plan, a summary of recommended definitions for Medway is set out in Table 5.2.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 31
Table 5.2: Hierarchy of Centres
Centre Classification Definition/Comment City Centre The highest level of centre identified in Medway serving a wide catchment area. The centre will embrace a wide range of activities. District Centres Second tier centres with the primary role being the provision of convenience shopping, services but with some comparison shopping serving a relatively localised catchment area or shopping of a specialist nature (e.g. Rochester). Local Centres Reasonably large centres within Medway urban area, of more than purely neighbourhood significance should be designated local centres. These centres will normally have a minimum 10 commercial units. Neighbourhood Parades All other small local shopping parades within Medway urban area, which will normally have less than 10 commercial units. Village Centres Clusters of local shops/services within freestanding villages/settlements outside Medway urban area.
5.12 No other changes are considered necessary to the current hierarchy of centres set out in the current Local plan
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 32
6.0 HOUSEHOLD SURVEY
Survey Structure
6.1 NEMS Market Research carried out a telephone survey of 1001 households across the Medway study area in November 2008. The survey results are shown in Appendix E and summarised in this section. The study area, shown in Appendix A, was split into 8 sectors or zones based on postcode boundaries, as follows:
• Zone 1: Rochester • Zone 2: Chatham • Zone 3: Gillingham • Zone 4: Rainham/Hempstead • Zone 5: Walderslade • Zone 6: Sittingbourne/Faversham • Zone 7: Maidstone • Zone 8: Gravesend 6.2 The study area includes all parts of Medway Council, and also parts of adjacent authorities where people may conceivably shop within Medway. A list of the postcodes contained in each zone is shown in Appendix A. The zones were chosen based on postcode boundaries which best fit the likely primary catchment areas of the main centres in Medway.
6.3 The number of interviews undertaken in each zone reflects the population in each respective zone in order to provide statistically reliable sub-samples. The main aims of the survey were to establish patterns for the following:
• Main food and grocery shopping;
• Top-up food and grocery shopping;
• Non-food shopping, including: - clothing and footwear; - domestic electrical appliances; - other electrical goods (TV, Hi-Fi and computers); - furniture, soft furnishing or carpets; - DIY and hardware items; - garden items; - chemist, health and beauty items; and - Other non-food items (e.g. books, CDs, DVDs, toys and gifts).
• Leisure activities, including: - cinema; - theatre;
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 33
- pub/bar; - restaurant; - nightclub; - bingo; - health club; and - ten-pin bowling.
Food and Grocery Shopping
Main Food Shopping
6.4 Large food stores are the main destination for respondents’ last main food shopping trip across the study area. Overall, the Asda at Maidstone Road, Chatham and Tesco Extra, Lunsford Park, Aylesford are the most popular shopping destination for the study area as a whole, though different zones recorded different responses as the most popular destination for their main food shopping trip:
• Zone 1: Tesco Cuxton Road, Strood (38.6%) followed by Morrison’s in Rochester (31.8%);
• Zone 2: Asda Maidstone Road, Chatham (32.4%) followed by Tesco, The Brook, Chatham (14.7%);
• Zone 3: Somerfield High Street, Gillingham (18.6%) followed by Tesco, Courtney Road, Gillingham (11.9%);
• Zone 4: Tesco, Courtney Road, Gillingham (27.7%) followed by Sainsbury’s Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre, Gillingham (22.9%);
• Zone 5: Asda, Maidstone Road, Chatham (33.3%) followed by Morrison’s Princes Avenue, Walderslade Chatham (22.2%);
• Zone 6: Sainsbury’s Roman Square, Sittingbourne (24.6%) followed by Tesco, Bridge Road, Sheerness (21.6%);
• Zone 7: Morrison’s, Sutton Road, Maidstone (16.8%) followed by Tesco Extra, Lunsford Park Aylesford (12.7%) and Tesco Grove Green, Maidstone (12.7%); and
• Zone 8: Asda, Thames Way, Gravesend (16.9%) followed by Morrison’s, Coldharbour Road, Gravesend (13.5%).
6.5 Overall, 3.7% of respondents chose to do their last main food shopping on the internet and have it delivered, which is greater than the average derived from similar NLP surveys across the Country (1.5%).
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 34
Mode of Travel for Main Food Shopping
6.6 In the whole study area, 79.7% of respondents indicated that they travel to do their main food shopping by car (both driver and passenger) which corresponds with NLP’s average derived from similar surveys across the Country (74.6%). A similar proportion of households travel by bus (6.3%) compared to the NLP averages derived from other surveys of 8.6% and again, a similar proportion walk to their main food shopping destination (7.1%) compared to the NLP average of 11.7%. The number of all respondents (0.2%) using a bike to travel to their last main shopping location is comparable to the NLP average of 0.5%.
Top-Up Food Shopping
6.7 Top-up food shopping trips are normally made to supplement main food shopping trips and are undertaken on a more frequent basis for staples such as bread and milk. Overall 70% of households across the catchment area indicated that they undertake small-scale or top-up shopping trips in addition to their main food shopping trips. The overall results show that a high proportion of the respondents’ last top-up shopping trip was undertaken in local shops (23.4%). However in Zone 5, 26.4% of respondents used their local Morrison’s supermarket as opposed to their local shops.
Non-Food Shopping
6.8 Households were asked in which location they buy most of their household’s non-food shopping. For the study area as a whole, Maidstone Town Centre was the most popular destination, with 22.0% of all respondents shopping there, followed by Bluewater Shopping Centre (13.1%) and then Chatham City Centre (9.1%).
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 35
Figure 6.1: Non Food Shopping Destinations in Zones 1 to 5
Gravesend Varies
Other Bluew ater Varies Other Maidstone Hempstead Valley Bluew ater Chatham Rochester Hempstead Strood Valley Gillingham Rainham Chatham
Maidstone Gravesend Gillingham Other Chatham Bluew ater Varies Varies Hempstead Canterbury Valley Maids tone Gillingham
Rochester Other Bluew ater
Gillingham Rainham Strood
Bluew ater Maids tone
Gravesend Chatham Hempstead Canterbury Valley Hempstead Varies Valley
Rainham Other
Gillingham
Chatham
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 36
Figure 6.2: Non Food Shopping Destinations in Zones 6 to 8
Varies
Other
Strood Gravesend Chatham
Gillingham Other
Rainham
Rochester Strood Hempstead Valley Chatham Maidstone Bluew ater Gillingham
Hempstead Valley Varies
Bluew ater
Canterbury
Varies Maids tone Canterbury
Other
Hempstead Valley Maidstone Bluew ater
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 37
6.9 Despite the preference of Maidstone Town Centre overall, it is only the most popular destination for non-food shopping in Zone 7 once the results are broken down. Chatham City Centre is the most popular in two zones (Zones 2 and 5).
• Zone 1: Strood District Centre (29.5%) • Zone 2: Chatham City Centre (36.8%); • Zone 3: Gillingham District Centre (40.7%); • Zone 4: Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre (42.2%); • Zone 5: Chatham City Centre (36.1%); • Zone 6: Sittingbourne Town Centre (15.8%); • Zone 7: Maidstone Town Centre (69.7%); • Zone 8: Gravesend Town Centre (30.8%). 6.10 Overall 2.1% of respondents buy their non-food shopping on the internet of have it delivered. Zone 2 has the highest proportion of respondents who buy most of their non-food shopping on the internet/have it delivered (4.4%).
Mode of Travel for Non-Food Shopping
6.11 The predominant mode of travel for non-food shopping was the car (both driver and passenger) with 72.4% of respondents indicating that they use this form of travel. The second most popular mode of transport for travelling to non-food shopping destinations was bus/coach (11.5%) followed by walking (7.9%).
Non Food Shopping Destinations
6.12 The household survey asked specific questions to probe which destinations respondents visited to undertake particular types of non-food shopping.
6.13 The most popular destination overall for buying clothes and footwear was Maidstone Town Centre (21.4%); however this was only the most popular in Zone 7 (61.9%). Bluewater Shopping Centre (17.8%) was the second most popular destination overall and the most popular destination people last used to shop for clothes and footwear in Zones 1 (27.3%) and Zone 8 (30.4%). In Zones 2 and 3, Chatham City Centre was the most popular destination and in Zones 4 and 5 Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre was the most popular destination. In Zone 6 the highest proportion of respondents last went clothes and footwear shopping in Canterbury (20.5%).
6.14 Overall the internet or delivery style retailers were the most popular way of buying domestic electrical appliances such as fridges or kitchen items with 11.1% of all respondents, however, the internet only accounted for the majority of respondents in Zone 3. Within each zone, most respondents bought their domestic appliances from
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 38
the centres within or close to the zone. In Zone 7, 32.4% of respondents bought their domestic appliances from Maidstone town centre followed by South Aylesford Retail Park, Maidstone (30.3%) which was also the second most popular destination overall. In Zone 1 Strood District Centre was the most popular destination for respondents (18.2%), in Zone 2 the most popular last destination was Chatham City Centre (19.1%), in Zone 4 the most popular last destination was Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre (20.5%), in Zone 5 Horstead Retail Park was the most popular last destination (16.7%), in Zone 6 it was Sittingbourne Town Centre (28.7%) and Gravesend Town Centre was the most popular last destination in Zone 8 (20.8%).
6.15 The internet or delivery was also the main location respondents last bought other kinds of electrical goods, such as TVs, Hi-Fi and computer, with 17.0% of all respondents using the internet or getting goods delivered. The internet/delivery was the most popular location for purchasing these goods in five of the eight zones (Zones 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7) and jointly the most popular location with other centres in Zones 3 and 8. In Zone 3 Chatham City Centre (16.9%) was also the most popular last location and in Zone 8 Gravesend Town Centre (16.2%) was also the most popular last location for other kinds of electrical goods, closely followed by Bluewater Shopping Centre (15.4%). In Zone 6 the highest proportion of respondents (31.0%) last used Sittingbourne Town Centre.
6.16 Overall, Maidstone town centre was the most popular last destination for purchasing furniture, soft furnishings or floor coverings. The highest proportion of respondents in Zones 1 (15.9%), 2 (10.3%), and 7 (28.7%) last bought furniture, soft furnishings or floor coverings was also Maidstone Town Centre. The most popular location to buy furniture, soft furnishings or floor coverings within other zones corresponds with the centre for that zone. In Zone 3 Gillingham Town Centre (22.0%) was the most popular last destination, in Zone 4 it was Rainham District Centre (13.3%), the most popular last destination is Chatham City Centre (12.5%) for Zone 5, Sittingbourne Town Centre (21.1%) for Zone 6 and Gravesend Town Centre (17.3%) for Zone 8.
6.17 For DIY and hardware items the most popular destination in the study area respondents last shopped at was B&Q Will Adams Industrial Estate, Gillingham (15%). This was followed by Maidstone Town Centre (10.7%) and Gravesend Town Centre (6.9%). As well as being the most popular destination overall the B&Q Will Adams Industrial Estate, Gillingham was also the most popular destination within Zone 3 (55.9%) and Zone 4 (65.1%). Homebase, Horstead Retail Park, Chatham was most popular last destination in Zone 2 (20.6%) and Zone 5 (29.2%).
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 39
Sittingbourne Town Centre (39.2%) was the most popular last destination in Zone 6; Maidstone Town Centre was the most popular last destination in Zone 7 (41.0%) and Gravesend the most popular last destination in Zone 8 (26.2%).
6.18 For Garden items the most popular destination in the study area respondents last shopped at was the same as for DIY and hardware, B&Q Will Adams Industrial Estate, Gillingham (15%). This was again followed by Maidstone Town Centre (11.1%) and Gravesend Town Centre (6.1%). As well as being the most popular destination overall the B&Q Will Adams Industrial Estate, Gillingham was also the most popular destination within Zone 3 (45.8%) and Zone 4 (50.6%). Homebase, Horstead Retail Park, Chatham was most popular in Zone 5 (26.4%) and Zone 2 (23.5%). Sittingbourne Town Centre (30.4%) was the most popular last destination in Zone 6; with Maidstone Town Centre the most popular last destination in Zone 7 (37.3%) and Gravesend in Zone 8 (22.7%).
6.19 There was no single destination which is the most popular for buying chemist, health and beauty items across the study area with each zone corresponding with its nearest centre. In Zone 1 the most popular destination was Strood District Centre (52.3%), Chatham City Centre for Zones 2 (52.9%) and 5 (44.4%), Gillingham District Centre for Zone 3 (57.6%), Sittingbourne (27.5%) for Zone 6, Maidstone Town Centre (54.5%) for Zone 7 and Gravesend town centre (34.2%) for Zone 8. Rainham District Centre and Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre (32.5% respectively) were jointly the most popular location for buying chemist, health and beauty items in Zone 4. A relatively high proportion of respondents in Zones 1 and 2 last bought their chemist, health and beauty items on the internet/delivered (4.5% and 5.9% respectively).
6.20 Of all respondents in the study area, 18.8% last bought items such as books, CD’s, toys and gifts on the internet, meaning overall the internet was the preferred method of purchasing these types of goods. Despite this Chatham City Centre was the preferred location for respondents in Zones 1, 2, 3 and 5 (27.3%, 41.2%, 25.4% and 36.1% respectively). In Zone 7 the most popular last destination was Maidstone Town Centre (50.4%) and Bluewater Shopping Centre (23.5%) was the most popular last destination for respondents in Zone 8. In Zone 6 the internet was the most popular last destination to purchase books, CD’s, toys and gifts. In Zone 4 the highest proportion of respondents last used Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre to purchase books, CD’s, toys and gifts (28.9%).
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 40
6.21 Table 6.1 shows the shopping destination with the highest proportion of respondents for each comparison goods category in each zone. This indicates broadly where people prefer to shop for each type of goods and allows comparison between each zone.
Table 6.1: Destinations with High Proportions of Respondents
Zone 4 Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Comparison Goods Rainham/ Rochester Chatham Gillingham Hempstead Clothing & Footwear Bluewater Chatham Chatham Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre Domestic Appliances Strood Chatham Internet Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre Electrical Goods Internet Internet Internet, Chatham Internet Furnishings Maidstone Maidstone Gillingham Rainham DIY and Hardware B&Q Rochester B&Q Gillingham, B&Q Gillingham B&Q Gillingham Homebase, Chatham Health and Beauty Strood Chatham Gillingham Rainham / Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre Books/CDs/Toys/Gifts Chatham Chatham Chatham Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre Zone 6 Zone 5 Zone 7 Zone 8 Comparison Goods Sittingbourne/ Walderslade Maidstone Gravesend Faversham Clothing & Footwear Hempstead Valley Maidstone Maidstone Bluewater Shopping Centre Domestic Appliances Horstead Retail Sittingbourne Maidstone Gravesend Park, Chatham Electrical Goods Internet Sittingbourne South Aylesford Gravesend , Internet Retail Park, Maidstone Furnishings Chatham Sittingbourne Maidstone Gravesend DIY and Hardware B&Q Gillingham, Sittingbourne Maidstone Gravesend Homebase, Chatham Health and Beauty Chatham Sittingbourne Maidstone Gravesend Books/CDs/Toys/Gifts Chatham Internet Maidstone Bluewater
6.22 In Zone 1 the most popular last destination for domestic appliances and health and beauty is Strood District Centre. The most popular last destination for other comparison goods varies across a number of destinations including Bluewater Shopping Centre for clothing/footwear, Maidstone Town Centre for furnishings and Chatham City Centre for books/CDs/Toys/Gifts. In Zone 2 Chatham City Centre is the most popular last destination for clothing/footwear, domestic appliances, health and beauty and books/CDs/toys/gifts. In Zone 3 the main last destination for comparison goods purchases is distributed between Chatham, Gillingham and the Internet. In Zone 4 Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre and Rainham are the most popular last destinations for a number of comparison goods as well as the internet for electrical goods and B&Q Gillingham for DIY/hardware.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 41
6.23 Chatham, Horstead Retail Park, Chatham and B&Q Homebase, Chatham are the most popular last shopping destinations for buying a number of comparison goods in Zone 5 with the exceptions being the internet for electrical goods and clothing and footwear at Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre. In Zone 6, with the exception of clothing and footwear and books/CDs/toys/gifts, the preferred last location for comparison goods is Sittingbourne. Gravesend is the most popular last destination for comparison goods in Zone 8; however, Bluewater Shopping Centre and the Internet are also popular for clothing and footwear and books/CDs/toys/gifts.
Internet Purchases
6.24 In addition to those respondents who stated they last bought their main shopping or a specific comparison good on the internet, all respondents were asked what items, if any, they regularly bought on the internet. Overall 56.5% of all respondents stated they did not regularly buy anything on the internet.
6.25 Of those respondents that did regularly buy purchases on the internet, the most popular category of goods respondents regularly bought were books, CDs and toys with 31.0% of all respondents. This was followed in popularity by electrical, TV, Hi-Fi and Computers (9.2%) and clothes and shoes (9.1%). Overall, 5.3% of respondents regularly did their grocery shopping online and 4.9% bought their domestic electrical appliances on the internet. Other items that respondents regularly shopped for online include health and beauty items, DIY/hardware items, furniture or soft furnishings and holidays (all between 1% and 1.5% of respondents).
Town/ District Centre Performance
6.26 The household survey asked respondents which of the defined town centres in Medway were closest to them. Depending on their response, residents were then asked if there was anything that would make you visit the centre more often.
6.27 Over half of the respondents who identified Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre or an ‘other’ centre as their nearest centre did not identify anything that would make them visit the centre more often. Of those who did suggest something that would make them visit the centre more often, ‘better choice of shops in general’ was the most popular response for those who live nearest Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre (13.7%).
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 42
6.28 For those who lived closest to Rainham and Strood over 40% did not identify anything that would make them shop at the centre more often. Of those respondents who did identify something, ‘more car parking’ (17.6%) was the most popular suggestion for Rainham and ‘better choice of shops in general’ (24.5%) was the most popular suggestion for Strood.
6.29 For those living closest to Chatham, 34.8% did not suggest anything that would make them visit the centre more often. Of those respondents who did suggest any improvements 26.6% stated ‘better choice of shops in general’. For Gillingham only 20.3% considered there was nothing that would make them visit the centre more often. Of those who suggested improvements, 45.8% suggested ‘better choice of shops in general’. Of those living closest to Rochester, 21.4% suggested ‘better choice of shops in general’ with 35.7% indicating that nothing would make them shop in Rochester more often.
Leisure Activities
Cinemas
6.30 Respondents were asked if they went to the cinema and if so which cinema they last visited. Over 57% of respondents indicated they visit the cinema, which was the second most popular leisure activity after visiting restaurants. This is higher than NLP’s average derived from similar surveys across the Country (51.0%). There is no single most popular last cinema destination that respondents visited, the three most popular destinations were the Odeon at Chatham Maritime, Chatham (21.6%) followed by the cinema at Bluewater Shopping Centre (20.2%), the UGC at Medway Valley Leisure Park, Rochester (20.1%) and the cinema in Maidstone town centre (19.2%).
Theatre
6.31 In the study area, 46.2% of respondents indicated they visited theatres, compared with NLP’s average for other surveys of only 42.5%. When asked where they last visited the theatre, London was the most popular location accounting for over half of those respondents that did visit theatres in the catchment area (52.4%). The second most popular last destination was Dartford (8.2%) closely followed by the Central Theatre in Chatham (7.8%) which is within the survey catchment area. Canterbury and Maidstone (5.4% respectively) were the next most popular theatre locations.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 43
Pubs/Bars
6.32 The household survey asked respondents if and where they or their family last visited a pub/bar. Over 40% of respondents indicated that they visit pubs/bars, which is slightly lower than the NLP average from other surveys (47.5%). The main last destination for respondents who visit pubs and bars varies across the zones:
• Zone 1: Rochester District Centre (29.4%) • Zone 2: Rochester District Centre (44.1%) • Zone 3: Gillingham District Centre (68.4%) • Zone 4: Chatham City Centre (41.9%) • Zone 5: Chatham City Centre/Maidstone Town Centre (both 21.9%) • Zone 6: Sittingbourne Town Centre (33.8%) • Zone 7: Maidstone Town Centre (40.5%) • Zone 8: Gravesend Town Centre (30.2%) 6.33 Of all respondents who visited pubs/bars, Maidstone Town Centre attracted the highest proportion of respondents (16.1%) followed by Gravesend Town Centre (7.5%) and Rochester District Centre (7.2%).
Restaurants
6.34 Overall, 70.9% of respondents indicated they visit restaurants, which was the most popular leisure activity, and is above the NLP average for other surveys (67.9%). Again, there was variation in where respondents last visited restaurants:
• Zone 1: Rochester District Centre (27.3%) • Zone 2: Maidstone Town Centre (26.5%) • Zone 3: Gillingham District Centre (43.2%) • Zone 4: Rainham District Centre (35.5%) • Zone 5: Maidstone Town Centre (22.0%) • Zone 6: Sittingbourne Town Centre (18.1%) • Zone 7: Maidstone Town Centre (38.7%) • Zone 8: Gravesend Town Centre (27.4%) 6.35 Of all respondents who visited restaurants, Maidstone Town Centre attracted 17.6% of respondents followed by Gravesend Town Centre (8.7%) and Rochester District Centre (5.8%).
Nightclubs / Live Music
6.36 Only 9.1% of respondents indicated that they had visited nightclubs/live music venues, which is the second least popular leisure activity after ‘bingo’, therefore the sample for nightclub visitors within each zone is very small. However, this participation rate is comparable to that derived by NLP’s average from other similar surveys of 9.9%. The main nightclub/live music venue locations for respondents in the
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 44
study area as a whole is Maidstone town centre (37.4%) with Rochester District Centre the second most popular (15.4%).
Bingo
6.37 Bingo proved the least popular leisure activity with only 5.5% of respondents indicating that they undertake this activity, which is slightly higher than NLP’s average participation rate of 5.1% as derived from other similar surveys. The sample for bingo visitors within each zone is again very small. Gala Bingo in Rochester was the most popular last place respondents went to play bingo (34.5%) followed by Gala Bingo in Chatham (20%).
Health and Fitness Clubs
6.38 Over 23% of respondents indicated their household visit health clubs/gyms, which is slightly lower than the NLP average participation rate from other surveys (25.6%). Respondent’s last visit was to a wide range of gyms across the study area with some using gyms outside the study area. The main health club/gym destination for respondents in the study area as a whole is Maidstone (26.8%). Other popular destinations include Gravesend (7.8%), Sittingbourne (4.3%) and Roko Health Club in Gillingham (4.3%).
Tenpin Bowling
6.39 Overall 24.6% of respondents indicated their household visit tenpin bowling facilities, which is slightly above the NLP average for other surveys (18.1%). The main tenpin bowling destinations are Maidstone (27.2%), Gravesend (22.4%) and Chatham’s AMF Bowling Centre in the Pentagon (22.0%).
Key Messages from the Household Survey Results
6.40 The key findings of the household survey are summarised below:
• Large food stores are the primary destination for main food shopping and the preferred location of these food stores varies significantly throughout the study area.
• Overall 70% of households indicated that they undertook small scale shopping or top-up shopping trips in addition to their main food shopping trips.
• A high proportion of respondents use the car as their main mode of travel for their food and non-food shopping, which is comparable with NLP’s national
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 45
average derived from other surveys. The bus and walking were also comparable to the NLP’s national average.
• Many respondents use their closest town centre for comparison shopping with the exception of the internet which is the most popular choice for electrical goods and DIY, hardware and garden items where the majority of the respondents use the larger DIY stores, particularly B&Q in Gillingham.
• Just under half of the respondents regularly use the internet to shop, with the most common goods purchased being books, CDs, toys and gift items. 5.3% of respondents regularly use the internet to shop for their groceries.
• A ‘better choice of shops in general’ was the main suggestion which would make respondents visit the centres in Chatham more often.
• The household survey demonstrates that with the exception of the theatre, the majority of respondents travel within the survey catchment area for leisure activities. Popular locations for pubs/bars, restaurants and cinema tend to be in the centre which corresponds to their zone. There is an even spread of popularity in cinema-goer destination including Chatham (21.6%), Bluewater Shopping Centre (20.2%), UGC Rochester (20.1%) and Maidstone (19.2%).
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 46
7.0 CHATHAM CITY CENTRE
Introduction
7.1 Chatham is an historic settlement, although the city centre area largely dates from the post-war period. It is designated as a ‘Main Retail/ City Centre’ in the Medway Local Plan and is placed at the top of the local retail hierarchy in Medway performing a sub- regional shopping role. A Core Retail Area is defined in the Medway Local Plan which comprises the pedestrianised High Street, the purpose-built Pentagon Centre, Railway Street, Military Street and extends eastwards to include the Tesco store at The Brook.
Figure 7.1: Chatham Goad Plan
Source: Experian GOAD (July 2007)
Mix of Uses and Occupier Representation
7.2 Chatham City Centre’s key roles include:
• convenience shopping – a wide range of convenience traders are present in Chatham. National multiples present in this sector include Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Iceland and provide main food shopping facilities, whilst independent stores in the centre predominately offer top-up shopping goods;
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 47
• comparison shopping – a large selection comparison shops, with many independents alongside key attractors such as Debenhams, Boots, Primark and Argos. In general, the comparison goods offer tends towards the lower end of the retail spectrum;
• services – including a good range of high street banks, a fairly large number of cafés/restaurants/takeaways, hair dressers and estate agents in addition to other service uses such as travel agents and dry cleaners/ laundrettes;
• entertainment – including the Central Theatre, Gala Bingo and a bowling alley, in addition to a number of pubs, bars and clubs; and
• community uses – including a number of places of worship, a post office, a number of dental surgeries and a library. Additionally, Medway Council offices and Chatham Library are both a short-walk from the Core Retail Area.
7.3 The diversity of uses present in Chatham City Centre on the basis of the number of units and amount of floorspace is shown in Table 7.1 below. This is derived from the Goad Town Centre survey undertaken in July 2007. It should be noted that the Goad survey records all units in active retail use in Chatham City Centre, and surveys a wider geographical area than the defined Core Retail Area.
Table 7.1: Chatham Use Class Mix by Unit
Type of Unit Number of Proportion of Total Number of Units (%) Units Chatham National Average* Comparison Retail 142 35.9 45.4 Convenience Retail 23 5.8 9.1 A1 Services 43 10.9 10.6 A2 Services 61 15.4 9.6 A3 and A5 58 14.6 14.3 A4 10 N/A N/A Vacant 69 17.4 11.0 Total 406 100.0 100.0 Source: Goad (Jul 2007) * UK average relates to all town centres surveyed by Goad Plans (May 08).
7.4 The Goad data indicates that comparison units account for the largest proportion of retail units in Chatham (35.9%) but remain below the national average (45.4%). Similarly, convenience retailers (5.8%) are under-represented in terms of the number of units for which they account when considered against the national average (9.1%). The proportion of A1 services in Chatham City Centre (10.9%) is slightly greater than the national average (10.6%). A3 and A5 services are also seen to be marginally above the national average (accounting for 14.6% of units compared to a national average of 14.3%), with the proportion of A2 services (15.4%) being significantly greater than the national average (9.6%). In terms of vacant floorspace, information
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 48
complied by Goad demonstrates that the proportion of vacant units in Chatham City Centre (17.4%) is somewhat greater than the national average (11.0%).
Retailer Representation
7.5 Chatham City Centre has a reasonable selection of comparison shops (142) reflecting the centre’s role as the major retail destination within Medway. Table 7.2 provides a breakdown of comparison shop uses by goods categories.
Table 7.2: Chatham Breakdown of Comparison Units
Type of Unit Chatham UK Average* Units % % Clothing and Footwear 43 30.3 27.4 Furniture, carpets and textiles 6 4.2 8.8 Booksellers, arts, crafts and stationers 14 9.9 9.3 Electrical, gas, music and photography 16 11.3 10.1 DIY, hardware & homewares 7 4.9 6.3 China, glass, gifts & fancy goods 4 2.8 3.7 Cars, motorcycles & motor access. 3 2.1 2.9 Chemists, drug stores & opticians 10 7.0 8.7 Variety, department & catalogue 3 2.1 2.0 Florists, nurserymen & seedsmen 3 2.1 2.2 Toys, hobby, cycle & sport 12 8.5 5.3 Jewellers 8 5.6 5.1 Other comparison retailers 13 9.2 8.2 Total 142 100.0 100.0 Source: Goad (Jul 2007) * UK average relates to all town centres surveyed by Goad Plans (Nov 2007)
7.6 All categories of comparison goods trader are represented in Chatham, reflecting the wide array of comparison goods that are available. In broad terms, the proportion of different types of comparison goods retailers is broadly similar to the national average. Notwithstanding this, the proportion of ‘furniture, carpets and textiles’ units in Chatham (4.2%) is less than half that of the national average (8.8%). Conversely, the proportion of units in use for ‘toys, hobby, cycle and sport’ retailing purposes is 8.5%, which is notable higher that the national average of 5.3%. Overall, these results indicate that the centre does provide an adequate range of comparison goods, with no major deficiencies in provision.
7.7 Major national comparison retailers present in the centre include:
• Argos; • Halfords; • Boots; • Morgan; • Burton; • New Look; • Carphone Warehouse; • Peacocks; • Clinton Cards; • Primark; • Currys; • Staples;
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 49
• Debenhams; • The Works; • Dorothy Perkins; • Waterstones; and • Foot Locker; • Wilkinson • Game;
Service Uses
7.8 Chatham City Centre has a good range of service uses, with all categories represented as shown in Table 7.3. The centre has a higher proportion of banks/other financial services, restaurants, cafes and takeaways and estate agents and valuers compared to the national average, whilst the proportion of travel agents, hairdressers and beauty parlours and laundries and dry cleaners are all below the national average.
Table 7.3: Chatham Analysis of Selected Service Uses
Type of Use Chatham UK Average* Units % % Restaurants, cafes & takeaways 58 44.6 43.1 Banks/other financial services 24 18.5 15.4 Estate agents and valuers 17 13.1 11.7 Travel agents 4 3.1 4.9 Hairdressers & beauty parlours 25 19.2 22.0 Laundries and dry cleaners 2 1.5 2.9 Total 130 100.0 100.0 Source: Goad (Jul 2007) *UK average relates to all town centres surveyed by Goad Plans (Nov 2007) N.B. ‘Restaurants, cafés and takeaways’ does not include the 10 drinking establishments in the centre
7.9 A total of 16 high street banks/building societies are represented within Chatham City Centre including; HSBC, Lloyds TSB, NatWest, Halifax, Barclays, Abbey and Nationwide.
7.10 National multiple retailers in Chatham are concentrated on the pedestrianised High Street and the Pentagon Centre, although a Tesco and Gala Bingo are situated beyond Union Street outside of the pedestrianised High Street area. Independents can be found throughout the shopping centre including within the Pentagon Centre, and it is somewhat unusual to find such independent traders occupying prime retail floorspace. Notwithstanding this, independents occur in greater proportions along the western end of High Street which is open to vehicular traffic, although we note that this is outside of the Core Retail Area defined in the Local Plan. Service uses tend to be focused on the periphery areas of High Street to the east and west together with the pedestrianised Military Road/ Railway Street.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 50
7.11 Vacant units can be found throughout the city centre, although they occur in greater proportions in periphery areas. Vacancies generally comprise small retail units reflecting the increasing preference for modern retailers to occupier larger retail units. It is notable that there are two large vacant outlets in the Pentagon Centre and along the High Street, although we note that the latter unit has been occupier by TK Maxx since the Goad survey was undertaken.
Accessibility and Movement
Car Parking
7.12 There are a number of off-road car parks serving Chatham City Centre, which are sign-posted from approach roads. The main facilities are the multi-storey car parks above the Pentagon Centre (670 spaces) and adjacent to the Tesco on Cross Street (560 spaces). Other large car parks include Sir John Hawkins (154 spaces), Whiffens Avenue (151 spaces), Riverside (134 spaces), Rhodes Street (132 spaces), Globe Lane (113 spaces) and Queen Street (101 spaces). Additionally, a Park and Ride system operates from Rochester Airport on Saturdays.
Public Transport
7.13 Chatham City Centre is easily accessible by public transport. The main bus station is situated within the Pentagon Centre and offers regular connections to local destinations and the Hoo Peninsular, including the Medway towns, Maidstone, Gravesend, Sittingbourne, Bluewater, Lakeside and Romford. Additional bus stops are located around the periphery of the Core Retail Area along The Brook and High Street. The train station is located approximately 300m to the south-west of the Core Retail Area. It serves both North Kent and Chatham Main Line and offers direct connections to Strood, Rochester, Gillingham and Rainham, together with Central London, Dover and Ramsgate amongst other destinations. A number of bus stands are located adjacent to the train station.
Pedestrian Access and Movement
7.14 Pedestrian movement around Chatham is unproblematic, given the pedestrianised nature of the majority of the centre. Along the periphery of the Retail Core Area roads are open to vehicular traffic, which is frequently heavy, although pedestrian crossings are provided to ease movement on foot. Pedestrian signage is provided throughout the centre. Although no detailed survey work was undertaken as part of this health-
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 51
check, on our site visits footfall did appear to be relatively high throughout the centre with the High Street/ Pentagon Centre junction being the busiest.
Environmental Quality
7.15 The environmental quality of Chatham City Centre is variable. Occupied retail units are generally well maintained, although the quality of some individual retail units does decline with distance from the pedestrianised High Street area and some vacancies would benefit from frontage improvements. Chatham lacks modern retail premises. Although there are some such units, such as the new TK Maxx unit, the majority of the building stock in the centre appears somewhat dated and would benefit from redevelopment which could improve the environmental quality of the centre and make better use of the space available. Street furniture is provided along the length of High Street including benches, bins, phone boxes and street lighting, although there is some evidence of graffiti and vandalism.
The Pentagon Centre (29/10/08) The pedestrianised High Street (29/10/08)
Railway Street (29/10/08) Vacant units on High Street (29/10/08)
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 52
Summary of Chatham’s Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths
• Chatham is a sub-regional centre and contains the highest concentration of retail and service units of any defined centre in Medway.
• It contains one large (Tesco) and one medium-sized (Sainsbury’s) food store in addition to a variety of other national multiple and independent operators.
• The detailed analysis of comparison unit representation in Chatham revealed that every sub-category of comparison goods is available in the centre. This includes a range of national multiple traders and independents, including the Trafalgar Centre indoor market.
• A range of service uses are on offer in Chatham including representation from all the major banks and building societies.
• The centre is easily accessible by a range of modes of transport other than the private car, and movement around the centre on foot is unproblematic.
Weaknesses
• The retail sector in Chatham is concentrated on the lower end of the market, and there is a need to attract more key attractor national multiples serving the upper end of the market. In this regard, Chapter 4 of this report indicated that the centre lags behind other sub-regional centres in terms of the amount and type of national multiples represented.
• The environmental quality in parts of the centre is variable, and many buildings appear dated. The street scene in general would benefit from investment and rejuvenation.
• The proportion of vacant units is above the national average, and vacancies can be found throughout the shopping centre including in prime retail areas.
• Whilst Chatham does benefit from its high level of independent retailers, the presence of these within the busiest shopping areas, including the Pentagon Centre, does imply that the centre may be suffering from low demand for representation.
• Around the periphery of the centre traffic is frequent and heavy, which does create a barrier to unconstrained pedestrian movement. Notwithstanding this, we do recognise that pedestrian crossings are provided.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 53
8.0 GILLINGHAM DISTRICT CENTRE
Introduction
8.1 Gillingham is situated less than 2km to the east of Chatham City Centre. It is a linear centre and the Medway Local Plan defines the Core Retail Area as comprising the pedestrianised length of High Street. Notwithstanding this, the active retail area as surveyed by Experian Goad extends beyond the defined shopping centre boundaries to include the Aldi supermarket and adjacent retail units to the east of the centre, and the library and other retail units to the west.
Figure 8.1: Gillingham Goad Plan
Source: Experian GOAD (Sept 2007)
Mix of Uses and Occupier Representation
8.2 The centre includes a good range of retail and service uses as follows:
• convenience shopping – includes three medium sized food stores: Aldi, Co-op and Somerfield, together with an Iceland and a variety of smaller outlets which are a mixture of national multiples and independents and offer a range of different
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 54
types of convenience goods;
• comparison shopping – a small proportion of national multiple retailing shops alongside a good selection of independent retailers selling a range of low and medium order goods;
• services – including a range of cafés, restaurants and takeaways, a reasonable range of high street national banks/building societies, a good range of hairdressers and beauty parlours and several launderettes and dry cleaners;
• entertainment – a more limited range of entertainment uses, although a number of drinking establishments are located in the centre, together with a Rileys Snooker Club; and
• community uses – including a library, community hall, a number of places of worship, a Citizens Advice Bureau, Post Office and a number of halls.
8.3 Gillingham District Centre has 224 retail/service units (excluding non-retail Class A uses). Table 8.1 sets out the mix of uses in Gillingham, compared with the Goad national average. The centre has a below average proportion of comparison units (32.4%) compared to the national average (45.4%), which is unsurprising given its role as a district centre. Again, reflecting its role in the shopping hierarchy it contains above average proportion of convenience retail units (12.0%) and A1 service units (13.0%) when compared to the national average (9.1% and 10.6% respectively). A2 services are particularly well represented in the centre, accounting for 17.1% of units compared to the national average of 9.6%. The proportion of A3 and A5 units (13.4%) are slightly lower than the national average (14.3%), whilst the proportion of vacant units (12.0%) is marginally higher than the national average (11.0%).
8.4 We note that there has been some change in the retail landscape since the Goad Town Centre survey was undertaken in September 2007, including new Wilkinson’s and Sports Direct units on King Street.
Table 8.1: Gillingham Use Class Mix by Unit
Type of Unit Number of Proportion of Total Number of Units (%) Units Gillingham National Average* Comparison Retail 70 32.4 45.4 Convenience Retail 26 12.0 9.1 A1 Services 28 13.0 10.6 A2 Services 37 17.1 9.6 A3 and A5 29 13.4 14.3 A4 8 N/A N/A Vacant 26 12.0 11.0 Total 224 100.0 100.0 Source: Goad (Sep 2007) * UK average relates to all town centres surveyed by Goad Plans (Nov 07)
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 55
8.5 The provision outlined above is supplemented by the bi-weekly market which operates on the High Street every Monday and Saturday and offers an array of convenience and comparison goods. No allowance is made for this temporary provision in the Goad town centre survey.
Retailer Representation
8.6 Gillingham contains 71 comparison shops in total which provide an array of comparison goods. Table 8.2 provides a breakdown of comparison shop units by goods categories. It is clear that all sub-categories of comparison goods are represented, with the exception of ‘china, glass, gifts and fancy goods’.
Table 8.2: Gillingham Breakdown of Comparison Units
Type of Unit Gillingham UK Average* Units % % Clothing and Footwear 7 10.0 27.4 Furniture, carpets and textiles 6 8.6 8.8 Booksellers, arts, crafts and stationers 8 11.4 9.3 Electrical, gas, music and photography 6 8.6 10.1 DIY, hardware & homewares 8 11.4 6.3 China, glass, gifts & fancy goods 0 0.0 3.7 Cars, motorcycles & motor access. 1 1.4 2.9 Chemists, drug stores & opticians 11 15.7 8.7 Variety, department & catalogue 1 1.4 2.0 Florists, nurserymen & seedsmen 2 2.9 2.2 Toys, hobby, cycle & sport 1 1.4 5.3 Jewellers 5 7.1 5.1 Other comparison retailers 14 20.0 8.2 Total 70 100.0 100.0 Source: Goad (Sep 2007) * UK average relates to all town centres surveyed by Goad Plans (Nov 07)
8.7 Table 8.2 indicates that there is some disparity between comparison representation in Gillingham and the national average. ‘Other comparison retailers’, ‘chemists, drug stores & opticians’ and ‘DIY, hardware & homewares’ are all well represented in the centre in terms of the proportion of units for which they account. ‘Clothing and footwear’ retailers are considerably under-represented compared to the national average unit occupancy. This provision reflects Gillingham’s role as a district centre, focussing on the residents needs for day-to-day and weekly items, rather than being a destination centre in itself for a wider range of higher order comparison goods such as clothing and footwear goods, which are purchased on a less frequent basis and would be focused on town and city centres, such as Chatham.
8.8 Major national multiple comparison retailers present in the centre include:
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 56
• Boots; • Shoe Express • Card Warehouse; • Sports Direct; • Co-op Pharmacy; • The Works; • New Look • WH Smith; and • Oxfam; • Wilkinsons. • Peacocks;
Service Uses
8.9 The centre contains a wide range of service uses with representation in every sub- category of services. The proportion of ‘restaurants, cafes and takeaways’ and ‘travel agents’ are below the national average, with ‘hairdressers and beauty parlours’ and ‘laundries and dry cleaners’ being broadly comparable to the national average and the proportion ‘banks/ other financial services’ and ‘estate agents and valuers’ being greater than the national average. An additional 8 units are account for by drinking establishments.
Table 8.3: Gillingham Analysis of Selected Service Uses
Type of Use Gillingham UK Average* Units % % Restaurants, cafes & takeaways 29 37.2 43.1 Banks/other financial services 15 19.2 15.4 Estate agents and valuers 12 15.4 11.7 Travel agents 3 3.8 4.9 Hairdressers & beauty parlours 17 21.8 22.0 Laundries and dry cleaners 2 2.6 2.9 Total 78 100 100.0 Source: Goad (Sep 2007) *UK average relates to all town centres surveyed by Goad Plans (Nov 2007) N.B. ‘Restaurants, cafés and takeaways’ does not include the 8 drinking establishments in the centre
8.10 Eight high street banks/ building societies are represented in Gillingham, which comprise Halifax, Abbey, HSBC, NatWest, Barclays Bank, Lloyds TSB, Kent Reliance and Nationwide.
8.11 The Goad Town Centre Survey (September 2007) indicated that there were 26 vacant units in Gillingham at the time of the survey, which equates to 12.0% all retail units compared to the national average of 11.0%. Notwithstanding this, it is evident that there has been some change in the occurrence of vacancies since the Goad survey was undertaken as highlighted previously, with for example the large vacant unit at 134- 142 High Street having subsequently been occupied by Wilkinsons and Sports Direct. Conversely, however, some units have become vacant over the intervening period. Vacant units occur in greater proportions at the western end of the Core Retail Area.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 57
8.12 In terms of national multiples, whilst these can be found throughout the centre there is a concentration of national multiple units at the eastern end of the centre around the King Street/ High Street junction and the market stalls area. These national retailers are generally concerned with the provision of household goods and services. Independent traders are concentrated in greater numbers on the periphery areas of the district centre.
Accessibility and Movement
Car Parking
8.13 The town centre is served by off-street and on-street car parking facilities. On-street car parking spaces are available on High Street/ King Street to the east of the centre, although these spaces are limited and appear to be very popular with shoppers. The Aldi Supermarket has dedicated surface level car parking for customers with approximately 80 car parking spaces, whilst the Somerfield store to the west of the centre has 140 car parking spaces for customers and other shoppers using the district centre and operates on a pay-and-display basis. Other car parking facilities in Gillingham include James Street (40 spaces) and Jeffery Street (40 spaces). Car parking is sign-posted from approach roads.
Public Transport
8.14 Gillingham railway station is located at the eastern end of the district centre. It is on the Chatham Main Line and direct services run to a variety of destinations including London Victoria, the other Medway Towns, Bromley South, Dartford, Faversham, Dover, Canterbury and Ramsgate. In December 2009 Gillingham is due to be served by fast trains operation from Ebbsfleet international to London St Pancras.
8.15 A number of bus services operate from Gillingham, connecting the centre to a variety of local destinations including Chatham, Twydall, Rainham, Maidstone, Walderslade, Sittingbourne and Lakeside. Bus stops are located at regular intervals around the Retail Core Area including at the railway station, Jeffery Street, Canterbury Street and Victoria Street.
Pedestrian Access and Movement
8.16 Given that the majority of the Core Retail Area is pedestrianised, movement around the district centre on foot is relatively unproblematic and safe for shoppers. Car
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 58
parking facilities and local transport nodes are well connected to the rest of the centre on foot. Although no pedestrian surveys were undertaken to inform this health-check, footfall appeared to be highest around the eastern end of the High Street and around the railway station, although footfall was reasonable throughout the centre. Pedestrian crossings are provided on the periphery of the district centre, including Jeffery Street, Victoria Street and Balmoral Street.
Environmental Quality
8.17 Streets in Gillingham are well maintained and generally clean. A wide variety of street furniture is provided which is well maintained and includes bins, benches, bicycle racks and public toilets. The western end of High Street is also tree-lined, and CCTV operates throughout. Occupied retail units are of good quality, with facades being well maintained and of good visual amenity. No graffiti or fly-posting was observed in Gillingham. Gillingham has no major issues with regard to environmental quality.
Eastern end of High Street (29/10/08) Western end of High Street (29/10/08)
Central High Street (29/10/08) Canterbury Street (29/10/08)
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 59
Summary of Gillingham’s Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths
• Good provision of convenience goods within the centre with a number of medium-sized national multiples including Aldi, Somerfield and Co-op in additional to independents traders and the bi-weekly market.
• A good range of service uses are available in Gillingham, with A1 and A2 services being greater than the national average.
• There has been recent investment in the centre, including a Wilkinsons and Sports Direct stores.
• A legible pedestrian environment and accessibility by a choice of means of transport.
• Environmental quality around the centre is generally good.
Weaknesses
• The proportion of comparison retailers in Gillingham is below the national average, although this is not unexpected given the role of the centre in the sub- regional shopping hierarchy.
• The proximity of Gillingham to Chatham may prevent difficulties in defining the role for the centre and encourage higher order retailers.
• The proportion of A3 and A5 services in the centre is lower than the national average.
• Vacant units in the centre appear to be above the national average in terms of the proportion of total retail units for which they account.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 60
9.0 HEMPSTEAD VALLEY DISTRICT CENTRE
Introduction
9.1 Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre is located in the south of Medway and is defined as a District Centre. It comprises a self-contained and privately managed shopping centre, solely consisting of national multiples and surrounded by free car parking facilities. Despite being a district centre, the nature of Hempstead Valley is unique in the Medway retail hierarchy. The boundaries of the district centre are tightly defined and comprise the shopping centre itself and the adjacent car parking facilities.
Figure 9.1 Hempstead Valley Goad Centre Plan
Source: Experian GOAD (July 2008)
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 61
Mix of Uses and Occupier Representation
9.2 Hempstead Valley District Centre’s key roles include:
• convenience shopping – the centre contains three convenience retailers which comprise Sainsbury’s, Holland and Barrett and Thornton’s. A food hall is also provided in the Marks & Spencer unit;
• comparison shopping – a wide choice of comparison retailers all of which are national multiples;
• services – a range of service retailers are present in Hempstead Valley although these are concentrated on the A1 retail service sector. Representation includes a number of travel agents, eating establishments and cafes;
• entertainment – The centre contains only one drinking establishment and no other entertainment facilities; and
• community facilities – a community hall.
9.3 Hempstead Valley District Centre has 60 retail/service units (excluding non-retail Class A uses). Table 9.1 sets out the mix of uses in Hempstead Valley District Centre, compared with the Goad national average. Comparison retailers dominate representation in the centre, accounting for 62.7% of units compared to the national average of 45.4%. As a result, all other uses in the centre are under-represented, with convenience retailers and all categories of services being below the national average, with the exception of A1 services which account for 11.9% of units compared to the national average of 10.6%.
Table 9.1: Hempstead Valley Use Class Mix by Unit
Type of Unit Number of Proportion of Total Number of Units (%) Units Hempstead Valley National Average* Comparison Retail 37 62.7 45.4 Convenience Retail 3 5.1 9.1 A1 Services 7 11.9 10.6 A2 Services 3 5.1 9.6 A3 and A5 8 13.6 14.3 A4 1 N/A N/A Vacant 1 1.7 11.0 Total 60 100.0 100.0 Source: Goad (Jul 08) * UK average relates to all town centres surveyed by Goad Plans (Nov 07)
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 62
Retailer Representation
9.4 Comparison retailers occupy 37 retail units within the Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre. Table 9.2 provides a breakdown of comparison shop uses by goods categories.
Table 9.2: Hempstead Valley Breakdown of Comparison Units
Hempstead Valley Type of Unit UK Average* District Centre Units % % Clothing and Footwear 11 29.7 27.4 Furniture, carpets and textiles 1 2.7 8.8 Booksellers, arts, crafts and stationers 4 10.8 9.3 Electrical, gas, music and photography 7 18.9 10.1 DIY, hardware & homewares 0 0.0 6.3 China, glass, gifts & fancy goods 0 0.0 3.7 Cars, motorcycles & motor access. 0 0.0 2.9 Chemists, drug stores & opticians 4 10.8 8.7 Variety, department & catalogue 4 10.8 2.0 Florists, nurserymen & seedsmen 1 2.7 2.2 Toys, hobby, cycle & sport 3 8.1 5.3 Jewellers 2 5.4 5.1 Other comparison retailers 0 0.0 8.2 Total 37 100.0 100.0 Source: Goad (Jul 08) * UK average relates to all town centres surveyed by Goad Plans (Nov 2007)
9.5 The status of Hempstead Valley as a destination for comparison shopping is highlighted by the range of comparison retailers represented. There is no representation whatsoever in the ‘DIY, hardware & homewares’, ‘china, glass, gifts & fancy goods’, ‘cars, motorcycles and motor accessories’ or the ‘other comparison retailers’ sectors, but above average representation of ‘clothing and footwear’, ‘electrical, gas, music and photography’, ‘variety, department & catalogue’, ‘toys, hobby, cycle & sport’, ‘booksellers, arts, crafts and stationers’, ‘chemists, drug stores & opticians’ ‘florists, nurserymen & seedsmen’ and ‘jewellers’ are all above the national average in terms of the proportion of units which they occupy.
9.6 Every occupied unit in the centre is operated by a national multiple retailer. Occupiers include:
• Argos; • New Look; • BHS • O2; • Boots • Principles; • Dorothy Perkins; • Superdrug; • Currys; • The Carphone Warehouse; • Game; • Wallis; and • JJB Sports; • WH Smith. • Marks & Spencer;
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 63
Service Uses
9.7 The district centre contains a fairly limited range of services. As shown in Table 9.3 below, of the services that are present the majority (53.3%) are occupied by ‘restaurants, cafes & takeaways’, which is above the national average (43.1%). The proportion of ‘travel agents’ (20.0%) is also significantly greater than the national average (4.9%). There is no representation from ‘estate agents & valuers’ whatsoever, with the representation of all other categories of services being below the national average. Only two retail banks are present in Hempstead Valley; Abbey National and HSBC.
Table 9.3: Hempstead Valley Analysis of Selected Service Uses
Type of Use Hempstead Valley UK Average* Units % % Restaurants, cafes & takeaways 8 53.3 43.1 Banks/other financial services 2 13.3 15.4 Estate agents and valuers 0 0.0 11.7 Travel agents 3 20.0 4.9 Hairdressers & beauty parlours 1 6.7 22.0 Laundries and dry cleaners 1 6.7 2.9 Total 15 100.0 100.0 Source: Goad (Jul 08) *UK average relates to all town centres surveyed by Goad Plans (Nov 2007) N.B. ‘Restaurants, cafés and takeaways’ does not include the 1 public house in the centre 9.8 Only one vacant unit exists in the centre, which equates to 1.7% of all retail units compared to the national average of 11.0%. This reflects strong demand for representation in Hempstead Valley.
Accessibility and Movement
Car Parking
9.9 The shopping centre is served by a number of free car parking facilities which are accessed off Hempstead Valley Drive and Sharsted Way immediately adjacent to the shopping centre. Over 2,000 car parking spaces are provided. It appears that the vast majority of shoppers who use Hempstead Valley arrive by private car, and that the shopping centre draws from a significantly larger catchment that the other defined district centres.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 64
Public Transport
9.10 Public transport access to Hempstead Valley is more limited compared to that available in the other district centres in Medway. There are no direct railway services with the nearest train stations being either Gillingham or Rainham. Four bus services serve the centre (numbers 132, 116, 113 and 114) which connect to Chatham, Gillingham and Rainham. There are direct pedestrian links to the bus stops.
Pedestrian Access and Movement
9.11 Pedestrian movement around the shopping centre itself is easy. The centre is purpose built, completely covered and pedestrianised. It is laid out in a legible manner with signage, maps and free guides available. Pedestrian crossings link the two main entrances to the shopping centre with the adjacent car parks. Pedestrian footfall was high throughout Hempstead Valley.
9.12 Notwithstanding this, pedestrian links to the surrounding residential areas are poor. Although pedestrian crossings and subways are provided to aid access to the shopping centre on foot from surrounding areas, these links do not appear to be well used and Hempstead Valley Drive and Sharsted Way, which encircle the shopping centre, are busy with vehicular traffic and present a barrier to unconstrained pedestrian movement.
Environmental Quality
9.13 In light of the centre being an enclosed space and privately managed, it is of good environmental quality. Hempstead Valley is inaccessible to the public outside of opening hours and, when open, is monitored by security guards and CCTV cameras. As such, there are no issues regarding vandalism, graffiti or fly-posting. Occupied units are all well maintained, with modern, bright frontages.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 65
Hempstead Valley access road (29/10/08) Entrance to Hempstead Valley (29/10/08)
Summary of Hempstead Valley’s Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths
• High representation of national multiples.
• Strong provision in the comparison goods sector.
• Ample free car parking facilities.
• Movement around the shopping centre on foot is easy.
• Good environmental quality.
Weaknesses
• Hempstead Valley does not provide the range of uses normally associated with a district centre. There are no independent traders present, it lacks representation from a range of convenience retailers or service retailers and has limited entertainment and civic functions.
• Although the centre is well served by car parks, accessibility by public transport could be improved.
• The centre is poorly linked to surrounding residential areas.
• Lack of vacant units may prevent new retailers from locating in the centre.
• Functions more like a free-standing retail destination rather than a district centre as defined in PPS6 terms.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 66
10.0 RAINHAM DISTRICT CENTRE
Introduction
10.1 Rainham District Centre is situated in the south-east of the District. The defined Core Retail Area comprises the purpose built Rainham Shopping Centre and the adjacent High Street and Station Road. It is clear that retail uses have expanded beyond the shopping centre boundaries as defined in the Local Plan. The area surveyed by Goad encompasses a wider area than that defined as the Core Retail Area.
Figure 10.1: Rainham Goad Centre Plan
Source: Experian Goad (May 2007)
Mix of Uses and Occupier Representation
10.2 Rainham District Centre’s key roles include:
• convenience shopping – including several newsagents and convenience stores, a baker, a butcher, a fishmonger, an off licence and a greengrocer. There is a Tesco Metro, an Iceland, a Premier and a One Stop, which are complemented by
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 67
a range of independent outlets;
• comparison shopping – a range of comparison goods are available in Rainham, which are dominated by independents units although branches of Boots, Lloyds Pharmacy, Stead and Simpson and Wilkinsons are present.
• services – including several high street national banks/building societies, estate agents, cafés, restaurants, takeaways, and hairdressers/beauty parlours;
• entertainment – including four public houses and a health and fitness leisure centre; and
• community facilities – including several doctor’s surgeries, a health centre, a veterinary practice, a social club, Council offices and a church.
10.3 Rainham District Centre has 119 retail/service units (excluding non-retail Class A uses). Table 10.1 sets out the mix of uses in Rainham, compared with the Goad national average. The proportion of retail units occupied by convenience retailers (10.4%) is greater than the national average (9.1%). The proportion of A1 services (16.5%) and A2 services (19.1%) are also well represented (compared to respective national averages of 10.6% and 9.6%). Conversely, the proportion of units accounted for by comparison retailers (37.4%) and A3 and A5 services (7.8%) are both below the national average (45.4% and 14.3%). The proportion of vacant units in Rainham (8.7%) is below the national average (11.0%).
Table 10.1: Rainham Use Class Mix by Unit
Type of Unit Number of Proportion of Total Number of Units (%) Units Rainham National Average* Comparison Retail 43 37.4 45.4 Convenience Retail 12 10.4 9.1 A1 Services 19 16.5 10.6 A2 Services 22 19.1 9.6 A3 and A5 9 7.8 14.3 A4 4 N/A N/A Vacant 10 8.7 11.0 Total 119 100.0 100.0 Source: Goad (May 07) * UK average relates to all town centres surveyed by Goad Plans (Nov 07)
Retailer Representation
10.4 Rainham had a total of 43 comparison retail units at the time of the Goad surveyed in May 2007. Table 10.2 provides a breakdown of comparison shop uses by goods categories.
Table 10.2: Rainham Breakdown of Comparison Units
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 68
Type of Unit Rainham UK Average* Units % % Clothing and Footwear 5 11.6 27.4 Furniture, carpets and textiles 6 14.0 8.8 Booksellers, arts, crafts and stationers 7 16.3 9.3 Electrical, gas, music and photography 1 2.3 10.1 DIY, hardware & homewares 2 4.7 6.3 China, glass, gifts & fancy goods 2 4.7 3.7 Cars, motorcycles & motor access. 1 2.3 2.9 Chemists, drug stores & opticians 6 14.0 8.7 Variety, department & catalogue 0 0.0 2.0 Florists, nurserymen & seedsmen 5 11.6 2.2 Toys, hobby, cycle & sport 1 2.3 5.3 Jewellers 2 4.7 5.1 Other comparison retailers 5 11.6 8.2 Total 43 100.0 100.0 Source: Goad (May 07) * UK average relates to all town centres surveyed by Goad Plans (Nov 07)
10.5 Every sub-category of comparison retailer is represented in Rainham, with the exception of ‘variety, department & catalogue’ stores which would not be expected within a centre the size of Rainham. Sub-sectors with particularly good provision compared to the national average include ‘florists, nurserymen & seedsmen’, ‘booksellers, arts, crafts and stationers’ and ‘furniture, carpets and textiles’. Conversely, representation in the ‘clothing and footwear’ and ‘electrical, gas, music and photography’ sectors are below the national average. As highlighted above, national multiple comparison traders in Rainham include Boots, Lloyds Pharmacy (two separate units), Stead and Simpson and Wilkinson.
Service Uses
10.6 Rainham District Centre has a good range of service uses, with all categories represented, as shown in Table 9.3. The centre has an above average representation of ‘estate agents and valuers’ and ‘hairdressers & beauty parlours’. The proportion of ‘restaurants, cafes & takeaways’, ‘travel agents’ and ‘laundries and dry cleaners’ are below the national average, with ‘banks/ other financial services’ being broadly comparable to the national average. Rainham contains five high street banks and two building societies, consisting of Barclays Bank, HSBC, Kent Reliance, Lloyds TSB, Nationwide, NatWest and Woolwich.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 69
Table 10.3: Rainham Analysis of Selected Service Uses
Type of Use Rainham UK Average* Units % % Restaurants, cafes & takeaways 17 37.0 43.1 Banks/other financial services 7 15.2 15.4 Estate agents and valuers 8 17.4 11.7 Travel agents 1 2.2 4.9 Hairdressers & beauty parlours 12 26.1 22.0 Laundries and dry cleaners 1 2.2 2.9 Total 46 100.0 100.0 Source: Goad (May 07) * UK average relates to all town centres surveyed by Goad Plans (Nov 07) N.B. ‘Restaurants, cafés and takeaways’ does not include the 4 public houses in the centre
10.7 There were 10 vacant units at the time of the Goad Survey in November 2007, which accounted for 8.7% of all units compared to the national average of 11.0%. These units were concentrated on the centres periphery areas on Station Road and High Street. National multiples in Rainham are predominately located in the Rainham Shopping Centre reflecting the larger, more modern premise available here compared with the rest of the centre which comprises older stock.
Accessibility and Movement
Car Parking
10.8 Rainham is served by a surface level car park off Longley Road adjacent to the Rainham Shopping Centre. This operates on a pay and display basis, and contains approximately 230 car parking spaces. An additional surface level car park with approximately 100 car parking spaces is situated off Orchard Street. There is a further 250 space car park serving the railway station
Public Transport
10.9 Access to Rainham by public transport is reasonable. Rainham Train Station is located to the north-east of the shopping centre on Station Road, approximately 10 minutes walk from the defined Retail Core Area. It is on the Chatham Main Line, and regular train services operate to the other Medway towns, London, Ramsgate and Dover amongst other destinations.
10.10 There are a number of bus stops located on Station Road and High Street. Eleven bus services operate through or adjacent to the retail area of Rainham, serving local
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 70
destinations in addition to London, Eltham, Dover Canterbury and London Victoria via the 007/022 service.
Pedestrian Access and Movement
10.11 The Rainham Shopping Centre is pedestrianised and well linked to the adjacent car park. The wider retail area on High Street and Station Road is open to vehicular traffic, and although this is frequent it is not particularly fast moving and pedestrian crossings, linked to traffic lights, are provided at suitable intervals. Pedestrian footfall appears to be highest within and adjacent to the Rainham Shopping Centre.
Environmental Quality
10.12 Generally environmental quality in the Rainham Shopping Centre and the High Street is good, although this is more variable along Station Road. St Margaret's Church and the surrounding area, which lies adjacent to the High Street/ Station Road junction, is designated as a conversation area in recognition of the visually amenity of this area, which is reflected in the nearby retail units. Rainham Shopping Centre is well maintained and contains a variety of street furniture, greenery and modern retail units, although there is chewing gum in the pedestrian area which would benefit from removal. Notwithstanding this, retailers along Station Road are of poorer quality with many being old outlets lacking in recent investment.
Rainham Shopping Centre (29/10/08) High Street- west (29/10/08)
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 71
High Street- east (29/10/08) Station Road (29/10/08)
Summary of Rainham’s Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths
• The proportion of convenience units in Rainham is above the national average, and provision in this sector includes a Tesco Metro and an Iceland.
• The centre contains above average representation of A1 and A2 services, and is considered to adequately perform its role as a district centre.
• Accessibility to the centre is reasonably good, and there is a large surface level car park that is well integrated.
• Movement around the centre on foot is unproblematic.
• There are a low proportion of vacant units in Rainham.
Weaknesses
• The provision of comparison retail units and A3 and A5 services are below the national average, although the centre does contain most key comparison retailers and services in this sector, including three pharmacies.
• Relatively low representation of national multiple comparison traders.
• Dominated by small retail units.
• Environmental quality in the centre is generally adequate in most parts although this does vary along the length of Station Road and is poor in places.
• Rainham may be more affected that most district centres in Medway by increased competition from other centres, given its relatively small retail sector and low proportion of national multiples.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 72
11.0 ROCHESTER DISTRICT CENTRE
Introduction
11.1 Rochester is an historic centre and the entire Core Retail Area falls within a conservation area. It is a major tourist destination and this is reflected by the individual and unique character of the centre. Retailing in Rochester is concentrated along the length of the linear High Street. The centre contains an array of comparison, convenience and service traders which are dominated by independents, in addition to performing a number of civic functions.
Figure 11.1: Rochester Goad Centre Plan
Source: Experian GOAD (June 2007)
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 73
Mix of Uses and Occupier Representation
11.2 Rochester District Centre’s key roles include:
• convenience shopping – including four ‘bakers & confectioners’, four ‘grocers and delicatessens’, two CTN traders, two ‘greengrocers’ and two ‘off licences’. There are no small or medium sized national multiple convenience stores;
• comparison shopping – a range of comparison goods including many niche/ specialist traders;
• services – including a number of estate agents, cafés, restaurants, takeaways, retail banks and hairdressers/beauty parlours amongst other uses;
• entertainment – Rochester is a nightlife destination and contains a high number of public houses and bars together with the Medway Little Theatre. Rochester castle is adjacent to the Core Retail Area and the Guildhall Museum is on High Street; and
• community facilities – including a Tourist Information Centre, an Adult Entertainment Centre, a library, a dental surgery, a doctor’s surgery, a number of halls, Rochester Cathedral and Council offices.
11.3 Rochester District Centre has 183 retail/service units (excluding non-retail Class A uses) as set out in Table 11.1. The proportion of convenience retail units, A1 services and A2 services are all above the national average, whilst the proportion of comparison retail units and A3 and A5 services are all below the national average. The proportion of vacant units in Rochester is marginally above the national average. In addition to this retail provision, an open market is held adjacent to the shopping centre boundary every Friday.
Table 11.1: Rochester District Centre Use Class Mix by Unit
Type of Unit Number of Proportion of Total Number of Units (%) Units Rochester National Average* Comparison Retail 61 36.3 45.4 Convenience Retail 16 9.5 9.1 A1 Services 20 11.9 10.6 A2 Services 28 16.7 9.6 A3 and A5 23 13.7 14.3 A4 15 N/A N/A Vacant 20 11.9 11.0 Total 183 100.0 100.0 Source: Goad (Jun 07) * UK average relates to all town centres surveyed by Goad Plans (Nov 07)
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 74
Retailer Representation
11.4 Rochester has 61 comparison shops which show some difference in composition compared to the national average for town centres. The centre has no representation whatsoever in the ‘car, motorcycles & motor accessories’ and ‘variety, department & catalogue’ sub-sectors. A number of sub-sectors are well above the national average including ‘booksellers, arts, crafts and stationers’, ‘DIY, hardware & homewares’ and ‘other comparison retailers’, with the latter category mainly attributable to there being some eight charity shops located in Rochester. Table 11.2 provides a breakdown of comparison shop uses by goods categories.
Table 11.2: Rochester District Centre Breakdown of Comparison Units
Type of Unit Rochester UK Average* Units % % Clothing and Footwear 10 16.4 27.4 Furniture, carpets and textiles 6 9.8 8.8 Booksellers, arts, crafts and stationers 11 18.0 9.3 Electrical, gas, music and photography 4 6.6 10.1 DIY, hardware & homewares 7 11.5 6.3 China, glass, gifts & fancy goods 3 4.9 3.7 Cars, motorcycles & motor access. 0 0.0 2.9 Chemists, drug stores & opticians 1 1.6 8.7 Variety, department & catalogue 0 0.0 2.0 Florists, nurserymen & seedsmen 3 4.9 2.2 Toys, hobby, cycle & sport 3 4.9 5.3 Jewellers 4 6.6 5.1 Other comparison retailers 9 14.8 8.2 Total 61 100.0 100.0 Source: Goad (Jun 07) * UK average relates to all town centres surveyed by Goad Plans (Nov 2007)
11.5 There are very few national multiples in the comparison goods sector, with the vast majority of retailers being independents. Many of these shops appear to cater for tourists or serve specialist sectors such as antiques and art shops. This gives the centre a unique retail offer which is not comparable to any other centre, although there may be a need to provide more comparison traders who cater for local residents: for example there is only one chemist in the centre.
Service Uses
11.6 Rochester District Centre has a reasonable range of service uses, with all categories represented, as shown in Table 11.3. ‘Estate agents and valuers’ are particularly well represented, accounting for 27.6% of all units compared to the national average of 11.7%. ‘Hairdressers & beauty parlours’ are marginally above the national average in terms of the proportion of units for which they account, however all other sub-
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 75
categories of service uses are under-represented when compared to the national average.
Table 11.3: Rochester District Centre Analysis of Selected Service Uses
Type of Use Rochester UK Average* Units % % Restaurants, cafes & takeaways 23 39.7 43.1 Banks/other financial services 4 6.9 15.4 Estate agents and valuers 16 27.6 11.7 Travel agents 1 1.7 4.9 Hairdressers & beauty parlours 13 22.4 22.0 Laundries and dry cleaners 1 1.7 2.9 Total 58 100.0 100.0 Source: Goad (Jun 07) *UK average relates to all town centres surveyed by Goad Plans (Nov 2007) N.B. ‘Restaurants, cafés and takeaways’ does not include the 15 drinking establishments in the centre
11.7 There are four high street banks represented within Rochester District Centre which comprise NatWest, HSBC, Lloyds TSB and Barclays. In addition to Class A service uses Rochester has several other non-retail uses including a dental surgery, a doctor’s surgery, a post office (within the chemist store), a car showroom and a vehicle garage. In addition, Rochester has a strong night-time economy with 15 drinking establishments.
11.8 There are 20 vacant retail units in the centre, which account for 11.9% of total units compared to a national average of 11.0%. Vacant units are concentrated along the periphery of the centre along Corporation Street and at the southern end of the centre around the Eastgate, High Street, Victoria Street and Star Hill junction. Vacant units on Corporate Street are of poor quality.
Accessibility and Movement
Car Parking
11.9 The largest car park serving the district centre is situated off Corporation Street on the site of the open market and contains 176 parking spaces, although this is not available for parking on Fridays when the market is site on this area. Other public car parks in Rochester include Blue Board Lane (120 spaces), Northgate (83 spaces), The Terrace (32 spaces), Almon Place (25 spaces), Boley Hill (23 spaces) and High Street (21 spaces). Car parking is sign-posted from approach roads, and operates on a pay and display basis.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 76
Public Transport
11.10 Rochester train station is located to the south-east of the Core Retail Area within easy walking distance. The station is located on the Chatham Mainline and provides direct assess to central London, Gillingham, Dover, Ramsgate, Canterbury and the other Medway towns. The centre does not contain a bus station, although bus stops are provided at regular intervals along Corporation Street and provide adequate access to the shopping area. Buses connect to local shopping destinations including Chatham, Gravesend, Maidstone, Gillingham, Bluewater and Lakeside.
Pedestrian Access and Movement
11.11 High Street is open to vehicular traffic although this is very infrequent and slow moving. A one-way system is in operation meaning that there are no conflicts between pedestrians and vehicular traffic in Rochester. High Street itself is well paved and incorporates lowered curbs were appropriate to aid movement on foot, which is particularly beneficial for those who are mobility impaired, although the pavement can be narrow in places. Pedestrian signage is provided.
11.12 Notwithstanding the above, along the periphery of the centre the two-lane Corporation Street is busy with vehicular traffic which does not provide a pleasant environment for those walking adjacent to it. It is necessary to cross this major arterial route to reach either the station or the Rochester open market area and car park, although pedestrian crossings linked to traffic lights are provided.
Environmental Quality
11.13 The environmental quality of Rochester is excellent, given the historical nature of the Retail Core Area and the conversation area status that it has. Units are all individual and well-maintained, and a variety of building styles and ages are visible when walking around the centre, giving Rochester a unique character. Streets are well maintained and traditionally styled, with street furniture including lighting, CCTV cameras, benches and bins. Retail units are predominantly three-storey with upper floors appearing to be used for residential and storage purposes. As discussed above, the busy nature of Corporation Street does detract from the environmental quality within the vicinity, although this does not affect the High Street area. Notable historic buildings visible from the High Street include the Castle and the Cathedral.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 77
Eastgate (29/10/08) Retail unit on High Street (29/10/08)
Rochester Cathedral (29/10/08) High Street (29/10/08)
Summary of Rochester District Centre’s Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths
• Rochester is an historical district centre and attracts tourists from a wide geographical area which bolsters the retail sector.
• The proportion of units in convenience retail, A1 and A2 service use are above the national average, and it contains a popular weekly market.
• The centre contains a strong independent sector, and is able to provide a unique shopping experience including many specialist traders.
• Environmental quality in the district centre is excellent.
• Rochester has a strong night-time economy including a high number of drinking establishments in addition to a theatre.
• It is easily accessible be private car or by public transport. The centre provides a safe and attractive environment for shoppers.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 78
Weaknesses
• The centre does not contain a small or medium-sized convenience store which should be a feature of district centres as defined by PPS6. Provision of such a facility would be beneficial to the retail sector and the overall health of the centre.
• The proportion of comparison retail units is below the national average, although we recognise that additional provision in this sector is provided by the weekly market.
• The centre contains very few national multiples.
• Vacant units are above the national average, with these being concentrated on periphery areas.
• Corporation Street is a busy with heavy traffic, which presents a barrier to pedestrian movement and creates associated noise and fume externalities in the vicinity.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 79
12.0 STROOD DISTRICT CENTRE
Introduction
12.1 The retail offer of Strood comprises the defined Core Retail Area and the adjacent Strood Retail Park. Although they are separated in planning policy terms, they effectively function as a connected centre and are viewed as such here, given that Goad survey includes both areas as part of the Strood Town Centre Plan. Given the proximity and connectively of Strood District Centre and Strood Retail Park they do function as a single attractor.
12.2 The Core Retail Area comprises the retail units along High Street, North Street and the surrounding area, with the retail units at Strood Retail Park being situated off Knight Road to the south of the Core Retail Area. The areas are separated by Commercial Road. In addition, there is a Tesco supermarket on Cuxton Road which falls outside the Core Retail Area boundary to the west. Smaller retailers units are situated on High Street, with the majority of the centres large retail unit provision provided in the Strood Retail Park.
Figure 12.1: Strood Goad Centre Plan
Source: Experian GOAD (Nov 2007)
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 80
Mix of Uses and Occupier Representation
12.3 Strood District Centre’s key roles include:
• convenience shopping – in addition to the Morrison’s, Tesco and Netto food stores (the latter having been developed since the Goad survey was undertaken). Strood contains two bakers, two fishmongers and a variety of other independent convenience traders. An Aldi store is under development in the centre;
• comparison shopping – a number of national multiple comparison retailers, including the recently opened Matalan and Wilkinsons, in addition to independent traders, supplemented by the bi-weekly market;
• services – a range of services including estate agents, hairdressers and beauty parlours, fast food and take-away outlets, cafes and restaurants and a Post Office;
• entertainment – several public houses are located in Strood; and
• community facilities – limited range although the centre does contain a place of worship.
12.4 Strood District Centre has 124 retail/service units (excluding non-retail Class A uses). Table 12.1 sets out the mix of uses in Strood, compared with the Goad national average in terms of unit occupancy. There is some variance of representation in Strood compared to the national average, with comparison, convenience and A3 and A5 uses being below the national average, but A1 services and A2 services above the national average. The proportion of vacant units is also above the national average.
Table 12.1: Strood District Centre Use Class Mix by Unit
Type of Unit Number of Proportion of Total Number of Units (%) Units Strood National Average* Comparison Retail 40 33.6 45.4 Convenience Retail 10 8.4 9.1 A1 Services 20 16.8 10.6 A2 Services 24 20.2 9.6 A3 and A5 11 9.2 14.3 A4 5 N/A N/A Vacant 14 11.8 11.0 Total 124 100.0 100.0 Source: Goad (Nov 2007) * UK average relates to all town centres surveyed by Goad Plans (Nov 07)
Retailer Representation
12.5 Strood District Centre has a total of 40 shops selling comparison goods. As shown in Table 12.2, the centre contains representation in all sub-categories of comparison goods with the exception of ‘china, glass, gifts and fancy goods’. There is also a
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 81
market in Strood every Tuesday and Saturday which offers further comparison goods provision.
Table 12.2: Strood District Centre Breakdown of Comparison Units
Type of Unit Strood UK Average* Units % % Clothing and Footwear 6 15.0 27.4 Furniture, carpets and textiles 6 15.0 8.8 Booksellers, arts, crafts and stationers 3 7.5 9.3 Electrical, gas, music and photography 3 7.5 10.1 DIY, hardware & homewares 5 12.5 6.3 China, glass, gifts & fancy goods 0 0.0 3.7 Cars, motorcycles & motor access. 2 5.0 2.9 Chemists, drug stores & opticians 4 10.0 8.7 Variety, department & catalogue 2 5.0 2.0 Florists, nurserymen & seedsmen 3 7.5 2.2 Toys, hobby, cycle & sport 2 5.0 5.3 Jewellers 2 5.0 5.1 Other comparison retailers 2 5.0 8.2 Total 40 100.0 100.0 Source: Goad (Nov 2007) * UK average relates to all town centres surveyed by Goad Plans (Nov 2007)
12.6 There is some differentiation between unit occupation in Strood and the national average. ‘Clothing and footwear’ retailers are particularly under-represented, accounting for 15.0% of all units compared to the national average of 27.4%, although ‘DIY, hardware & homewares’ account for 12.5% of units and ‘florists, nurserymen and seedsmen’ account for 7.5%, well above the respective national averages of 6.3% and 2.2%. ‘Furniture, carpets and textiles’ units are also particularly well represented. The Strood Retail Park is composed entirely of national multiples and comparison occupiers present comprise Matalan, B&Q, Next, Argos, Brantano and Carpetright. Other comparison multiples are also located in the Retail Core Area including Sports Direct and the recently opened Wilkinsons.
Service Uses
12.7 Strood District Centre has a wide range of service uses with all sub-categories represented. The proportion of units occupied by ‘estate agents and valuers’ is more than double the national average, with ‘banks/ other financial services’, ‘hairdressers & beauty parlours’ and ‘laundries and dry cleaners’ also above the national average. The proportion of ‘travel agents’ in Strood is comparable to the national average, with ‘restaurants, cafes & takeaways’ being comparatively lower than the national average. On balance, the centre contains an adequate range of service uses.
Table 12.3: Strood District Centre Analysis of Selected Service Uses
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 82
Type of Use Strood UK Average* Units % % Restaurants, cafes & takeaways 11 26.2 43.1 Banks/other financial services 7 16.7 15.4 Estate agents and valuers 10 23.8 11.7 Travel agents 2 4.8 4.9 Hairdressers & beauty parlours 10 23.8 22.0 Laundries and dry cleaners 2 4.8 2.9 Total 42 100.0 100.0 Source: Goad (Nov 2007) *UK average relates to all town centres surveyed by Goad Plans (Nov 2007) N.B. ‘Restaurants, cafés and takeaways’ does not include the 6 drinking establishments in the centre
12.8 High street banks and building societies which are located in Strood comprise Barclays Bank, Halifax, Lloyds TSB, HSBC, NatWest, Kent Reliance and Nationwide. In addition to Class A service uses the centre contains a number of car showrooms, car mechanics, petrol filling stations and offices.
12.9 Vacant units in Strood appear to be marginally above the national average, accounting for 11.8% of all retail units against the national average of 11.0%. However, there has been some change in the retail landscape since the Goad survey was undertaken in November 2007, with Netto and Wilkinsons now occupying the former Safeway unit on High Street, and two new build units at the Strood Retail Park, either side of the Matalan, which are currently unfilled. Vacant units are scattered throughout the centre with no particular concentrations evident.
Accessibility and Movement
Car Parking
12.10 There are a number of surface level car parks in Strood. The Morrisons supermarket has an associated car park with 400 parking spaces, with the Strood Retail Park offering a further 300 parking spaces. The Netto/ Wilkinsons stores and the Tesco supermarket have dedicated car parking facilities adjacent. Elsewhere, the car park on Commercial Road has 100 spaces which are available on non-market days and parking is available in the 300 space Council car park off High Street at weekends and on public holidays. There is a 90 space car park off Commercial Road.
Public Transport
12.11 A number of bus routes operate through Strood, with bus stops present on Commercial Road, Knight Road, High Street and North Street although these are not
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 83
particularly numerous. Bus services operate to Chatham and the other Medway towns, the Hoo peninsular, Gravesend, Bluewater and Lakeside amongst other destinations.
12.12 Strood railway station is located to the north-east of the Core Retail Area on Station Road, at a distance of approximately 300m. It is on the North Kent Line and is the terminus of the Medway Valley Line. Trains connect to Central London, Gillingham, Maidstone, Woolwich Arsenal and Greenwich, and the line is due to be connected by a high speed rail link to London St Pancras in December 2009.
Pedestrian Access and Movement
12.13 Pedestrian movement around Strood is not easy, and the separate areas of the centre do feel disjointed. The High Street itself is busy with vehicular traffic and is frequently gridlocked due to the backing-up of traffic from the traffic lights at the Station Road/ High Street junction. This presents a barrier to pedestrian movement in the area and detracts from the pedestrian shopping experience although pedestrian crossings are provided. Commercial Road is also busy with traffic but this is generally free-flowing and linkages between Strood Retail Park and the Core Retail Area are stronger than linkages elsewhere in the centre, and footfall appeared to be highest along Tolgate Lane which links these two areas. The Tesco store on Cuxton Road is not well linked on foot to the rest of the centre and effectively functions as a separate entity.
Environmental Quality
12.14 The heavy vehicular traffic which runs through Strood causes associated externalities of noise and fumes effecting shoppers using the High Street and detracts from the amenity of the centre. The quality of occupied units along High Street is variable, with some being well maintained and others being of poorer quality, with run-down frontages and some boarded up properties. The Strood Retail Park comprises modern units and these are generally well maintained, but most other retail units in the centre are older properties with differing appearances. There are a number of derelict sites, buildings and workshops around the centre. We note that the public open space at the North Street/ High Street junction does contain some public art and a variety of street furniture, which is beneficial to the streetscape.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 84
High Street west (29/10/08) High Street east (29/10/08)
Strood Retail Park Tolgate Lane
Summary of Strood District Centre’s Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths
• The centre contains a good range of comparison, convenience and service uses and adequately performs its role as a district centre.
• A high number of national multiples are present in the centre, including Tesco, Morrisons, Netto, B&Q and Next which serve as key attractors.
• A range of unit sizes are present in the centre.
• Recent investment has occurred in the centre including the Netto, Wilkinsons and Matalan units, with an Aldi store currently under development. This reflects positively on the trading prospects of the centre.
• Vacant sites in the centre offer opportunities for the future expansion or consolidation of Strood’s retail sector.
Weaknesses
• The proportion of comparison and convenience units in Strood is below the national average, as are the proportion of A3 and A5 units.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 85
• Vacancies appear to be slightly above the national average.
• The presence of several busy roads through the centre creates barriers to pedestrian movement and causes associated externalities of noise, fumes and pollution.
• The centre does feel disjointed and linkages between different areas should be improved.
• Environmental quality in the centre is variable.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 86
13.0 THE NEED FOR NEW RETAIL DEVELOPMENT
Introduction
13.1 This section assesses the quantitative and qualitative scope for new retail floorspace in Medway in the period from 2008 to 2026. It sets out the methodology adopted for this analysis and provides a quantitative capacity analysis in terms of levels of spending for convenience and comparison shopping. A qualitative assessment of the range and scale of existing shopping facilities has been undertaken.
13.2 All monetary values expressed in this analysis are at 2007 prices, consistent with Experian’s base year expenditure figures for 2007. Expenditure data for 2008 is not currently available and 2007 is the most up to date information.
Methodology and Data
13.3 The quantitative analysis is based on a defined study area that covers Medway authority (covered by study area zones 1 to 5) together with the neighbouring authorities of Gravesham, Tonbridge & Malling, Maidstone and Swale. The study area is sub-divided into 8 zones as explained in Section 5.0.
13.4 The study area is based on postcode area boundaries. The extent of the study area is based on survey information from the DTZ Medway Retail Study and reflects the proximity of competing shopping destinations, i.e. shopping facilities within the Medway are expected to attract their trade from residents within the study area and there will be a minimal level of trade drawn from beyond the study area (i.e. Zones 1- 8).
13.5 The level of available expenditure to support retailers is based on first establishing per capita levels of spending for the study area population. Experian’s local consumer expenditure estimates for comparison and convenience goods for each of the study area zones for the year 2007 have been obtained.
13.6 Experian’s latest national expenditure projections have been used to forecast expenditure within the study area. Unlike previous expenditure growth rates provided by The Data Consultancy (formerly URPI), which were based on past trends, Experian’s projections are based on an econometric model of disaggregated consumer spending. This model takes a number of macro-economic forecasts
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 87
(chiefly consumer spending, incomes and inflation) and uses them to produce forecasts of disaggregated consumer spending volumes, prices and value. The model incorporates assumptions about income and price elasticities.
13.7 Experian’s EBS (Experian Business Strategy) growth rates have been adopted, 0.3% per annum for convenience goods and 3.7% per annum for comparison goods.
13.8 To assess the capacity for new retail floorspace, penetration rates are estimated for shopping facilities within the study area. The assessment of penetration rates are based on a range of factors but primarily information gathered through the household survey.
13.9 The total turnover of shops within the study area is estimated based on penetration rates. These turnover estimates are then compared to average company benchmark or average sales floorspace densities derived from Verdict information and Mintel’s Retail Rankings 2008, which provides an indication of how individual retail units and centres are performing against expected turnover averages. This allows the identification of potential surplus or deficit capacity for retail sales floorspace.
Population and Spending
13.10 The study area population for 2008 to 2026 is set out in Tables 1B in Appendix B. Experian provides population estimates for each of the survey zones at 2001 based on Census data. These have been projected forward between 2001 and 2008 based on Medway Council’s ward level projections for zones 1 to 5. For other zones in neighbouring authorities ONS population projections have been adopted. Two population growth scenarios have been tested for Medway to provide baseline population projection and higher estimates based on revised figures assuming the latest completions and predicted phasing of development.
13.11 On this basis, the population within the study area is expected to increase between 2001 and 2026 by 13%, based on the baseline growth figures, or 14.7% based on the higher projections. There are significant variations between individual zones, however, based on the different ward-level projections. For example the population in Zone 3 (Gillingham) is anticipated to increase by 25%, with much lower growth in Zone 4 (Rainham/Hempstead) with 4% growth.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 88
13.12 Table 2B in the Appendix B sets out the forecast growth in spending per head for convenience goods within each zone in the study area up to 2026. Comparison forecasts of per capita spending are shown in Table 1C in Appendix C.
13.13 The Experian expenditure growth forecasts (0.3% and 3.7% for convenience and comparison goods) are much lower than the trend line growth rates, which range from 0.7% to 1.1% for convenience goods and 4.8% to 6.1% for comparison goods. We believe Experian’s lower growth forecasts better reflect the likely impact of the current economic downturn, and represent a more reliable framework for planning purposes. It should also be noted that the growth rates adopted are average growth rates over future years. It is possible that actual growth rates of the next few years will be lower than this average, but higher growth should be achieved during the economic recovery.
13.14 The levels of available spending are derived by combining the population in Table 1B per capita spending figures in Tables 2B and 1C. For both comparison and convenience spending, a reduction has been made for special forms of trading such as mail order, e-tail (non-retail businesses) and vending machines.
13.15 Special Forms of Trading (SFT) and non-store activity is included within Experian’s Goods Based Expenditure (GBE) estimates. “Special forms of trading” includes other forms of retail expenditure not spent in shops e.g. mail order sales, some internet sales, vending machines, party plan selling, market stalls and door to door selling. SFT needs to be excluded from retail assessments because it relates to expenditure not spent in shops and does not have a direct relationship to the demand for retail floorspace. The growth in home computing, Internet connections and interactive TV may lead to a growth in home shopping and may have effects on retailing in the high street. Experian provides projections for special forms of trading and E-tailing (Retail Planner Briefing Note 6.0 – October 2008).
13.16 This Experian information suggests that non-store retail sales in 2008 is:
• 5.9% of convenience goods expenditure; and • 11.3% of comparison goods expenditure.
13.17 Experian predicts that these figures will increase to 8.1% and 13.9% by 2016. For convenience expenditure 5.8% of the 5.9% is estimated to be E-tailing, and the rest 0.1% is other forms of SFT e.g. mail order. E-tailing in 2004 was broken down into E- tailing through retail businesses (e.g. Tesco and Sainsbury) at 1.1% and non-retail
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 89
businesses (0.5%). The E-tailing split for retail and non-retail businesses was approximately 70:30 in 2004.
13.18 For comparison expenditure in 2008, 9.1% of the 11.3% is estimated to be E-tailing, and the rest 2.2% is other forms of SFT e.g. mail order. E-tailing through retail businesses (e.g. Next and Argos) was 1.3% and for non-retail businesses 1.8% (e.g. Amazon) in 2004. The E-tailing split for retail and non-retail businesses was approximately 40:60 in 2004.
13.19 Experian provide projections for E-tailing and other SFT. These projections have been used to exclude expenditure attributed to e-tailing through non-retail businesses, which will not directly impact on the demand for retail floorspace. Based on Experian data SFT (including non-retail e-tailing but excluding e-tail through retail businesses) is 1.8% and 7.7% of total convenience and comparison goods expenditure respectively in 2008. The projections provided by Experian suggest that these percentages could increase to 2.8% and 8.9% by 2016. The amount of e-tail expenditure through non-retail businesses is expected to increase significantly in proportional terms, but as a proportion of total expenditure this sector is expected to remain relatively insignificant for the foreseeable future.
13.20 Home/electronic shopping has also emerged with the increasing growth in the use of personal computers and the Internet. Trends within this sector may well have implications for retailing. Therefore, it will be necessary to carefully monitor the growth within this sector particularly in the long term and the effect that it may have on diverting expenditure that might otherwise be spent in shops.
13.21 In broad terms, home/electronic shopping from non-retail businesses is classified by Experian as “special forms of trading”, as mentioned previously, this includes other forms of retail expenditure not spent in shops e.g. mail order. Special forms of trading have been excluded from the quantitative capacity analysis within this study because this expenditure does not affect the need for retail floorspace. The growth in home computing, Internet connections and interactive TV may lead to a growth in home shopping and may have effects on retailing in the high street. This study makes an allowance for future growth in e-tailing based on Experian projections. It will be necessary to monitor the amount of sales attributed to home shopping in the future in order to review future policies and development allocations.
13.22 On-line shopping has experienced rapid growth since the late 1990s but in proportional terms the latest available data suggests it remains an insignificant
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 90
percentage of total retail expenditure. Recent trends suggest continued strong growth in this sector. However, there is still uncertainty about its longer-term prospects. Experian’s figures suggest that the growth in e-tailing has to a certain extent been at the expense of other forms of home shopping such as catalogue and mail order shopping.
13.23 The implications on the demand for retail space are unclear. For example, some retailers operate on-line sales from their traditional retail premises e.g. food store operators. Therefore, growth in on-line sales may not always mean there is a reduction in the need for retail floorspace. Given the uncertainties relating to internet shopping and the likelihood that it will increase in proportional terms, this assessment has adopted relatively cautious growth projections for retail expenditure.
13.24 As a consequence of growth in population and per capita spending, convenience goods spending within the study area is forecast to increase by 18.1% from £1,255.13 million in 2008 to £1,481.83 million in 2026, as shown in Table 3B. If the higher population figures are adopted then expenditure is projected to grow by 19.7% between 2008 and 2026.
13.25 Comparison goods spending is forecast to more than double between 2008 and 2026, increasing from £2,197 million in 2008 to £4,713 million, as shown in Table 2C. These figures relate to real growth and exclude inflation. If the higher population figures are adopted then expenditure is projected to grow to £4,792 million by 2026.
Existing Retail Floorspace
13.26 Existing convenience goods retail sales floorspace within Medway is 52,277 sq m net as set out in Table 1A, Appendix A. This floorspace figures excludes comparison sales floorspace within food stores.
13.27 Comparison goods retail floorspace within Medway is estimated as 151,720 sq m net as shown in Tables 2A, Appendix A.
Existing Spending Patterns 2008
Convenience Shopping
13.28 The results of the household shopper questionnaire survey undertaken by NEMS in November 2008 have been used to estimate existing shopping patterns within the
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 91
study area. The estimates of market share or penetration within each study area zone are shown in Table 4B, Appendix B.
13.29 Table 4B indicates that a significant proportion of residents within Zones 1 to 5 carry out their convenience retail shopping within Medway (ranging from 90% to 95%), whereas in Zones 6 to 8 only a small proportion carry out their convenience retail shopping within Medway (i.e. less than 19%).
13.30 The level of convenience goods expenditure attracted to shops/stores in Medway in 2008 is estimated to be £457.19 million as shown in Table 5B, Appendix B. Medway’s market share of total convenience expenditure in the study area as a whole is estimated to be 36.4% (£457.19 million of £1,255.13 million). However, the market shares within the core Medway zones (1-5) average 94%.
13.31 Company average turnover to sales floorspace densities are available for major food store operators and are complied by Verdict. Company average sales densities (adjusted to exclude petrol and comparison sales and include VAT) have been applied to the sales area of the large food stores listed in Table 1A, Appendix A, and a benchmark turnover for each store has been calculated. This benchmark turnover is not necessarily the actual turnover of the food store, but it does provide a useful benchmark for assessing existing shopping patterns and the adequacy of current floorspace in quantitative terms.
13.32 The estimated convenience goods sales areas have been derived from a combination of Experian Goad data, the Council’s own floorspace surveys, Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD) and NLP estimates based on site visits. Estimates for comparison sales floorspace within large food stores has been deducted from the figures in Table 1A, for consistency with the use of goods based expenditure figures.
13.33 Average sales densities are not widely available for small convenience shops, particularly independent retailers. An average sales density for small shops/local stores in Medway of £4,000 per sq m net has been adopted. The total benchmark turnover of existing convenience sales floorspace within Medway is £400.53 million at 2008.
13.34 The assessment of shopping patterns, based on the household survey results, suggests that convenience goods expenditure attracted to Medway in 2008 is £457.19 million. These figures suggest that collectively convenience retail facilities in
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 92
Medway are trading well. The identified available expenditure is 14.1% (or +£56.65 million) above benchmark levels.
Comparison Shopping
13.35 The estimated comparison goods expenditure currently attracted by shopping facilities within Medway is £682.27 million in 2008, as shown in Table 3C, Appendix C.
13.36 Medway’s market share of total comparison goods expenditure generated within the study area is 31%. The market share within the core Medway zones (1-5) is 73%, and 27% is attracted to destinations outside of Medway, predominantly to facilities in Maidstone and at Bluewater.
13.37 The current level of comparison expenditure available to facilities in Medway is £682.27 million. Based on this expenditure estimate, the average sales density for existing comparison sales floorspace (151,720 sq m net) is £4,497 per sq m net. Mintel’s Retail Rankings 2008 provides company average sales density information for a selection of national retailers. This data suggests a notional average sales density for national comparison retailers (£5,220 per sq m). Based on our recent experience across the country average sales densities for comparison floorspace can range from £2,000 to £7,000 per sq m net. The higher end of this range is usually only achieved by very successful shopping centres, which reflects the higher proportion of quality multiple retailers.
13.38 The analysis of existing comparison shopping patterns in 2008 suggest the following average sales density figures:
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 93
Table 13.1: Defined Centres Average Sales Densities
Centre Average Sales Density 2008 £ per sq m net Chatham £5,334 Gillingham £6,441 Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre £10,150 Rainham £4,669 Rochester £4,990 Strood (incl. Strood Retail Park) £3,547 Dockside Shopping Centre £3,157 Freestanding Retail Warehouse Parks £2,773 Medway other (i.e. Local Shops) £3,391 Medway Average £4,497
13.39 On the basis of the above, comparison facilities in Medway are trading towards the middle and the lower end of the range of sales densities, with the exception of Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre. On balance shopping facilities within Medway appear to be trading satisfactorily. However, there is scope for existing facilities to increase their turnover efficiency in the future. A turnover efficiency growth rate of 1.5% per annum has been adopted for existing comparison facilities, as explained later in this section.
Quantitative Capacity for Additional Convenience Floorspace
13.40 The household survey suggests that Medway’s retention of convenience expenditure in the core catchment area (zones 1 to 5) is high, i.e. between 90% to 95%. The potential to claw back expenditure leakage from the core catchment area is limited.
13.41 The level of available convenience goods expenditure in 2011, 2016, 2021 and 2026 is shown at Tables 5B to 9B. These tables assume existing 2008 market shares will be maintained in the future. The total level of convenience goods expenditure available for shops in Medway between 2008 and 2026 is summarised in Table 10B. This table takes into account the population and expenditure projections shown in Table 1B to 3B in Appendix B. The benchmark turnover of existing convenience floorspace has been subtracted from the estimates of available expenditure to provide surplus expenditure estimates, as shown in Table 10B, Appendix B.
13.42 Convenience expenditure available to shopping facilities in Medway is expected to increase from £457.19 million in 2008 to £536.72 million in 2026.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 94
13.43 The following convenience goods commitments in Medway have been taken into account :
• an Aldi food store of 1,125 sq m net in Strood;
• an extension of the existing Tesco food store at Courteney Road (increasing the convenience sales floorspace by 558 sq m net;
• a Netto store in Strood of 910 sq m net opened in November 2008.
13.44 The expected turnover of these convenience floorspace commitments is set out in Table 3A at Appendix A. These commitments are expected to absorb only part of the existing convenience expenditure surplus expenditure in Medway. Future expenditure growth will generate an expenditure surplus of +£65.18 million in 2016 increasing to +£101.82 million in 2026.
13.45 These surplus expenditure projections have been converted into potential new floorspace estimates in Table 10B. Table 10B subtracts the benchmark turnover of existing and proposed floorspace from available expenditure to calculate the amount of surplus expenditure that may be available for further new development. Surplus expenditure in converted into floorspace estimates based on an assumed average sales density figure. The floorspace figures assume that 80% of the expenditure surplus will be accommodated within large food stores (at least 1,000 sq m net) with a new floorspace average sales density of £12,000 per sq m net (the national average for the four main operators i.e. Asda, Morrisons, Sainsbury and Tesco). The remaining 20% will be accommodated in smaller stores/shops with a new floorspace average sales density of £5,000 per sq m net.
13.46 Based on this assumption surplus expenditure at 2016 could support 4,249 sq m net of large food store sales floorspace and 2,550 sq m net of small store/shop sales floorspace as shown in Table 10B.
13.47 The estimated benchmark turnovers have been increased by 0.25% per annum to reflect floorspace efficiency increases. PPS6 indicates that retail studies should assess the potential for existing floorspace to increase its productivity in the future (para. 2.34). Historically limited or no growth in turnover density has been assumed by most retail planners for convenience floorspace. However, recent Experian information recommends a growth rate of 0.8% per annum (Source: Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note 6.0) for convenience goods. There are a number of reasons why we consider this figure is too high to be applied in studies of local catchment areas: LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 95
• Experian’s growth rate is based on past trends during the period 1986 to 2005. During this period convenience expenditure grew rapidly (about 1.1% per annum based on Experian’s medium term trend). However, Experian’s recommended expenditure growth rate from 2007 is much lower than this past average growth rate (0.3% per annum). Growth in turnover efficiencies and expenditure growth are likely to have been linked in the past and therefore it is unlikely that historic rate of growth in turnover efficiencies will be experienced;
• As Experian recognise, past growth in sales density will have been influenced by one-off changes such as the introduction of Sunday trading and significant increases in trading hours which are unlikely to be repeated to the same extent in the future;
• Experian’s historic analysis includes the effect of old floorspace being replaced and added to by more modern and efficient floorspace potentially with higher sales densities. The growth rate measured therefore is not simply an increase in sales density on a static stock of floorspace. At the local level our figures make specific allowance for changes in sales density that will arise from new commitments and proposals trading at modern sales density and a separate assumption is needed for the change in sales density on the stock of existing floorspace.
13.48 For these reasons, we consider a sales density increase rate significantly lower than Experian’s recommended rate of 0.6% is appropriate and we adopt a growth rate of 0.25% for convenience goods floorspace. We believe the reduction from 0.6% to 0.25% is robust and is if anything a conservative reduction given the factors listed above.
13.49 The convenience floorspace projections based on the baseline population projections are summarised in Table 13.2 below. The convenience floorspace projections based on the high growth population projections are summarised in Table 13.3.
Table 13.2: Convenience Floorspace Projections (assuming baseline population)
Time Period Large food store floorspace Small store/shop floorspace 2008 to 2011 3,280 sq m net 1,968 sq m net 2011 to 2016 969 sq m net 581 sq m net 2016 to 2021 1,119 sq m net 672 sq m net 2021 to 2026 1,070 sq m net 642 sq m net 2008 to 2026 6,439 sq m net 3,863 sq m net
Table 13.3: Convenience Floorspace Projections (assuming high population)
Time Period Large food store floorspace Small store/shop floorspace 2008 to 2011 3,760 sq m net 2,256 sq m net 2011 to 2016 1,847 sq m net 1,108 sq m net 2016 to 2021 1,035 sq m net 621 sq m net 2021 to 2026 656 sq m net 394 sq m net 2008 to 2026 7,298 sq m net 4,379 sq m net
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 96
Quantitative Capacity for Additional Comparison Floorspace
13.50 The household survey suggests that Medway’s retention of comparison expenditure is lower than for convenience goods, i.e. ranging from between 62% to 77% in the core zones (1 to 5). The lower level of comparison expenditure retention is due to the strength of competing comparison goods facilities in neighbouring authorities, particularly Bluewater and Maidstone.
13.51 The capacity analysis examines four scenarios. The first scenario assumes that Medway will maintain its current 2008 market share of expenditure in the future, adopts the lower baseline population projections. The second scenario assumes Medway can increase its market share of expenditure within the study area, again with the lower baseline population projections. The third and fourth scenarios adopt the constant market share and increased market share assumptions but with higher population growth projections. The increased market share scenarios assume that significant new comparison retail development will be completed during the period 2011 to 2016, and that this development represents a step change in the attractiveness of Medway as a comparison shopping destination. The second scenario assumes that Medway can increase its market share of expenditure within the core catchment area (zones 1 to 5) from 73.2% to 77.5%, and from 11.7% to 16.8% in the outer catchment area (zones 6 to 8).
Table 13.4: Comparison Scenarios
Scenario 1 Maintain current 2008 market share of expenditure in the future.
Adopt lower baseline population projection. Scenario 2 Increase market share of expenditure in the future
Adopt lower baseline population projection Scenario 3 Maintain current 2008 market share of expenditure in the future
Adopt higher baseline population projection Scenario 4 Increase market share of expenditure in the future.
Adopt higher baseline population projection
13.52 Major retail development in Medway, for example development proposals in Chatham could change existing shopping patterns and could reduce comparison expenditure leakage. Conversely improvements to comparison retailing in competing centres e.g. Gravesend, Bromley, Bluewater and Maidstone, may reduce Medway’s market share
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 97
of comparison expenditure. The strategy for Medway should seek to maintain existing market share as a minimum.
13.53 For scenario 1 (constant market shares and low population growth) available comparison goods expenditure has been projected forward to 2011, 2016, 2021 and 2026 based on 2008 penetration rates (i.e. assuming that comparison retail facilities will maintain their current market share) in Tables 4C to 7C in Appendix C, and summarised in Table 8C. Available comparison expenditure is expected to increase from £682.27 million in 2008 to £1,461 million in 2026. Scenario 2 (increased market shares and low population growth) is shown in Tables 9C to 13C. The high population growth scenarios (three and four) are shown in Tables 14C and 15C.
13.54 Available expenditure is compared within the estimated turnover of existing facilities, factoring in growth in floorspace efficiency.
13.55 Allowance is made for the turnover of existing comparison floorspace to increase in real terms in the future. Historically a growth rate of between 1% to 1.5% per annum has been widely adopted by retail planners. Trends indicate that comparison retailers historically will achieve some growth in trading efficiency. This is a function of spending growing at faster rates than new floorspace provision and retailers’ ability to absorb real increases in their costs by increasing their turnover to floorspace ratio. Allowing for this growth to be absorbed by existing retailers represents a cautious approach to forecasting future needs, and this allowance may help existing centres maintain their vitality and viability in the future. It effectively allows for existing retail outlets to increase their turnover to help them to compete with new provision.
13.56 Recent information provided by Experian in their Briefing Note 6.0 (Oct 2008) recommends a higher growth rate of 2.8% per annum based on historic trends. However, we believe this recommended range of rates is too high for application to this study, primarily for the following reasons:
• Experian’s growth rate is based on past trends during the period 1986 to 2005. During this period comparison expenditure grew rapidly (6.1% per annum based on Experian’s medium trend). It is uncertain whether there is scope for this change to continue at this rate and the forecast rate of growth in comparison expenditure. Growth in turnover efficiencies and expenditure growth are likely to have been linked in the past and therefore it is unlikely that historic rate of growth in turnover efficiencies will be experienced.
• Experian’s historic analysis includes the effect of old floorspace being replaced and added to by more modern and efficient floorspace potentially with higher
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 98
sales densities. The growth rate measured therefore is not simply an increase in sales density on a static stock of floorspace. At the local level our figures make specific allowance for changes in sales density that will arise from new commitments and proposals trading at modern sales density and a separate assumption is needed for the change in sales density on the stock of existing floorspace.
13.57 For these reasons we adopt a turnover efficiency of 1.5% per annum, slightly lower than the range recommended by Experian, and consistent with the top end of the range historically adopted by retail planners. An allowance for the existing following commitments and the re-occupation of vacant retail warehouses. Their estimated turnover (shown in Table 3A at Appendix A). The post commitments surplus expenditure projections have been converted into potential new floorspace estimates at the foot of Table 9C, based on an average sales density of £5,000 per sq m net for new modern floorspace, inflated by 1.5% per annum up to 2026. Commitments in Medway are expected to absorb expenditure growth up to and beyond 2011. Continued growth after 2011 could support the following new comparison sales floorspace. Table 13.5 shows the floorspace projections for the four scenarios.
Table 13.5: Comparison Floorspace Projections (Sq M)
Scenario 2008 to 2011 to 2016 to 2021 to 2008 to 2011 2016 2021 2026 2026 Scenario 1 -4,560 net 17,847 net 25,575 net 28,838 net 72,260 (Constant Market Share net and Low Population (-6,079 (23,796 (34,100 (38,451 Growth) gross) gross) gross) gross) (96,347 gross) Scenario 2 -4,560 net 34,940 net 28,163 net 31,751 net 94,854 net (Increased Market Share and Low Population (-6,079 (46,586 (37,551 (42,334 (126,471 Growth) gross) gross) gross) gross) gross) Scenario 3 -3,238 net 23,750 net 25,952 net 27,073 net 76,775 net (Constant Market Share and High Population (-4,317 (31,666 (34,603 (36,097 (102,366 Growth) gross) gross) gross) gross) gross) Scenario 4 -3,238 net 41,363 net 28,618 net 29,977 net 99,958 net (Increased Market Share and High Population (-4,317 (55,151 (38,158 (39,969 (133,277 Growth) gross) gross) gross) gross) gross)
The Qualitative Need for Retail Development
Food and Grocery Shopping
13.58 Most households tend to undertake two kinds of food and grocery shopping trips, i.e. a main shopping trip generally made once a week or less often and top-up shopping trips made more frequently. Many households will also undertake bulk food shopping
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 99
trips, particularly households who have access to a car for shopping. The availability of a wide range of products and free surface level car parking are important requirements for bulk food shopping trips. Large supermarkets or superstores, defined as over 2,323 sq m net or more (25,000 sq ft) in PPS6, are the usual destination for these types of shopping trip.
13.59 There are six food superstores with a net sales floorspace of over 2,200 sq m net within Medway, with four of the five main operators present (Asda, Morrison, Sainsbury and Tesco).
13.60 In addition to these superstores, there are six medium-sized food stores (i.e. between 1,000 and 1,400 sq m net) operated by Aldi, Co-op, Sainsbury, Somerfield and Tesco Metro. These larger food stores are supported by a good range of smaller supermarkets and convenience stores, as shown in Tables 1A. Medway offers both national multiple and independent food retailers.
13.61 The largest food stores are the dominant shopping destinations used by residents for main/bulk food shopping. Given the geographical spread of facilities, most of Medway’s residents are located within close proximity to a large food store. There is a reasonable food store provision in most of the main centres (i.e. Chatham, Gillingham, Hempstead Valley and Strood).
High Street Comparison Shopping
13.62 Medway has six main comparison shopping town centres, one designated as a City Centre (Chatham) and five designated as District Centres in the Local Plan (Strood, Gillingham, Rainham, Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre and Rochester). These centres are compared in Table 13.6 below.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 100
Table 13.6: Main Comparison Centres in Medway
Centres Number of Comparison Sales MHE Index Comparison Floorspace Score Shops Sq M Net Chatham 142 35,431 150 Gillingham 70 9,852 72 Hempstead Valley 37 10,740 84 Rainham 43 5,844 37 Rochester 61 6,671 19 Strood 40 17,858* 51 Sub-Total 393 86,396 413 Dockside Shopping Centre 35 9,280 31 Total 428 95,676 444 Source: Table 2A (Appendix A) and Table 4.1. *Includes Strood Retail Park
13.63 Table 13.6 suggests that Chatham is the main comparison shopping destination. Strood has a significant amount of retail floorspace (17,858 sq m net), but this figure includes Strood Retail Park on the edge of the centre, which accounts for about a third of the total floorspace. Hempstead Valley is the second comparison shopping destination behind Chatham, and in terms of turnover density is out-performing Chatham. Rainham and Rochester are much smaller centres in terms of comparison shopping.
13.64 These shopping centres within Medway are all located close to each other particularly Strood, Rochester and Chatham and their primary catchment areas overlap. The main centres collectively provide a reasonably good range of comparison shops (393 units with sales floorspace of 86,396 sq m net), including a range of national multiples and independent specialists. However the choice of shopping could be improved. Existing provision predominantly caters for the middle and lower end of the market, and caters poorly for the upper end of the market.
13.65 The identified City and district centres are supported by seventy four local, village and neighbourhood centres distributed across the authority. These centres contain a more limited range of multiple retailers and are dominated by independents. Collectively local centres in Medway contain a significant amount of comparison shopping (about 26,800 sq m gross – based on the Medway Council’s Land Use Survey).
13.66 Chatham has the best comparison shopping provision, but as indicated in Section 4 is under-performing in relation to competing centres outside Medway. Chatham is ranked below Gravesend and Dartford and is significantly below Canterbury, Maidstone, Tunbridge Wells, Maidstone and Bluewater as indicated in Section 4.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 101
The district centres are ranked below Chatham and are therefore ranked significantly below the larger centres in the South East. Many residents in Medway will travel to these larger centres particularly for higher order comparison shopping (i.e. fashion and high value comparison goods) and higher end retailers.
13.67 In our view comparison shopping provision in Medway is spread too thinly amongst a number of separate destinations, and lacks a critical mass of shopping facilities in one location. The absence of a dominant centre that can compete with larger centres in the sub-region has prevented a qualitative improvement in Medway’s comparison shopping offer. The Management Horizon analysis of the shopping hierarchy indicates that Chatham town centre (the largest centre in Medway) has an MHE Index score at least 40% lower than its main comparable competitors i.e. Maidstone and Canterbury. In order to compete more effectively with these centres a critical mass of at least 30,000 sq m gross of additional comparison retail floorspace could be required in Chatham.
13.68 Residents within Medway have reasonably good access to a range of high street comparison shopping destinations in neighbouring authorities, particularly Maidstone, Gravesend and Bluewater Shopping Centre. This is evident from the household survey results which show that a significant proportion of residents in the study area undertake shopping trips in these centres.
13.69 The results of the household survey indicate that a relatively high proportion of shopping trips from across the study area for clothing and footwear items are directed towards facilities outside of Medway. However the retention of lower order comparison shopping trips, e.g. for health and beauty items and other household goods within Medway is much higher.
Large Format Stores/Retail Warehouses
13.70 Medway is well provided for in terms of retail warehouse facilities. Retail parks, located outside of the defined centres, provide about 37,000 sq m (net) of comparison goods floorspace, or over 42,000 sq m (net) if Strood Retail Park is included. This accounts for about 28% of all comparison sales floorspace within Medway. These retail warehouse facilities offer a good range of comparison goods and are occupied almost exclusively by national multiples. There is extant planning permission for a further 14,430 sq m gross (12,265 sq m net assuming a net to gross ratio of 85%) of retail warehousing floorspace at Anthony’s Way in Strood.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 102
13.71 The DIY sector is well represented with the three main operators all represented, i.e. large B&Q superstore at Gillingham Business Park (11,672 sq m net), a Homebase at Horstead Retail Park (3,415 sq m net), a B&Q on Strood Retail Park (3,307 sq m net) and a Wickes at New Cut in Chatham (2,287 sq m net).
13.72 The furniture and carpets sector is represented at Gillingham Business Park, i.e. Harveys, Carpetright, Dreams, Land of Leather, MFI (still open at the time of survey), Allied Carpets, Magnet and Furniture Village. There is also a Carpetright at Horstead Retail Park and on Strood Retail Park. The electrical sector is represented at Horstead Retail Park i.e. Currys and PC World. There are three vacant retail warehouse units (total of 1,738 sq m net) available at Gillingham Business Park.
13.73 The household survey results as highlighted in Section 5 indicates that there is a relatively high retention of shopping trips for retail warehouse type goods such as DIY, electrical and other bulky goods items in Medway. Leakage from Medway for these goods is predominately to facilities in Maidstone.
13.74 Medway performs well with regard to shopping trips made for DIY and garden items and electrical goods retaining the majority of shopping trips. Retention of shopping trips for furniture items is reasonable, suggesting that Medway is well provided for in terms of these types of goods. There appears to be limited need for further retail warehouse development for the foreseeable future due to the extant planning permission in Strood and vacant retail warehouse premises.
Local Shops and Services
13.75 The existing provision of local shopping centres within Medway offers a balanced distribution of local facilities serving local communities. These facilities complement centres higher up the defined shopping hierarchy and have an important role in serving the day-to-day needs in their local areas. There are a total of seventy four local, village and neighbourhood centres within Medway. The local centres are adequately distributed around Medway, enabling all residents to be within easy reach of essential shopping facilities.
Occupier Demand
13.76 The floorspace capacity projections in this section indicate the theoretical scope for new development based on expenditure growth. It is also necessary to consider the potential level of demand from operators for new floorspace within Medway. Estates
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 103
Gazette Interactive (EGi) provides details of the number and type of national multiple retailers seeking representation in different centres across the UK.
13.77 In terms of Chatham at December 2008, EGi records only 8 operators seeking floorspace in the town centre or in edge-of-centre or out-of-centre locations. It should be noted that this only relates to operators with a specific interest in Chatham and excludes retailers with general national requirements for floorspace and those not included in the Goad categorisation of town centre use (e.g. public houses, bookmakers), and consequently the true level of demand for representation in the centre could be slightly higher. Nevertheless, current operator demand in Chatham is very poor for a centre of its size and this perhaps reflects the current economic downturn, with many operators postponing their expansion plans.
13.78 Gillingham, Rochester and Strood have similar numbers of requirements. For Rainham there is only one EGI retail requirement and Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre was not identified separately by EGi. Table 13.7 provides a summary of the operator requirements for each of the centres, see Appendix D for the full analysis.
Table 13.7: Summary of Operator Requirements
Centre Comparison Convenience Service* Units Max Units Max Units Max Floorspace Floorspace Floorspace (sq m) (sq m) (sq m) Chatham 4 4,181 2 3,809 2 463 Gillingham 4 3,810 2 3,809 4 8,650 Rochester 3 3,624 2 3,809 4 1,132 Strood 4 4,321 3 4,366 2 463 Rainham 0 0 0 0 1 93
*Includes A1 Service, A2-A5 and D1 uses
Conclusions
Convenience
13.79 The retail capacity assessment in this section suggests there is capacity for additional convenience facilities in Medway, taking into account commitments. In qualitative terms Medway appears to be well served by a choice of food stores and there are no obvious areas of deficiency within Medway urban area. The future priority may be to provide new convenience facilities to serve major new residential developments, where these development areas would not be adequately served by existing provision. The capacity projections suggests there is scope for about 6,800 sq m net
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 104
by 2016, which could be split 4,250 sq m net within large food stores (over 1,000 sq m net) and 2,550 sq m net in small stores/shop units (under 1,000 sq m net)5.
Comparison
13.80 In terms of comparison goods, the capacity assessment indicates that if implemented commitments should absorb the short term expenditure capacity up to 2011. The economic downturn may result in lower expenditure growth in the short term and this suggests a cautious approach should be adopted in the period up to 2011. In the longer term continued growth (population and growth in expenditure per capita) should generate capacity for new development, provided that Medway can as a minimum maintain its current market share of expenditure. There is scope for a qualitative improvement in higher order comparison shopping provision within Medway, which if implemented should help Medway to retain more comparison expenditure by increasing its market share in the future. This uplift in market share could be achieved if a critical mass of higher order shopping facilities is provided in one location, rather than a dispersal of facilities across a number of different destinations. As indicated earlier we believe at least 30,000 sq m gross of additional comparison retail floorspace would need to be provided in Chatham to create this critical mass, and would allow Medway to compete more effectively with Maidstone and Canterbury.
13.81 If Medway, as a minimum, can maintain its existing market share of comparison expenditure then there could be scope for about 18,000 sq m net (24,000 sq m gross) of additional comparison floorspace by 2016 (over and above commitments and the reoccupation of vacant retail warehouse units identified in Table 3A, Appendix A)6. This figure could be considered to be the minimum requirement, particularly if the Council’s development strategy seeks to enhance Medway’s market share of comparison expenditure and achieve a qualitative improvement in provision.
13.82 If increases in market share can be achieved during the period 2011 to 2016, through the implementation of high quality new development, then the capacity projection up to 2016 could be 35,000 sq m net (47,000 sq m gross), increasing to 63,000 sq m net (84,000 sq m gross) by 20217. This higher projection should only be adopted if the strategy seeks to enhance Medway’s role as a sub-regional and suitable development opportunities can be brought forward in Chatham City Centre.
5 See Appendix B, Table 10B 6 See Appendix C, Table 9C. 7 See Appendix C, Table 13C. LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 105
14.0 THE NEED FOR COMMERCIAL LEISURE / OTHER TOWN CENTRE USES
Introduction
14.1 This section assesses the need and potential for commercial leisure development and other main town centre uses in Medway. We have considered the potential for improving the provision of a range of commercial leisure uses including cinema/multiplex, ten pin bowling, bingo, nightclubs, private health and fitness clubs and catering, pubs and bars.
The Potential for Leisure and Entertainment Uses
Catchment Potential
14.2 In general, commercial leisure facilities will draw the main part of their trade from residents up to a 20 minutes travel time. Major leisure facilities such as multiplex cinemas, ten-pin bowling centres, ice rinks and family entertainment centres require a large catchment population, and often benefit from locating together.
14.3 Medway has a large catchment population. There are approximately 722,000 people within the defined study area, of which approximately 260,200 are within Medway. This catchment population also has good access to major leisure facilities in Maidstone, Gravesend and at Bluewater.
14.4 The choice of leisure facilities in surrounding areas means that Medway’s potential leisure related catchment population is less than the population of the study area as a whole.
The Cinema Market
14.5 Cinema admissions in the UK declined steadily during the 1950’s, 1960’s and 1970’s, a period when the ownership of televisions increased significantly. Cinema admissions continued to decline in the early 1980’s, but increased steadily after 1984 up to 2002. There was a peak in cinema admissions in 2002 at 175.9 million. The cinema industry reached a plateau in 2005 following a slight recovery in 2004 with a net gain of 24 operating screens (still a virtual standstill compared to the 100-200 screens added at the turn of the decade). Total admissions in 2006 were 157 million,
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 106
slightly lower than in 2005 (164.6 million) and significantly lower than in 2004 (171.3 million, 2.86 visits per person).
14.6 As the industry is now dominated by three main operators (Odeon, Cineworld and Vue), the emphasis is shifting from consolidation to physical expansion. This is the same for their two smaller rivals, The Showcase owned by National Amusements and the Ward Anderson group of companies which own Empire. Multiplex cinemas now dominate the market with over 70% of available screens in 2006.
14.7 Cinemagoing, a publication on cinema markets in the UK and Ireland by Dodona Research, forecast that total admissions would increase by about 10% between 2005 and 2009, an average growth rate of 2.5% per annum. Forecasts anticipated a net addition of 110 screens in 2006, 120 in 2007, 60 in 2008 and 60 in 2009. Compared to the last decade these figures represent a considerable slowing of growth, 2% compared to past growth of 5.5%.
14.8 Further to this, Cinemagoing forecast that by 2011 more than 300 screens will be added to the 3,440 operating in 2006. According to predictions in Cinemagoing, British cinema-goers will pay nearly £1.1 billion for cinema tickets in 2011, this is due to a strong upcoming film product, benefits from digital projection and a turn in the investment cycle to new cinemas.
14.9 There are currently two cinemas within Medway:
• Odeon, Leviathan Way, Chatham Maritime, Chatham (9 screens, 1,953 seats); and • UGC Cinema, Medway Valley Leisure Park, Chariot Way, Rochester (9 screens, 2,174 seats).
14.10 There is also a good provision of cinemas surrounding the Local Authority including a cinema in Maidstone and at Bluewater. The catchment area of any potential cinema facility in Medway will be restricted by the proximity of these facilities.
14.11 The household survey results indicate that 58% of respondents in the study area visit cinemas, of which a significant proportion visited the facilities within Medway (42%).
14.12 To assess the demand for cinema admissions within the study area, we have assumed that Medway could retain its existing share of cinema trips in the study area (about 42% as suggested by the household survey results). The catchment population has been converted into a total number of cinema admissions per annum based on the national visitation rate (2.8 per person in 2003). Visitation rates have
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 107
been projected based on a 2% growth rate per annum. The total number of cinema admissions has been converted into an optimum number of cinema seats, based on Dodona Research figures (300 visits per annum per seat). The results are shown in Tables 14.1 below.
Table 14.1 Cinema Potential in Medway
2008 2011 2016 2021 2026
Catchment Population 322,042 328,770 340,903 353,207 364,761 Visits Per Annum 3.09 3.28 3.62 4.00 4.41 Total Visits Per Annum 995,111 1,078,080 1,234,214 1,411,855 1,609,792 Optimum Visits Per Screen 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 Optimum Visits Per Seat 300 300 300 300 300 Screen Potential 13.3 14.4 16.5 18.8 21.5 Seat Potential 3,317 3,594 4,114 4,706 5,366 Existing Seats 4,127 4,127 4,127 4,127 4,127
14.13 The analysis suggests there is limited potential for cinema facilities in Medway in the short to medium term, based on the adopted study area market share of 42%. The existing provision is 4,127 seats which meets the theoretical potential up to and beyond 2016. However, in the long term there could be scope for a small to medium sized cinema in Medway.
Private Health and Fitness Clubs
14.14 The UK health club market expanded rapidly as public awareness about personal fitness has increased. Business in Sport and Leisure (BISL) 2008 indicates healthy growth across the industry with the Fitness Industry Report stating that by the end of March 2007, there were 5,714 combined public and private sector fitness sites across the UK, 3,117 private clubs and 2,597 gyms within public sports centres. Since 2006, 232 new facilities had opened. The total number of UK health and fitness members at public gyms and private health clubs is now over 7 million.
14.15 Nearly 12% of the population are now members of a private health club or registered users of a leisure centre gym in the UK, compared with just 8.9% in 2002 and this growth looks set to continue. An estimated 7.3% of the population being members of private clubs at March 2007 up from 7.2% since January 2006. However, the UK is still below the USA where the fitness membership rate is 15.6%.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 108
14.16 Private health clubs in the UK range from small independent clubs to large operators such as Cannons, David Lloyd, Esporta, Fitness First, Virgin Active, Bannatyne and LA Fitness.
14.17 Private health clubs had 4.2 million members in 2007 (1,375 members per club). The largest health clubs can have memberships of approximately 4,000 people. However, independent clubs remain a strong presence in the private sector market running 55% of all private clubs. Of the 126 new private health clubs that have opened since January 2006, 58% were independent clubs and 42% were owned by multiple operators. Public sector sports centres are also important, and the market increased significantly between January 2006 and March 2007, with 106 new facilities opened and in terms of like-for-like membership growth rates, the sector saw an impressive 4.6% growth.
14.18 There are a number of private health and fitness clubs in Medway, as follows:
• Lifestyles Health and Fitness, The Links, Chatham; • Rochester Health Club, Maidstone Road, Rochester; • Reflections Leisure & Spa, Bridgewood Manor Hotel, Walderslade Woods, Chatham • Fitness First, Snodhurst Bottom, Walderslade Road, Chatham; • Virgin Active, Medway Valley Leisure Park, Chariot Way, Rochester; • Spirit Health and Fitness, Maidstone Road, Chatham; • Rocko Health Club, Will Adams Way, Gillingham.
14.19 Three of the large national operators are represented in Medway, i.e. Lifestyles, Virgin Active and Fitness First. In addition to the private leisure facilities there are several local authority owned/subsidised sports facilities:
• Lordswood Leisure Centre, North Dane Way, Lordswood, Chatham; • Black Lion Leisure Centre, Mill Road, Gillingham; • Splashes Leisure Centre, Cozenton Park, Rainham; • Deangate Ridge Sports Complex (inc. Echoes Fitness), Dux Court Road, Hoo, Rochester; • Hundred of Hoo Leisure Centre, Main Road, Hoo, Rochester; • The Stirling Centre, Maidstone Road, Rochester; and • Strood Sports Centre, Watling Street, Strood.
14.20 Medway’s population is approximately 260,200 in 2008, which would generate demand for about 31,200 public and private membership places, based on the national average membership rate (12%) or 40,600 based on the US rate (15.6%). The household survey indicates that 23% of respondents or their families visit health/fitness clubs. Of these, approximately a third did so at destinations within Medway. It should be noted that not all members of the household will participate
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 109
and not all households will be members of clubs, and therefore the membership ate in Medway will be much less than 23%.
14.21 The 14 private/public gyms in Medway, assuming an average membership of 1,375 per club, could accommodate about 19,250 members. There could be scope for further facilities within Medway if national membership were achieved (12% generating 31,200 members in Medway). A future increase in membership rates and population growth could generate additional demand.
14.22 These figures suggest there could be scope for further health and fitness facilities within Medway particularly in the short to medium term (i.e. up to 2016) in line with the increase in population and possible growth in membership rates. The EGI retail requirements indicate that David Lloyd Leisure have a requirement for a facility in Gillingham.
Tenpin Bowling
14.23 Tenpin bowling grew rapidly in the UK in the 1960’s. However, the complex scoring system, lack of investment and the deterioration exacerbated a significant decline in the 1970’s. However, a resurgence of interest in tenpin bowling during the late 1980’s and computer scoring led to a second boom. There were 280 tenpin bowling centres (5,600 lanes) in the UK in 2004, approximately one lane per 10,000 people. The tenpin bowling sector experienced steady growth in the late 1990’s, with a 27% growth in spending during the last 10 years, although any real growth was mostly in the past four years. Mintel predicted the value of the tenpin bowling market would increase from £245 million in 2002 to £324 million by 2007.
14.24 Bowling centres now tend to be part of major leisure developments that include multiplex cinemas, restaurants and nightclubs offering a choice of leisure and entertainment activities.
14.25 Tenpin bowling centres require large buildings of between 2,300 to 4,200 sq m (25,000 to 45,000 sq ft) and are generally located in towns with a population of over 150,000 people.
14.26 Medway has two tenpin bowling facilities, the AMF at The Pentagon, Chatham, which has 16 lanes and a small facility at Lordswood Ten Pin Bowling and Snooker Centre at Newton Close, Lordswood. There are further tenpin bowling centres outside Medway including AMF Bowling at Maidstone (18 lanes) and Gravesend (24 lanes).
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 110
Residents in Medway have good access to the range of tenpin bowling facilities both within and outside Medway.
14.27 The household survey indicates that residents who visit bowling facilities in Medway mainly go to the AMF facility in Chatham. The household survey results suggest that about 25% of households in the study area visit tenpin bowling facilities. The population in Medway (approximately 260,200) is in theory capable of supporting 26 lanes, based on one lane per 10,000 people. The study area as whole could support about 76 lanes. AMF bowling already operates 58 lanes within the study area and further facilities at Whitstable and Ashford.
14.28 Due to existing provision within Medway and surrounding towns there may be limited potential for further tenpin bowling facilities within Medway. The EGi search did not record any requirements from ten-pin bowling operators seeking to locate in Medway.
Bingo
14.29 The bingo market peaked in the mid-1970s, with almost 2,000 clubs nationwide. Since then the sector has struggled to compete with other leisure activities, including the impact of the National Lottery. However, the decline has bottomed out and attendance figures have remained steady since the late 1990’s, and revenues and profits have started to increase.
14.30 Great Britain had 676 commercial bingo clubs in 2005, but in March 2007 this decreased to 643 commercial bingo clubs, approximately one club per 90,000 people. The amount staked on bingo had continued to rise in previous years but peaked in 2006 at £1,826 million and fell slightly in 2007 to £1,820 million.
14.31 Bingo clubs attracted 79 million admissions in 2005 (source: Mintel), about 1.75 admissions per adult each year. On average each club attracted 117,000 admissions in 2005 (about 2,250 admissions per week). The average participation rate (adults) was 6.9% in 2004 (source: Mintel), split 2.8% regular players and 4.1% occasional players. Mintel forecasts that admissions will decline from 79 million in 2005 to 68 million in 2010, although the average spend per head will increase from £26.90 to £38.40.
14.32 Mecca and Gala are the main bingo operators, controlling over half of the UK market. Marketing of the bingo sector has been more proactive in recent years and Gala and Mecca have invested in premises, moving out of dated premises (i.e. converted
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 111
cinemas), into purpose built units. Bingo clubs have become increasingly sophisticated, and have actively sought to attract all age groups.
14.33 The bingo sector usually prefers central locations that are accessible by public transport and by foot. Major bingo operators, such as Mecca and Gala, require buildings of between 2,000 to 3,000 sq m, capable of seating up to 2,000 people, with a catchment population of 50,000 to 70,000 people within freestanding towns (source: BISL).
14.34 Medway’s population (about 200,000 adults) could generate about 350,000 admissions based on the national participation rate (1.75 per adult), compared with the average of 113,000 admissions per club. These figures suggest that Medway could accommodate 3 bingo clubs. There are currently two bingo facilities in Medway, Gala Bingo on the High Street in Chatham and Gala Bingo on Chariot Way, Strood.
14.35 The household survey results indicate that only 5.5% of households in the study area visit bingo facilities, of which 35% visited the Gala Bingo Club in Strood and 20% visited the Gala Bingo Club in Chatham. The analysis indicates that there may be potential for an additional bingo facility in Medway in the short to medium term (up to 2016).
Nightclubs
14.36 The value of the nightclub market (permanent venue offering dancing in return for an admission fee) declined from £2.16 billion in 1998 to £1.77 billion in 2002 (source: Mintel - Nightclubs). There are approximately 1,700 nightclubs in the UK, approximately one per 30,000 people.
14.37 The sector has faced increasing competition from late night pubs and bars, with no admission fees. The BISL envisages a continued period of rationalisation and price competition with new challenges in the form of the smoking ban. However, the forecast trend of significant growth in the 18-24 year old age group is expected to provide a growing market.
14.38 Large nightclubs (capacity up to 2,000 people) are generally located in large towns with a population of over 100,000 people. The provision of nightclubs and live music venues in Medway is limited. There are four nightclubs in Medway, Amadeus
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 112
Nightclub in Strood, Casino Rooms Entertainment Complex and Aaron P Stones in Rochester and Preach Club Rooms in Gillingham.
14.39 The household survey results indicated that only 9% of households in the study area visit nightclubs or late night music venues of which 37% of these households last visit to a nightclub/live music venue was in Maidstone. Destinations identified within Medway included Rochester (15.4%), Gillingham (7.7%), Strood (5.5%) and Chatham (3.3%). Due to the limited current offer there could be potential in the short to medium term for additional nightclub or live music venues in Medway.
Casinos
14.40 Due to the changing nature of the casino market, with its proposed deregulation across the county, there is uncertainty to where casinos will be located in the future. Prior to deregulation operators could only obtain licences for casinos in specifically defined areas.
14.41 Operators now have to think in more detail about the catchment area of their casinos and the level of existing or future competition in a given area. From our knowledge of the casino market, key catchment areas will have to be within or in vicinity of a large centre such as a major town or city, with a drive time of approximately 30-40 minutes and as close to the centre of the catchment area as possible, with good transport links. The proximity of other established commercial uses will also be a key factor for operators when looking at locations for casinos.
14.42 There were 138 licensed casinos operating in Britain at 31 March 2007 with a further 40 casinos licensed, although some of these will be replacements for existing establishments. Attendance at casinos by members and guests increased by 8% from the previous year to over 15 million.
14.43 There are currently no commercial casinos in Medway. No specific catchment area population has been identified by casino operators. The main centres within Medway particularly Chatham may have a catchment population large enough to support a casino. As the market adjusts to deregulation, the locational requirements of casinos may evolve and become more clearly defined.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 113
Bars and Restaurants
14.44 On average households in the UK spent over £1,100 per annum eating and drinking away from the home in 2006 (source: Family Spending 2007).
14.45 Food and drink establishments (Class A3/A4/A5) including restaurants, bars and pubs have supported other major leisure uses on leisure and retail parks. Within town centres the demand for A3/A4/A5 uses has increased including a significant expansion in the number of coffees shops, such as Starbucks, Costa Coffee and Coffee Republic.
14.46 PPS6 (paragraph 2.22) indicates that:
“a diversity of uses in centres makes an important contribution to their vitality and viability. Different but complementary uses, during the day and in the evening, can reinforce each other, making town centres more attractive to local residents, shoppers and visitors. Local planning authorities should encourage diversification of uses in the town centre as a whole, and ensure that tourism, leisure and cultural activities, which appeal to a wide range of age and social groups, are dispersed throughout the centre”.
14.47 Paragraph 2.23 also indicates that planning policies should:
“encourage a range of complementary evening and night-time economy uses which appeal to a wide range of age and social groups, ensuring that provision is made where appropriate for a range of leisure, cultural and tourism activities such as cinemas, theatres, restaurants, public houses, bars, nightclubs and cafes”.
14.48 National branded pub/restaurant chains have been investing heavily, although not exclusively in larger centres. Many chains such as All Bar One, JD Wetherspoons and Yates Wine Bars have sought representation in smaller centres close to residential communities.
14.49 National information available from Goad Plans indicates that the proportion of non- retail uses within town centres across the country has increased over the last decade as shown in Table 14.2. The proportion of Class A1 retail uses in Goad town centres has decreased by 12% between 1994 to 2008 (7.2 percentage points), whilst non- retail uses including Class A2, A3/A5 and non-retail (service) A1 uses have all increased.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 114
Table 14.2: GB Goad Plan Town Centres Use Class Mix
% Proportion of Total Number of Units (%) Change Type of Unit 1994 to 1994 2000 2005 2008 2008 Class A1 (Retail) - 11.8 61.2 59.1 56.4 54.0 Class A1 (Services) + 42.0 6.9 8.2 9.6 9.8 Class A2 + 5.9 8.5 8.9 8.9 9.0 Class A3/A5* + 57.6 9.2 11.2 13.7 14.5 Miscellaneous + 30 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.3 Vacant & Under Const. - 20 13.2 11.2 10.1 11.4 Total - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Source: Goad Centre Reports *excludes Bars/Public houses (A4)
14.50 The number of bars and pubs continued to decline in 2006 according to figures produced by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and this was prior to the smoking ban. In 2006 there were 51,479 pubs and bars in England and Wales.
14.51 The Beer Orders in the early 1990’s saw a massive expansion of themed bar operators and pub restaurants, such as JD Wetherspoons. These outlets generally require a minimum 50,000 population and are usually located on main streets or secondary positions close to prime retail, commercial and other leisure users. Medway’s centres have a limited provision of themed bar operators. Operators usually require large premises of 250 - 1,500 sq m, in close proximity to public car parks and good transport links.
14.52 Themed restaurants also expanded rapidly in the 1990’s. These operators have located in out of centre retail/leisure parks as well as good secondary/primary high street locations. Fast food operators such as McDonalds and Burger King have expanded the number of drive through outlets, and town centre outlets. Outlets have been developed within retail/leisure parks or on busy roads. Outlets require sites of approximately 0.2 hectares. The EGi published requirements suggest that there is currently limited demand from Class A3 and A5 retailers looking to locate premises within Medway, with listed requirements only including the following national traders:
• Domino’s Pizza; • Pizza Hut; • Subway; • Starbucks Coffee; and • Strada.
14.53 As indicated in earlier sections of this report, the proportion of Class A3/A5 uses in the main centres in Medway is below the national average (14.3%), apart from in
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 115
Chatham (14.6%). The proportion of Class A3/A5 uses is significantly below the national average in Rainham (7.8%) and Strood (9.2%) and is only slightly below the national average in Gillingham (13.4%), Hempstead Valley (13.6%) and Rochester (13.7%).
14.54 The growth in Class A3 to A5 uses within town centres may continue in the future, and will compete for shop premises with other town centre uses. A balance between Class A1 and Class A3 to A5 uses needs to be maintained.
14.55 Future town centre development should provide additional space for these uses as well as Class A1 retail. The development strategy for Medway should make provision for these uses and an allowance of 10% to 15% of new floorspace for Class A3 to A5 uses may be appropriate.
Theatres
14.56 The household survey indicated that 46.2% of respondents in the study area visit theatres, which is slightly higher than NLP’s average for other surveys. London was the main theatre destination last visited for households within the study area (52%) followed by theatres in Dartford (8.2%). The most popular location within Medway was The Central Theatre, High Street, Chatham (7.8%). In terms of the other theatres in Medway, only 1.1% visited The Brook Theatre in Chatham, 0.7% visited Medway Little Theatre on High Street in Rochester and 0.4% last visited the Oasthouse Theatre, Stratford Lane, Rainham.
14.57 Taking account of the current provision of theatres in Medway there may be limited scope for new theatres in Medway, particularly due to the accessibility and quality of theatres in Central London and the West End.
Conclusions on Commercial Leisure
14.58 Medway has a good range of commercial leisure, entertainment and cultural facilities, and residents also have good access to facilities outside the authority including London.
14.59 The existing cinema provision within Medway suggests there is limited potential for further cinema facilities in the short to medium period. Existing provision in Medway exceeds all the theoretical potential up to 2016.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 116
14.60 There may be scope for new private health club facilities and this may increase in the future if membership rates increase. There is also theoretical scope for a bingo facility along with nightclub and casino facilities, but there appears to be limited operator demand.
14.61 Most of the main centres within Medway have an under provision of Class A3 and A5 uses. Future town centre development should provide additional space for bar and restaurant uses (Class A3, A4 and A5) as well as Class A1 retail, these uses may represent 10%-15% of the Class A uses within the development.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 117
15.0 SCOPE FOR ACCOMMODATING GROWTH
Floorspace Projections
15.1 The floorspace projections set out in the previous sections assume that new shopping facilities within Medway can maintain and potentially improve their current market share of expenditure within the study area. There are a number of issues that may influence the scope for new floorspace and the appropriate location for this development, as follows:
• major retail developments in competing centres, such as Maidstone, Tunbridge Wells and Gravesham;
• the re-occupation of vacant town centre floorspace;
• the reliability of long term expenditure projections, particularly after 2016;
• the effect of Internet/home shopping on the demand for retail property;
• the acceptability of higher than average trading levels;
• the limited current level of operator demand for floorspace Medway;
• the likelihood that Medway’s existing market share of expenditure will change in the future;
• the potential impact new development may have on existing centres.
15.2 The long term floorspace projections (beyond 2016) shown in Section 13 should be treated with caution and should only be used as a broad guide, particularly when translated into the development plan allocations or when used to guide development control decisions. Long term forecasts may be subject to change due to unforeseen circumstances. Projected surplus expenditure is primarily attributable to projected growth in spending per capita. If the growth in expenditure is lower than that forecast then the scope for additional space will reduce. Long term projections should be monitored and kept under-review.
15.3 The expenditure projections in this study take into account home shopping, because special forms of trading has been excluded. The study assumes that special forms of trading will increase in the future, including the growth of internet shopping. However, the impact of Internet growth on the demand for retail floorspace is unclear. Some retailers’ home delivery and Internet services utilise existing stores rather than
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 118
warehouses, for example Tesco Direct. Therefore, Internet sales will not always significantly reduce the demand for shop floorspace. In addition, some of the growth in Internet sales may divert trade away from mail order companies rather than retail operators. Overall the impact of home shopping on expenditure projections is uncertain.
15.4 The quantitative and qualitative assessment of the potential capacity for new retail floorspace within the previous sections suggests that there is scope for new retail development within Medway, over and above existing commitments. This section examines the opportunities for accommodating this projected growth and assesses potential opportunities to accommodate this floorspace.
15.5 The baseline projections up to 2016 (constant market shares and low population growth) suggest there is scope for about 6,800 sq m net of convenience floorspace (about 10,000 sq m gross) and 17,800 sq m net of comparison floorspace (23,800 sq m gross). In total 33,800 sq m gross could be required for Class A1 use. Allowing a further 10% for Class A2 to A5 uses suggests a total floorspace figure of 37,200 sq m gross up to 2016.
15.6 The highest scenario projection up to 2016 (increased market shares and higher population growth) suggest there is scope for about 9,000 sq m net of convenience floorspace (about 13,000 sq m gross) and 41,400 sq m net of comparison floorspace (55,200 sq m gross). In total 68,200 sq m gross could be required for Class A1 use, or 75,000 sq m gross allowing a further 10% for Class A2 to A5 uses.
Table 15.1 Floorspace Projections up to 2016
Use Floorspace (Sq M Gross) Scenario 1 Scenario 4 Convenience 10,000 13,000 Comparison 23,800 55,200 Class A2 to A5 3,400 6,800 TOTAL 37,200 75,000 Source: Tables 9C & 15C, Appendix C
Accommodating Future Growth
15.7 The sequential approach suggests that town and district centre sites should be the first choice for retail and leisure development, which is supported by policies within the emerging South East Plan. In Medway the preferred location for retail and leisure development needs to be carefully considered, particularly for major development which may have an extensive catchment area, i.e. should the proposed use be LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 119
located within the city centre, five district centres or other local centres. In considering this important issue the following factors should be assessed.
• What is the locational area of need the development seeks to serve and what existing centre could potentially fulfil the identified area of need?
• Is the nature and scale of development likely to serve a wide catchment area e.g. a large part of Medway and beyond?
• If the development has an extensive catchment area is a site available in one of the six main centres, including vacant premises and will this site meet the identified need?
• If the development has a more localised catchment area, is a site available in a town or local centre and will this site meet the identified need?
15.8 Some forms of retail or leisure facilities which serve more localised catchment areas may be more appropriate within local centres, rather than one of the six main centres. However, all development should be appropriate in terms of scale and nature to the centre in which it is located.
15.9 The existing stock of premises may have a role to play in accommodating projected growth. The retail capacity analysis in this report assumes that existing retail floorspace can, on average, increase its turnover to sales floorspace densities. A growth rate of 1.5% per annum is assumed for comparison floorspace and 0.25% for convenience floorspace. The adoption of these growth rates represents a balanced approach. The floorspace projections reflect these assumptions. In addition to the growth in sales densities, vacant shops could help to accommodate future growth.
15.10 There were 140 vacant shop units within the city and district centres in Medway, a vacancy rate of about 12.5%, which is above the Goad national average (11%). The vacancy rate is particularly high in Chatham (about 17%). These vacant premises could also help to accommodate growth, particularly as the vacancy rate is relatively high, above the national average. For example, if the current vacancy rate fell from 12.5% to around 8% (i.e. the reoccupation of around 50 vacant properties) could accommodate about 10,000 sq m gross of retail space (assuming 200 sq m gross per unit), of which about 7,000 sq m gross could be accommodated in Chatham city centre with the remainder accommodated in the district centres, predominantly Gillingham, Rochester and Strood where the shop vacancy rate is highest (around 12%).
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 120
15.11 If this reduction in vacant units can be achieved then the overall baseline Class A1 to A5 floorspace projection up to 2016 would reduce from 37,200 sq m gross to 27,200 sq m gross. The high growth scenario projection would reduce from 75,000 sq m gross to 65,000 sq m gross.
Potential Development Opportunities
15.12 A review of potential development sites has been undertaken in the six main centres in Medway. Sites in each centre have been evaluated, in terms of their implications on the scope and need for additional retail and leisure facilities in the authority, and have been assessed against the following factors:
• existing land uses and availability, categorised as follows:
- short to medium term – up to 2016;
- long term - likely to be completed after 2016;
• commercial potential for retail/leisure development and the most likely form of development, categorised as follows:
- prime site - likely to attract a developer and occupiers;
- secondary site – which may generate limited demand or only demand for a specific kind of use.
• potential scope to accommodate additional retail/leisure floorspace (net increase), categorised as follows:
- small scale - under 1,000 sq m gross floorspace;
- medium scale – 1,000 to 2,500 sq m gross floorspace;
- large scale - over 2,500 sq m gross floorspace;
• potential development constraints; and
• possible alternative uses.
15.13 The overall development prospects of each opportunity, taking on board all of the factors listed above, has been categorised as follows:
• Good - development sites that have good prospects for providing additional retail/leisure floorspace, and should be considered for implementation in the short to medium term;
• Reasonable - development sites which are well located and may provide potential for additional floorspace, although obstacles to development will need to be overcome, but implementation may only be achieved in the long term; and
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 121
• Poor - development sites that may be unattractive or unsuitable for retail or leisure development where their delivery is very uncertain.
15.14 This overall rating is based on an initial evaluation for each site. The level of analysis undertaken at this stage is limited, i.e. detailed appraisals of development constraints, land ownership and potential development costs have not been undertaken. More detailed examinations of each site will need to be undertaken before sites can be brought forward for development or ruled out as viable options. The evaluations undertaken for each opportunity are not detailed planning appraisals and they do not imply that planning permission should be granted or refused for retail/leisure development on any site. However, the evaluation is expected to identify potentially suitable development opportunities that may be worthy of further consideration by the Council. This evaluation provides a framework within which the Council can consider the implementation of a development strategy for Medway’s centres.
Evaluation of Potential Development Sites
15.15 Each opportunity site identified has been evaluated based on the factors listed earlier in this section. An assessment of each site is provided in Appendix F. In total 25 potential opportunities have been identified, 7 in Chatham, 4 in Gillingham, 2 in Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre, 3 in Rainham, 5 in Rochester and 4 in Strood. If delivered these sites could accommodate over 82,000 sq m gross of retail or leisure floorspace, broken as follows:
• Chatham - 49,300 sq m gross; • Gillingham - 8,000 sq m gross; • Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre - 3,500 sq m gross; • Rainham - 6,500 sq m gross; • Rochester - 4,500 sq m gross; and • Strood - 10,500 sq m gross.
15.16 These opportunities, along with vacant shop units (assuming reoccupation of 10,000 sq m gross), are sufficient to accommodate the highest (Scenario 4) 2016 floorspace projections (75,000 sq m gross). The short to medium term prioritises will be to reduce vacant levels within designated centres and to progress major development proposals within Chatham town centre i.e. the Chatham Waterfront Regeneration proposals and the extension of the Pentagon Centre, which together could accommodate about 25,000 sq m gross of additional floorspace. Smaller scale development may be appropriate in other centres.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 122
16.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
16.1 This report provides a need assessment for retail and commercial leisure uses in Medway. It provides a guide to the shopping and leisure needs of the District up to 2011, 2016, 2021 and 2026. The principal conclusions of the analysis contained within this study are summarised below.
Meeting Shopping Needs in Medway
16.2 Despite the likely effects of the economic downturn, future growth in expenditure should provide opportunities to improve the range and quality of shopping and leisure facilities within Medway in the medium to longer term. Taking account of existing commitments there is still a potential need for additional convenience and comparison shopping facilities in Medway in the medium term up to 20168. Overall, in order to meet projected growth in expenditure, there is a need for additional shopping and leisure facilities. Future planning policy and site allocations should seek in line with PPS6, to identify opportunities to accommodate growth at least up to 2016. Longer term growth up to 2026 should be monitored and updated as necessary.
16.3 The floorspace projections shown in this report provide broad guidance. Meeting the projections up to 2016 is the priority, and longer term objections need to be monitored. All the projections should not be considered to be maximum/minimum limits or targets, particularly when translated into the development plan allocations or when used to guide development control decisions. For instance if a major town centre scheme comes forward in the period to 2016, the implementation of proposals and commitments may possibly result in an over-supply of comparison floorspace. However, it may be acceptable to permit such a scheme if it is of an appropriate scale in terms of the role and function of that centre.
16.4 Such floorspace limits should not inhibit competition between retailers when located within centres, subject to the consideration of scale and impact. However, if an out- of-centre proposal exceeds the floorspace projections then the need for the proposal and impact will need to be carefully considered.
16.5 Long term forecasts (beyond 2016) may be more susceptible to change, due to unforeseen circumstances. Projected surplus expenditure beyond 2016 is attributable
8 See Appendix B, Tables 10B and 11B, Appendix C, Tables 8C, 13C, 14C, and 15C LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 123
to projected growth in spending per capita, extrapolated from short to medium term growth projections.
Convenience Development
16.6 On the basis of the assumption that existing convenience retailers trade at reasonable average turnover levels, the quantitative capacity analysis indicates there is potential for further convenience goods sales floorspace within Medway, as shown in Table 16.1 below.
Table 16.1: Potential Convenience Goods Floorspace
Time Period Large food store Small store/shop floorspace floorspace 2008 to 2011 3,280 to 3760 sq m net 1,968 to 2,256 sq m net 2011 to 2016 969 to 1,847 sq m net 581 to 1,108 sq m net 2008 to 2026 6,439 to 7,298 sq m net 3,863 to 4,379 sq m net
16.7 In qualitative terms, there is no obvious locational area of deficiency in food store provision within Medway urban area. Any food store proposals located on an edge of centre site or outside the main centres should be considered against the sequential approach. Some of the capacity could be accommodated within existing vacant premises or small redevelopments within the main centres.
16.8 Apart from new convenience facilities within designated centres, the future priority may be to provide new convenience facilities to serve major new residential developments, where these development areas would not be adequately served by existing provision. Vacant shop units within designated centres could make some contribution towards accommodating the small store/shop floorspace projection.
Comparison Development
16.9 In the short-term the development strategy should encourage the implementation of commitments and the reoccupation of vacant shop premises within the designated centres for Class A1 retail use (comparison or convenience use). This could be achieved through the application of the sequential approach, encouraging applicants to locate in designated centres, and continuation of active town centre management and promotional activities. It could also be achieved through the provision and marketing of a vacant property register, setting out the existing use class and the planning issues relating to each property. This could be made available for potential
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 124
occupiers and letting agents. The introduction of shop improvement grants could also be considered, for example where vacant properties are in poor condition and have been vacant for a long period. In more secondary areas with a higher level of vacancy a more flexible approach to changes of use from A1 to other Class A uses could be considered.
16.10 The development strategy for Medway should seek to enhance Chatham City Centre’s current position in the shopping hierarchy, and where appropriate improve the City’s existing market share of expenditure. In order to maintain or enhance Chatham’s existing position it will be necessary to improve comparison shopping facilities. If Chatham is to be enhanced in order to compete more effectively with Maidstone and Canterbury, then we believe that a critical mass of at least 30,000 sq m gross of additional comparison retail floorspace will need to be provided in Chatham.
16.11 The quantitative capacity analysis indicates that existing commitments will not absorb all the projected growth in expenditure up to 2016, even based on constant market shares and baseline population growth. As a minimum there could be scope for about 24,000 sq m gross of comparison floorspace within Medway up to 2016, and a further or 34,000 sq m gross between 2016 to 2021, over and above commitments9. If Medway can increase its market share of comparison expenditure and higher population projections are achieved then there could be scope for about 55,000 sq m gross of comparison floorspace within Medway up to 2016, and a further or 38,000 sq m gross between 2016 to 2021.
16.12 Vacant shop units within designated centres could make some contribution towards accommodating some of this floorspace, perhaps up to 10,000 sq m gross. The Council should encourage the re-occupation of vacant shop units in all centres in the short term. Other opportunities need to be identified to accommodate need at least up to 2016. Allowing time for sites to be identified, assembled and developed and allowing time for new development to achieve settled trading patterns, it is necessary to plan to meet projected need at least up to 2016.
16.13 There are development opportunities within the Chatham and the district centres, which are theoretically capable of accommodating the need for comparison and convenience floorspace up to 2016.
9 See Appendix A, Table 3A LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 125
16.14 Any major comparison retail proposals outside the designated centres (City, District and Local) should be required to comply with the sequential approach to site selection, and the applicant will also need to demonstrate the proposal will not have an unacceptable impact on existing centres.
Commercial Leisure Development within Medway
16.15 The provision of leisure, entertainment and cultural facilities within Medway is reasonably good. Medway has all of the major commercial leisure uses e.g. cinema, health/fitness clubs, bingo hall, ten-pin bowling and theatres.
16.16 Medway has a good range of commercial leisure, entertainment and cultural facilities, and residents also have good access to facilities outside the authority including London.
16.17 The existing cinema provision within Medway suggests there is limited potential for further cinema facilities in the short to medium period. Existing provision in Medway exceeds all the theoretical potential up to 2016.
16.18 There may be scope for new private health club facilities and this may increase in the future if membership rates increase. There is also theoretical scope for a bingo facility along with nightclub and casino facilities, but there appears to be limited operator demand.
16.19 Most of the main centres within Medway have an under provision of Class A3 and A5 uses. Future town centre development should provide additional space for bar and restaurant uses (Class A3, A4 and A5) as well as Class A1 retail, these uses may represent 10%-15% of the Class A uses within the development. Given, the existing low proportion of A3/A4/A5 uses within Medway’s main centres, the top end of the floorspace range will be appropriate for planning purposes.
16.20 The two main sectors that could offer potential for new leisure facilities, based on our canvas of operators and published space requirement are health & fitness clubs and bars/restaurants.
The Overall Class A1 to A5 Uses
16.21 Existing commitments are expected to provide about 28,500 sq m gross of floorspace, predominantly located within the designated district centres (i.e. Strood
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 126
and Hempstead Valley) and in out-of-centre locations.
16.22 The retail capacity assessment indicates that there is scope for 33,800 sq m gross of Class A1 use by 2016 (10,000 sq m gross of convenience and 23,800 sq m gross of comparison), over and above commitments and vacant retail warehouse units. Allowing for at least a further 10% for Class A2 to A5 uses suggests a total floorspace figure of about 37,200 sq m gross. This figure is based on the lower baseline population figures and no increase in market shares. With commitments and vacant retail warehouse units, the total amount of new floorspace up to 2016 is about 67,700 sq m gross. As a minimum the development strategy should seek to accommodate this level of new development by 2016, and new comparison floorspace should be concentrated in Chatham City Centre in order to provide an appropriate critical mass, around 30,000 sq m gross.
16.23 The indicative distribution of this new floorspace based on commitments, the availability of vacant floorspace development opportunities and existing shopping patterns for the lowest growth scenario 1 could be as follows:
Table 16.2: Distribution of New Class A1 to A5 Uses up to 2016 (Sq M Gross)
Lowest Growth Chatham City District Other Total Centre Centres Commitments 0 11,500 17,000 28,500 Reoccupation of 7,000 3,000 2,000 12,000 vacant units New development 25,000 2,200 0 27,200 Total 32,000 16,700 19,000 67,700
16.24 The indicative distribution of new floorspace for the highest growth scenario 4 could be as follows:
Table 16.3: Distribution of New Class A1 to A5 Uses up to 2016 (Sq M Gross)
Highest Growth Chatham City District Other Total Centre Centres Commitments 0 11,500 17,000 28,500 Reoccupation of 7,000 3,000 2,000 12,000 vacant units New development 40,000 25,000 0 65,000 Total 47,000 39,500 19,000 105,500
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 127
The Role of Shopping Centres
16.25 PPS6 indicates that local planning authorities should adopt a positive and proactive approach to planning for the future of the centres within their areas (Para 2.15 p. 10), whether planning for growth, consolidation or decline. Local planning authorities are expected to set out a vision and strategy for the pattern and hierarchy of centres. This strategy should set out how the role of different centres will contribute to the overall vision for their area.
16.26 PPS6 indicates that local planning authorities should adopt a positive and proactive approach to planning for the future of the centres within their areas (Para 2.15 p. 10), whether planning for growth, consolidation or decline. Local planning authorities are expected to set out a vision and strategy for the pattern and hierarchy of centres. This strategy should set out how the role of different centres will contribute to the overall vision for their area.
16.27 The shopping centre hierarchy is clearly set out in the Medway Local Plan. Chatham City Centre is the main comparison shopping destination and the main focus for employment, leisure, entertainment and cultural activities. As the main centre Chatham should compete with other large regional/sub-regional centres, such as Maidstone, Bromley and Canterbury. The defined District Centres are expected to complement the City Centre by providing for bulk convenience food shopping and a range of comparison shopping facilities and other services. Below the district centres, designated local centres, village centres and neighbourhood parades serve small localised catchment areas, providing coverage across Medway.
16.28 The sequential approach indicates that town/city, district and local centres are the preferred location for new retail/leisure/cultural development. Development should be appropriate in terms of scale and the catchment area the centre serves. Therefore, large scale development should be concentrated within the larger centres. However, some forms of development may be more appropriate in smaller centres, if there are localised areas of deficiency. The key issues are the nature and scale of retail/leisure development proposed and the catchment area the development seeks to serve. Development should normally be consistent in terms of scale and nature with the character and role of the nearest centre. Therefore, a Development Plan policy should provide clear advice in this respect.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 128
16.29 PPS6 indicates that local authorities should adopt policies that enable town, district and local centres to meet the needs of residents of their area10. The sequential approach indicates that the first preference for new developments should be within centres followed by edge-of-centre sites in town and district centre locations. Out-of- centre sites are last in the order of preference, accept where new centres are required to serve major new residential development areas, that are not adequately served by existing centres11.
16.30 As indicated, development within all centres should be appropriate in terms of nature and scale to the role of the centre. Developments which are likely to attract customers from a significantly wider area than the centre’s intended catchment area may be considered to be out-of-scale with the role of the centre, and may be better located within a larger centre, if alternative sites are available, which would meet the identified need. Again, each proposal would need to be considered on its individual merits.
16.31 Large format stores, such as food superstores or retail warehouses may be incapable of being accommodated within the designated centres. Nevertheless, the Council should adopt a sequential approach to site selection for all forms of retail and leisure development, including large format stores.
16.32 The distinction between city, district and local centres is important when applying the sequential approach, which will assist the consideration of scale when determining proposed retail/leisure schemes.
16.33 Future development plan policies in Medway must continue to clearly define which centres are district or local centres within the context of PPS6, in order to avoid confusion when applying the sequential approach. The Local Plan defines the City centre and District Centres, and this distinction is made in PPS6. The current hierarchy is consistent with PPS6 and no changes are required. However, the household survey information suggests Chatham, as the main centre is under- performing as a sub-regional centre, and Hempstead Valley Shopping is performing at a higher level than would expect for a district centre. The development strategy for Medway should address this imbalance between these two centres by significantly expending Chatham centre whilst consolidating Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre.
16.34 Future development plan policy seeks to maintain and enhance the hierarchy of centres. Policy should continue to seek to concentrate shopping development within
10 PPS6 (March 2005), Para 2.1 11 PPS6 (March 2005, Para 2.44 LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 129
defined centres. Guidance should continue to be provided in relation to what type of development will be appropriate in each type of centre. Policy should state that development should directly relate to the role and function of the centre and its catchment area.
16.35 Development Plan Policy should indicate that development that will have a city wide catchment area should be located within Chatham City centre. However, we do not believe that policies should provide specific floorspace limits on the amount of retail floorspace that would be acceptable in each type of centre or the extent of the catchments area development should serve, because all centres are slightly different and proposals will need to be considered on their individual merits.
16.36 In broad terms, development within District Centres should primarily serve their respective sectors of Medway urban area, i.e. Strood the western sector, Rainham the north eastern sector, Hempstead Valley the south eastern sector and the central area served by Gillingham and Rochester. Rochester’s specialist and tourism role should also be recognised. Based on the current hierarchy and network of centres, the primary catchment areas of District Centres should be around 3 kilometres radius from the centre. District centres will fall within the catchment area of Chatham City Centre and the catchment area of district centres will overlap with each other, i.e. Rainham with Hempstead Valley and Rochester with Strood.
16.37 Local and neighbourhood centres serve much more localised areas and their primary catchment areas are and should be around 500 metres radius from the centre. Village centres should serve their respective settlements and a small rural hinterland.
16.38 The shopping strategy should identify which centres will need to be enhanced (e.g. Chatham and Strood) and which centres may be consolidated (e.g. Rainham and Rochester). Action Area Plans may be required for centres that will be significantly enhanced.
Criteria for Meeting Assessing Development Proposals
16.39 The criteria for assessing major retail and leisure development proposals that may emerge within Medway should be as follows:
• What is the locational area of need the development seeks to serve and what centre could potentially fulfil the identified area of need?
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 130
• Is the nature and scale of development likely to serve a wide catchment area e.g. most of Medway urban area and beyond?
• If the development has an extensive catchment area, is there a site available in the Chatham City Centre, including vacant premises and will this site meet the identified need?
• If the development has a more localised catchment area, is a site available in a district and will this site meet the identified need?
• If so, is the site/unit acceptable in terms of site specific/land use policy, design and highway terms?
• If there is no Chatham City Centre site is an edge of centre site acceptable and available with good links to the City Centre and accessible by a choice of means of transport;
• Is the likely development of an appropriate size to meet the identified need without harming the centre or another centre in the hierarchy?
• If there is no city centre or district centre sites suitable, available and viable to meet the identified need, is there an out-of-centre site, which meets criteria (iii) and (iv) and is genuinely accessible by means of transport other than the car.
16.40 Having followed these steps the Council must evaluate whether development proposals or proposed allocations in an emerging LDD accord with these criteria. If edge-of-centre or out-of-centre sites are the only opportunities to meet identified needs, consideration must be given to the potential impact effects on the vitality and viability of existing centres, as should transport issues including accessibility and the effect on the use of the car.
Chatham City Centre – Strategic Objectives
16.41 Chatham City Centre should be enhanced as a major regional centre. As the main centre in Medway, the City Centre should serve Medway as a whole and the surrounding catchment area, and should embrace a wide range of activities. The City Centre should function as the main comparison shopping destination for the City and Sub-region and also the main destination for leisure, entertainment and cultural activities that serve the City’s residents.
16.42 In order to maintain and enhance this role, Chatham City Centre should be the focus for major retail developments, large scale leisure and other uses that attract large numbers of people including major cultural, tourism and community facilities. The strategy should focus on the re-occupation of vacant floorspace and the delivery of
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 131
major new development to provide at least 30,000 sq m gross of additional floorspace.
16.43 To meet the City’s need for retail, leisure and other town centre uses major development is required in the City Centre. An appropriate balance of uses needs to be maintained and existing town centre uses should be protected. The study has identified a significant medium and long term need for new retail development and other Class A uses. It will also be necessary to retain existing retail uses within centres.
16.44 New development would help to attract new operators not currently represented in Medway, or could allow existing occupiers to occupy larger/better premises. Chatham City Centre could attract new investment and major retail/leisure development if appropriate opportunities are brought forward, including the potential sites identified in this study.
16.45 This strategy should not preclude development in other smaller centres in Medway. However, development within the district and local centres should primarily serve the catchment area of the respective centre, and should not serve the City as a whole, or the majority of the City. The extent of the catchment area of each centre will vary depending on the scale and nature of the centre and the location of competing centres. Therefore the appropriateness of development can only be determined on a case by case basis. In general, district centres are unlikely to have a primary catchment area that extends beyond 3 kilometres.
16.46 In terms of development opportunities, there is potential to upgrade and improve the quality of retail and leisure provision in Chatham City Centre. However, this will involve major redevelopment. It is necessary to set in motion major development proposals in the short term, recognising that complicated developments will take time to implement.
16.47 There are a number of potential development opportunities within Chatham City Centres, capable of accommodate a significant amount of additional retail and leisure floorspace, as set out in Appendix F. The priority sites for development are:
• Chatham Waterfront Regeneration Area;
• The Pentagon Centre;
• Best Street Regeneration Area; and
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 132
• Tesco The Brook.
16.48 If implemented can accommodate a significant proportion of the need for retail development within Medway up to 2016, and could provide the critical mass of retail floorspace required to enhance the centre’s role as a sub-regional centre.
District Centres – Strategic Objectives
16.49 Gillingham, Hempstead Valley, Rainham, Rochester and Strood are defined as District Centres, which are expected to complement Chatham City Centre by providing for bulk convenience food shopping and a range of comparison shopping facilities and other services.
16.50 These centres currently provide a critical mass of commercial floorspace, capable of serving their respective sectors of the City. These centres should continue to be second level centres in the hierarchy, below Chatham City Centre. Their role as important shopping/service centres should be developed to ensure they provide an appropriate range of facilities and services.
16.51 The future priority for district centres should be to consolidate and maintain their roles as important centres. The strategy should focus on the implementation of existing commitments and the re-occupation of vacant floorspace. Opportunities for small scale development to provide additional shop premises should be encouraged, and the priority should be for additional convenience shopping facilities and lower order comparison shopping. Higher order comparison shopping should be focused in Chatham City Centre.
16.52 Recent development and existing commitments are focused in Strood and Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre. The next priority should be to improve convenience goods shopping in Gillingham, Rainham and Rochester.
16.53 There are a number of potential development opportunities within the District Centres capable of accommodate comparison and/or convenience development as set out in Appendix F. The priority sites (over and above existing commitments) for development are:
• High St/James St/Jeffery St/King St, Gillingham;
• Rainham Shopping Centre;
• Rochester Open Market/Car Park and vacant PFS;
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 133
• Tesco store and environs, Strood.
Local and Village Centres and Neighbourhood Parades – Strategic Objectives
16.54 Designated local and village centres are the third level of centres in the hierarchy. These centres should be maintained to ensure they provide basic food and grocery shopping facilities, supported by a limited choice and range of comparison shops selling lower order comparison goods (bought on a regular basis) and a range of non- retail services and community uses. Small scale infill development may be appropriate within local centres.
16.55 The designated local and village centres and neighbourhood parades should continue to serve small catchment areas (extending no more than walking distance from the centre in Medway urban area – about 500 metres), focused on their respective local communities. However, some centres may also serve passing trade, but should not encourage additional car borne trade.
16.56 Local centres should continue to be maintained and protected, in order to ensure all residents in the City have access to a basic range of small shops and services of a local nature. The key facilities that should be encouraged protected in local centres include:
• food supermarket or convenience store; • Post Office counter; • newsagents; and • chemist. 16.57 Other desirable facilities include:
• banks (or ATMs); • off license; • takeaways/cafés; • public house; • optician; • hairdressers/barbers; • bookmakers; • dry cleaners; • DVD/video hire shop; • shoe repair; • health centre, dentist etc.; • library; • schools; and • community hall.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 134
Future Strategy Implementation and Monitoring
16.58 There are a number of broad areas of possible action the Council could pursue in order to maintain and enhance the role of shopping centres within Medway and to address the weaknesses highlighted in the centre health checks, as follows:
• application of guidance within PPS6, particularly relating to need and the sequential approach in determining out-of-centre retail and other development proposals that generate significant numbers of trips;
• improving the range and choice of shops and services in all centres (where appropriate in terms of scale) by encouraging intensification, development and the re-occupation of vacant premises, and continuing to promote the centres.
• maintaining the generally high quality environment within each centre;
• measures to improve accessibility and public transport to the city, district and local centres in order to encourage more residents to shop in their nearest centre, which may involve maintaining an appropriate level of car parking at a competitive cost and safeguarding and improving public transport services;
• the implementation of policies within the development plan to protect retail and other desirable town centre uses; and
• measures to bring forward development opportunities to improve the availability of modern premises suitable for new occupiers.
16.59 The recommendations and projections within this study are expected to assist the Council in preparing development plan policies over the coming years and to assist development control decisions during this period. The study provides a broad overview of the potential need for further retail and leisure development up to 2011, with longer term forecast up to 2016, 2021 and 2026. However, projections are subject to uncertainty and forecasts may need to be amended to reflect emerging changes as and when new information becomes available. In particular long-term projections up to 2026 should be treated with caution.
16.60 Therefore, we would recommend that this retail/leisure capacity study should be updated in 4-5 years time and the floorspace projections rolled forward. The following key assumptions should be updated as necessary:
• population projections;
• local expenditure estimates (information from Experian or other recognised data providers);
• growth rate assumptions for expenditure per capita (information from Experian or other recognised data providers);
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 135
• the impact of potential increases in home and internet shopping;
• existing retail floorspace and average turnover to floorspace densities (floorspace surveys and turnover data from Management Horizons Retail Ranking); and
• implemented development within and around the study area.
16.61 These key inputs into the retail/leisure capacity assessment can be amended to provide revised capacity projections. We do not envisage that the structure of the capacity assessment set out in this report will need to be amended. The Council should consider monitoring and updating the centre health checks provided in this study on a regular basis, perhaps 2-3 years in order to assess changes in the vitality and viability of the centres. In particular changes in the land use survey and vacancy rates should be monitored. Property market data should also be monitored i.e. rents and yields.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) 136
Appendix A
Study Area and Existing Retail Facilities
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) i
Medway Council Study Area Zones
Zone Postal Sectors 1 Rochester/Strood ME2 2 ME2 4 ME2 3 2 Chatham ME1 1 ME4 5 ME1 2 ME4 6 ME1 3 3 Gillingham ME4 3 ME7 2 ME4 4 ME7 4 ME7 1 ME7 5 4 Rainham/Hempstead ME7 3 ME8 7 ME8 0 ME8 8 ME8 6 ME8 9 5 Walderslade ME5 0 ME5 9 ME5 7 ME5 8 6 Sittingbourne/Faversham ME9 0 ME11 5 ME9 7 ME12 1 ME9 8 ME12 2 ME9 9 ME12 3 ME10 1 ME12 4 ME10 2 ME13 0 ME10 3 ME13 7 ME10 4 ME13 8 ME10 5 ME13 9 7 Maidstone ME14 2 ME17 4 ME14 3 ME18 5 ME14 4 ME19 4 ME14 5 ME19 5 ME15 0 ME19 6 ME15 6 ME20 6 ME15 7 ME20 7 ME15 8 ME14 1 ME15 9 TN12 0, ME16 0 TN12 9 ME16 8 TN15 8 ME16 9 TN15 9 ME17 1 TN27 9 ME17 2 ME17 3 8 Gravesham DA2 8 DA12 3 DA3 7 DA12 4 DA3 8 DA12 5 DA4 0 DA13 0 DA4 9 DA13 9 DA9 9 ME2 1 DA10 0 ME3 0 DA11 0 ME3 7 DA11 7 ME3 8 DA11 8 ME3 9 DA11 9 ME6 5 DA12 1 TN15 6 DA12 2 TN15 7
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) ii
Table 1A - Convenience Floorspace and Benchmark Turnover (2007 prices)
Location/Store Net Sales Convenience Convenience Turnover Total Floorspace % Sales Floorspace Density Convenience Sq M* Floorspace Sq M Net £ per Sq M Turnover £M Iceland, High Street 492 95% 468 £5,505 £2.58 Sainsbury's, Pentagon Shopping Centre 1,409 85% 1,197 £9,548 £11.43 Tesco, The Brook 5,464 70% 3,825 £13,203 £50.50 Chatham Other 1,960 100% 1,960 £4,000 £7.84 Chatham Total 9,325 - 7,450 £9,711 £72.35 Aldi, Duncan Road 1,022 80% 818 £3,677 £3.01 Co-op, High Street 519 95% 493 £5,882 £2.90 Iceland, High Street 441 95% 419 £5,505 £2.31 Somerfield, High Street 1,284 90% 1,155 £6,636 £7.67 Gillingham Other 1,708 100% 1,708 £4,000 £6.83 Gillingham Total 4,974 - 4,593 £4,945 £22.71 Marks & Spencer, Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre 836 100% 836 £11,814 £9.88 Sainsbury's Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre 6,875 65% 4,469 £9,548 £42.66 Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre Other 91 100% 91 £4,000 £0.36 Hempstead Valley Total 7,802 - 5,396 £9,805 £52.91 Iceland, Rainham Centre 304 95% 288 £5,505 £1.59 Tesco Metro, Rainham Centre 1,057 85% 899 £13,203 £11.86 Rainham Other 574 100% 574 £4,000 £2.30 Rainham Total 1,935 - 1,761 £8,942 £15.75 Morrison's, Knight Road 4,375 70% 3,063 £10,814 £33.12 Tesco, Cuxton Road 1,378 80% 1,102 £13,203 £14.55 Rochester/Strood Other 1,918 100% 1,918 £4,000 £7.67 Rochester/Strood Total 7,671 - 6,083 £9,099 £55.35 Freestanding Superstores Asda, Maidstone Road, Chatham 3,472 55% 1,909 £14,422 £27.54 Morrison's, Princes Avenue, Walderslade, Chatham 2,268 85% 1,928 £10,814 £20.85 Tesco, Courteney Road, Gillingham 3,864 85% 3,284 £13,203 £43.36 Freestanding Superstores Total 9,604 - 7,122 £12,883 £91.75 Other Medway Co-op, Sturdee Avenue, Gillingham 85 95% 81 £5,882 £0.48 Co-op, Canterbury Street, Gillingham 81 95% 77 £5,882 £0.45 Co-op, Gillingham Road, Gillingham 96 95% 92 £5,882 £0.54 Co-op, Borstal Street, Borstal, Rochester 67 95% 63 £5,882 £0.37 Co-op, Bush Road, Cuxton, Strood 186 95% 177 £5,882 £1.04 Co-op, Wainscott Road, Frindsbury, Rochester 142 95% 135 £5,882 £0.79 Co-op, Wayfield Road, Chatham 55 95% 53 £5,882 £0.31 Co-op, Pattens Lane, Chatham 92 95% 87 £5,882 £0.51 Co-op, Luton Road, Chatham 87 95% 82 £5,882 £0.48 Co-op, Albert Road, Chatham 67 95% 64 £5,882 £0.38 Co-op, Walderslade, Chatham 1,307 95% 1,242 £5,882 £7.30 Co-op, Central Parade, Rochester 140 95% 133 £5,882 £0.78 Co-op, Delce Road, Rochester 147 95% 140 £5,882 £0.82 Co-op, Kestrel Road, Lordsworth, Chatham 230 95% 218 £5,882 £1.28 Co-op, Twydall Green, Rainham 145 95% 138 £5,882 £0.81 Co-op, Hempstead Road, Gillingham 150 95% 143 £5,882 £0.84 Co-op, Main Road, Queenborough, Isle of Sheppey 98 95% 93 £5,882 £0.55 Somerfield, Cornwallis Roundabout, Gillingham 200 95% 190 £6,636 £1.26 Somerfield, Parkwood Green, Gillingham 322 95% 306 £6,636 £2.03 Somerfield, Anthonys Way, Rochester 200 95% 190 £6,636 £1.26 Somerfield, City Way, Rochester 200 95% 190 £6,636 £1.26 Somerfield, Watling Street, Strood 200 95% 190 £6,636 £1.26 Tesco Express, Gravesend Road, Rochester 200 95% 190 £13,203 £2.51 Other Medway 15,600 100% 15,600 £4,000 £62.40 Other Medway Total 20,097 - 19,872 £4,515 £89.72 GRAND TOTAL 61,408 - 52,277 £7,662 £400.53 Comparison Sales Floorspace in Food Stores Sq M Net 9,131
Sources: Verdict, IGD, Experian GOAD, Medway Council Land Use Survey and NLP site survey.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) iii
Table 2A - Comparison Floorspace and Benchmark Turnover (2007 prices)
Destination Gross Net Sales Floorspace Floorspace Sq M Sq M Chatham Chatham Comparison Stores 44,670 31,269 Wickes, New Cut, Chatham n/a 2,287 Food store Comparison Sales n/a 1,875 Chatham Total 35,431 Gillingham Gillingham Comparison Stores 13,530 9,471 Foodstore Comparison Sales n/a 381 Gillingham Total 9,852 Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre Hempstead Valley Comparison Stores 13,100 8,334 Food store Comparison Sales n/a 2,406 Hempstead Valley Total 10,740 Rainham Rainham Comparison Stores 8,100 5,670 Food store Comparison Sales n/a 174 Rainham Total 5,844 Rochester Rochester Comparison Stores 9,530 6,671 Rochester Total 6,671 Strood Strood Comparison Stores 14,860 10,402 Strood Retail Park B&Q n/a 3,307 Next 780 546 Argos Extra 1,030 721 Brantano* 780 546 Carpetright 880 748 Food store Comparison Sales n/a 1,588 Strood Total 17,858 Freestanding/ Other Stores Dockside Shopping Centre 9,280 6,496
Gillingham Business/Retail Park Harveys 2,450 2,083 Carpetright 1,646 1,400 Dreams* 1,598 1,358 Land of Leather* 1,598 1,358 MFI n/a 1,758 Allied Carpets n/a 923 Magnet n/a 1,512 B&Q 12,969 11,672 Furniture Village 3,234 2,749 Tesco, Courteney Road, Gillingham n/a 580
Horstead Retail Park Toys 'R' Us n/a 3,750 Homebase n/a 3,415 Pets at Home* n/a 939 Carpetright 980 833 Currys 1,910 1,528 PC World 1,880 1,504 Freestanding food store Comparison Sales n/a 2,707 Freestanding/ Other Stores Sub-Total 46,565 Other Medway incl. Local Shops 26,800 18,760 GRAND TOTAL 151,720
Sources: Floorspace for Centres taken from Experian GOAD, VOA and NLP site survey. LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) iv
Table 3A - Estimated Turnover of Committed Retail Development (2007 prices)
Convenience (2008) Store Net Sales Convenience Convenience Turnover Total Floorspace % Sales Floorspace Density Convenience Sq M Floorspace Sq M Net £ per Sq M Turnover £M
Tesco Extension, Courteney Road 1,765 32% 558 £13,203 £7.37 Netto, High Street, Strood (opened Nov 08) 910 85% 774 £5,763 £4.46 Aldi, Priory Park, Strood 1,125 80% 900 £3,677 £3.31
Total 3,800 - 2,232 - £15.13
Comparison (2008) Store Net Sales Comparison Comparison Turnover Total Floorspace % Sales Floorspace Density Comparison Sq M Floorspace Sq M Net £ per Sq M Turnover £M
Netto, High Street, Strood (completed after survey) 910 15% 137 £10,683 £1.46 Wilkinson, High Street Strood 1,132 100% 1,132 £3,500 £3.96 Matalan, Strood Retail Park (completed after survey) 2,680 100% 2,680 £2,228 £5.97 Other units, Strood Retail Park 1,346 100% 1,346 £2,750 £3.70 Aldi, Priory Park 1,125 20% 225 £4,211 £0.95 Non-food unit, Priory Park 309 100% 309 £5,000 £1.55 Non-food retail warehouse, Anthony's Way, Strood 12,265 100% 12,265 £2,750 £33.73 Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre Extension 1,724 100% 1,724 £6,000 £10.34 Tesco, Courteney Road, Gillingham Retail Park 1,765 68% 1,207 £9,042 £10.91 Vacant Unit, Unit 2, Gillingham Retail Park 1,358 100% 1,358 £2,750 £3.73 Vacant Unit, Unit 5, Gillingham Retail Park 190 100% 190 £2,750 £0.52 Vacant Unit, Unit 6, Gillingham Retail Park 190 100% 190 £2,750 £0.52
Total 24,994 - 22,763 - £77.35
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) v
Company Average Sales Density Estimates for High Street Comparison Retailers
Operator Turnover Density £ Sq M Net Allied Carpets £1,265 Carpetright £1,341 DFS £9,182 Dunhelm £2,504 Homestyle (icl Harveys and Benson Beds) £2,820 Habitat (2005/06) £2,947 Ikea £5,312 Joysleep £2,062 Magnet (2004/05 figure) £2,226 MFI (2004/05 figure) £3,554 ScS Upholstery £3,301 Sofa Workshop £4,983 Apollo 2000 £5,729 Bennetts £8,158 Comet £7,677 Currys £7,234 Dixons (2005/2006) £13,609 PC World £7,412 The Link (2005/2006) £14,823 B&Q £1,986 Focus £1,113 Glyn Webb £1.13 Homebase £1,429 Topps Tiles (2004/05) £1,404 Wickes £2,403 Beale £1,948 Harvey Nichols £2,567 Debenhams £2,251 Fenwicks £4,756 House of Fraser £1,771 John Lewis £7,083 TJ Hughes £1,885 All Sports (John David Group) £5,388 Argos £20,561 Bhs £2,352 Boots Chemists £8,442 Blacks Leisure (2004/05) £3,971 C&J Clark £9,928 Clinton Cards £2,782 Esprit £3,352 French Connection £5,767 Game £14,570 Gap £3,392 Goldsmith Jewellers (2005/2006) £18,428 HMV £9,536 JJB Sports £2,277 JD Sports £5,388 LK Bennett Shoes £5,137 Marks & Spencer (non-food) £5,335 Matalan £2,228 Mothercare £2,664 New Look £4,939 Next £6,115 Ottakars £4,060 Poundland £7,019 River Island £11,908 Ryman (2005/2006) £5,173 Sports Direct (Giles/ Hargreaves/Lillywhites) £4,009 Stead & Simpson £3,788 Superdrug £5,034 TK Maxx £2,835 Toys R Us £2,618 Waterstones £3,933 WH Smith £5,261 Woolworth £4,394 Average £5,220 LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) vi
Appendix B
Convenience Retail Assessment
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) vii
Table 1B : Population Projections
Zone Area 2001 2008 2011 2016 2021 2026 Baseline Growth 1 - Strood 31,975 32,793 33,213 33,925 34,655 35,351 2 - Chatham/Rochester 49,279 53,592 55,379 58,258 61,092 63,776 3 - Gillingham 42,210 47,054 49,092 52,375 55,564 58,676 4 - Rainham/Hempstead 59,265 60,184 60,604 61,300 61,991 62,654 5 - Walderslade 51,929 53,993 54,890 56,361 57,830 59,206 6 - Sittingbourne/Faversham 123,185 131,410 135,322 142,043 148,964 155,284 7 - Maidstone/Tonbridge 176,333 183,633 187,693 194,800 202,161 209,014 8 - Gravesend 187,817 194,818 196,940 202,334 207,829 213,038
721,993 757,477 773,133 801,396 830,086 856,999 High Growth 1 - Strood 31,975 33,482 34,935 39,505 40,808 41,689 2 - Chatham/Rochester 49,279 53,504 55,159 57,393 58,721 59,935 3 - Gillingham 42,210 48,269 52,129 61,169 64,949 65,536 4 - Rainham/Hempstead 59,265 60,195 60,630 61,077 61,394 61,625 5 - Walderslade 51,929 54,066 55,074 56,725 57,750 58,692 6 - Sittingbourne/Faversham 123,185 131,410 135,322 142,043 148,964 155,284 7 - Maidstone/Tonbridge 176,333 183,633 187,694 194,800 202,161 209,014 8 - Gravesend 187,817 195,399 198,391 206,057 213,358 220,332
721,993 759,956 779,334 818,768 848,106 872,107
Sources: 2001 Census of Population ONS 2006 Population Projections for neighbouring authorities Medway Council Ward Based Population Projections 2008
Table 2B: Convenience Goods Expenditure Per Capita (2007 Prices)
Expenditure Per Capita 2008 2011 2016 2021 2026 Growth Growth Growth Growth 2008-2011 2008-2016 2008-2021 2008-2026
1 - Strood £1,604 £1,611 £1,627 £1,651 £1,676 0.4% 1.4% 2.9% 4.5% 2 - Chatham/Rochester £1,574 £1,580 £1,596 £1,620 £1,644 0.4% 1.4% 2.9% 4.5% 3 - Gillingham £1,503 £1,509 £1,524 £1,547 £1,570 0.4% 1.4% 2.9% 4.5% 4 - Rainham/Hempstead £1,712 £1,718 £1,735 £1,762 £1,788 0.4% 1.4% 2.9% 4.5% 5 - Walderslade £1,634 £1,640 £1,657 £1,682 £1,707 0.4% 1.4% 2.9% 4.5% 6 - Sittingbourne/Faversham £1,620 £1,627 £1,643 £1,667 £1,693 0.4% 1.4% 2.9% 4.5% 7 - Maidstone/Tonbridge £1,726 £1,732 £1,749 £1,776 £1,803 0.4% 1.4% 2.9% 4.5% 8 - Gravesend £1,675 £1,682 £1,699 £1,724 £1,750 0.4% 1.4% 2.9% 4.5%
Sources: Experian local estimates of 2007 convenience goods expenditure per capita Excluding special forms of trading - 1.8% in 2008, 2.3% in 2011 and 2.8% in 2016 and beyond Experian Business Strategies - forecast growth rate of 0.3% per annum
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) viii
Table 3B: Total Available Convenience Goods Expenditure (£M - 2007 Prices)
Zone 2008 2011 2016 2021 2026 Growth Growth Growth Growth 2008-2011 2008-2016 2008-2021 2008-2026 Baseline Population Growth 1 - Strood £52.62 £53.50 £55.18 £57.22 £59.25 1.7% 4.9% 8.8% 8.8% 2 - Chatham/Rochester £84.35 £87.50 £92.96 £98.96 £104.86 3.7% 10.2% 17.3% 17.3% 3 - Gillingham £70.72 £74.07 £79.81 £85.95 £92.13 4.7% 12.8% 21.5% 21.5% 4 - Rainham/Hempstead £103.03 £104.15 £106.39 £109.21 £112.04 1.1% 3.3% 6.0% 6.0% 5 - Walderslade £88.23 £90.04 £93.37 £97.25 £101.06 2.1% 5.8% 10.2% 10.2% 6 - Sittingbourne/Faversham £212.92 £220.11 £233.32 £248.39 £262.83 3.4% 9.6% 16.7% 16.7% 7 - Maidstone/Tonbridge £316.88 £325.15 £340.80 £359.01 £376.78 2.6% 7.5% 13.3% 13.3% 8 - Gravesend £326.40 £331.24 £343.67 £358.34 £372.86 1.5% 5.3% 9.8% 9.8%
Total £1,255.13 £1,285.75 £1,345.51 £1,414.32 £1,481.83 2.4% 7.2% 12.7% 18.1% High Population Growth 1 - Strood £53.72 £56.27 £64.26 £67.38 £69.88 4.7% 19.6% 25.4% 25.4% 2 - Chatham/Rochester £84.21 £87.16 £91.58 £95.12 £98.55 3.5% 8.8% 12.9% 12.9% 3 - Gillingham £72.55 £78.66 £93.21 £100.46 £102.90 8.4% 28.5% 38.5% 38.5% 4 - Rainham/Hempstead £103.04 £104.19 £106.00 £108.16 £110.20 1.1% 2.9% 5.0% 5.0% 5 - Walderslade £88.35 £90.34 £93.97 £97.11 £100.19 2.3% 6.4% 9.9% 9.9% 6 - Sittingbourne/Faversham £212.91 £220.11 £233.32 £248.39 £262.83 3.4% 9.6% 16.7% 16.7% 7 - Maidstone/Tonbridge £316.88 £325.15 £340.80 £359.01 £376.78 2.6% 7.5% 13.3% 13.3% 8 - Gravesend £327.37 £333.68 £350.00 £367.87 £385.63 1.9% 6.9% 12.4% 12.4%
Total £1,259.04 £1,295.55 £1,373.14 £1,443.50 £1,506.95 2.9% 9.1% 14.7% 19.7%
Sources: Table 1B and Table 2B
Table 4B: Convenience Shopping Penetration Rates 2008
Centre/Facilities Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8
Chatham Sainsbury's, Pentagon Shopping Centre 0% 8% 3% 1% 2% 0% 0% 1% Tesco, The Brook 1% 16% 7% 1% 6% 0% 1% 2% Other Chatham 1% 5% 1% 0% 3% 1% 0% 0% Gillingham Somerfield, High Street 0% 0% 16% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% Other Gillingham 0% 1% 10% 6% 2% 1% 0% 0% Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre Sainsbury's 4% 1% 8% 16% 11% 2% 0% 1% Other Hempstead Valley SC 0% 3% 2% 5% 2% 1% 0% 0% Rainham Tesco Metro 0% 1% 2% 12% 1% 0% 0% 0% Other Rainham 0% 0% 1% 6% 1% 1% 0% 0% Rochester/Strood Morrisons, Knights Road 35% 7% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 3% Tesco, Cuxton Road 30% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% Other Rochester/Strood 6% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% Other Medway Asda, Maidstone Road, Chatham 2% 23% 4% 2% 29% 0% 1% 1% Tesco, Courteney Road, Gillingham 2% 2% 14% 18% 2% 0% 0% 1% Morrisons, Princes Ave, Walderslade 0% 1% 1% 1% 28% 0% 0% 0% Other Medway 9% 24% 23% 26% 6% 0% 0% 6% MEDWAY TOTAL 90% 94% 94% 95% 94% 7% 2% 19% Other Destinations Gravesham 4% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 39% Maidstone 1% 2% 3% 1% 1% 2% 59% 5% Swale 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 85% 0% 1% Tonbridge & Malling 2% 3% 0% 0% 2% 0% 33% 10% Other 3% 0% 1% 4% 2% 6% 6% 26% Other Sub-Total 10% 6% 6% 5% 6% 93% 98% 81% Market Share Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Source: Market shares based on NEMS household survey 2008
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) ix
Table 5B: Convenience Expenditure 2008 £Million
Centre/Facilities Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Total Expend Expenditure 2008 £52.62 £84.35 £70.72 £103.03 £88.23 £212.92 £316.88 £326.40 £1,255.13 Chatham Sainsbury's, Pentagon Shopping Centre £0.00 £6.75 £2.12 £1.03 £1.76 £0.00 £0.00 £3.26 £14.93 Tesco, The Brook £0.53 £13.50 £4.95 £1.03 £5.29 £0.00 £3.17 £6.53 £34.99 Other Chatham £0.53 £4.22 £0.71 £0.00 £2.65 £2.13 £0.00 £0.00 £10.23 Gillingham Somerfield, High Street £0.00 £0.00 £11.32 £1.03 £0.00 £2.13 £0.00 £0.00 £14.48 Other Gillingham £0.00 £0.84 £7.07 £6.18 £1.76 £2.13 £0.00 £0.00 £17.99 Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre Sainsbury £2.10 £0.84 £5.66 £16.48 £9.70 £4.26 £0.00 £3.26 £42.32 Other Hempstead Valley SC £0.00 £2.53 £1.41 £5.15 £1.76 £2.13 £0.00 £0.00 £12.99 Rainham Tesco Metro £0.00 £0.84 £1.41 £12.36 £0.88 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £15.50 Other Rainham £0.00 £0.00 £0.71 £6.18 £0.88 £2.13 £0.00 £0.00 £9.90 Rochester/Strood Morrisons, Knights Road £18.42 £5.90 £0.71 £0.00 £0.88 £0.00 £0.00 £9.79 £35.70 Tesco, Cuxton Road £15.78 £0.84 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £6.53 £23.16 Other Rochester/Strood £3.16 £0.84 £0.71 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £6.53 £11.24 Other Medway Asda, Maidstone Road, Chatham £1.05 £19.40 £2.83 £2.06 £25.59 £0.00 £3.17 £3.26 £57.36 Tesco, Courteney Road, Gillingham £1.05 £1.69 £9.90 £18.54 £1.76 £0.00 £0.00 £3.26 £36.21 Morrisons, Princes Ave, Walderslade £0.00 £0.84 £0.71 £1.03 £24.70 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £27.28 Other Medway £4.74 £20.24 £16.27 £26.79 £5.29 £0.00 £0.00 £19.58 £92.91 MEDWAY TOTAL £47.35 £79.29 £66.48 £97.87 £82.93 £14.90 £6.34 £62.02 £457.19 Other Destinations Gravesham £2.10 £0.84 £0.71 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £127.29 £130.95 Maidstone £0.53 £1.69 £2.12 £1.03 £0.88 £4.26 £186.96 £16.32 £213.79 Swale £0.00 £0.00 £0.71 £0.00 £0.88 £180.98 £0.00 £3.26 £185.83 Tonbridge & Malling £1.05 £2.53 £0.00 £0.00 £1.76 £0.00 £104.57 £32.64 £142.56 Other £1.58 £0.00 £0.71 £4.12 £1.76 £12.77 £19.01 £84.86 £124.82 Other Sub-Total £5.26 £5.06 £4.24 £5.15 £5.29 £198.01 £310.54 £264.38 £797.95 Total £52.62 £84.35 £70.72 £103.03 £88.23 £212.92 £316.88 £326.40 £1,255.13
Source: Table 3B and 4B
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) x
Table 6B: Convenience Expenditure 2011 £Million
Centre/Facilities Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Total Expend Expenditure 2011 £53.50 £87.50 £74.07 £104.15 £90.04 £220.11 £325.15 £331.24 £1,285.75
Chatham £1.07 £25.38 £8.15 £2.08 £9.90 £2.20 £3.25 £9.94 £61.97
Gillingham £0.00 £0.88 £19.26 £7.29 £1.80 £4.40 £0.00 £0.00 £33.63
Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre £2.14 £3.50 £7.41 £21.87 £11.71 £6.60 £0.00 £3.31 £56.54
Rainham £0.00 £0.88 £2.22 £18.75 £1.80 £2.20 £0.00 £0.00 £25.85
Rochester/Strood £37.98 £7.88 £1.48 £0.00 £0.90 £0.00 £0.00 £23.19 £71.43
Large freestanding superstores £2.14 £22.75 £14.07 £21.87 £53.12 £0.00 £3.25 £6.62 £123.84
Other Medway £4.81 £21.00 £17.04 £27.08 £5.40 £0.00 £0.00 £19.87 £95.21
MEDWAY TOTAL £48.15 £82.25 £69.63 £98.94 £84.64 £15.41 £6.50 £62.93 £468.45
Other Destinations £5.35 £5.25 £4.44 £5.21 £5.40 £204.70 £318.64 £268.30 £817.30
Total £53.50 £87.50 £74.07 £104.15 £90.04 £220.11 £325.15 £331.24 £1,285.75
Source: Table 3B and 4B
Table 7B: Convenience Expenditure 2016 £Million
Centre/Facilities Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Total Expend Expenditure 2016 £55.18 £92.96 £79.81 £106.39 £93.37 £233.32 £340.80 £343.67 £1,345.51
Chatham £1.10 £26.96 £8.78 £2.13 £10.27 £2.33 £3.41 £10.31 £65.29
Gillingham £0.00 £0.93 £20.75 £7.45 £1.87 £4.67 £0.00 £0.00 £35.66
Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre £2.21 £3.72 £7.98 £22.34 £12.14 £7.00 £0.00 £3.44 £58.82
Rainham £0.00 £0.93 £2.39 £19.15 £1.87 £2.33 £0.00 £0.00 £26.67
Rochester/Strood £39.18 £8.37 £1.60 £0.00 £0.93 £0.00 £0.00 £24.06 £74.13
Large freestanding superstores £2.21 £24.17 £15.16 £22.34 £55.09 £0.00 £3.41 £6.87 £129.25
Other Medway £4.97 £22.31 £18.36 £27.66 £5.60 £0.00 £0.00 £20.62 £99.52
MEDWAY TOTAL £49.67 £87.38 £75.02 £101.07 £87.77 £16.33 £6.82 £65.30 £489.35
Other Destinations £5.52 £5.58 £4.79 £5.32 £5.60 £216.99 £333.98 £278.38 £856.16
Total £55.18 £92.96 £79.81 £106.39 £93.37 £233.32 £340.80 £343.67 £1,345.51
Source: Table 3B and 4B
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) xi
Table 8B: Convenience Expenditure 2021 £Million
Centre/Facilities Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Total Expend Expenditure 2021 £57.22 £98.96 £85.95 £109.21 £97.25 £248.39 £359.01 £358.34 £1,414.32
Chatham £1.14 £28.70 £9.45 £2.18 £10.70 £2.48 £3.59 £10.75 £69.00
Gillingham £0.00 £0.99 £22.35 £7.64 £1.94 £4.97 £0.00 £0.00 £37.89
Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre £2.29 £3.96 £8.59 £22.93 £12.64 £7.45 £0.00 £3.58 £61.45
Rainham £0.00 £0.99 £2.58 £19.66 £1.94 £2.48 £0.00 £0.00 £27.65
Rochester/Strood £40.63 £8.91 £1.72 £0.00 £0.97 £0.00 £0.00 £25.08 £77.31
Large freestanding superstores £2.29 £25.73 £16.33 £22.93 £57.38 £0.00 £3.59 £7.17 £135.41
Other Medway £5.15 £23.75 £19.77 £28.39 £5.83 £0.00 £0.00 £21.50 £104.40
MEDWAY TOTAL £51.50 £93.02 £80.79 £103.75 £91.41 £17.39 £7.18 £68.08 £513.12
Other Destinations £5.72 £5.94 £5.16 £5.46 £5.83 £231.00 £351.83 £290.25 £901.20
Total £57.22 £98.96 £85.95 £109.21 £97.25 £248.39 £359.01 £358.34 £1,414.32
Source: Table 3B and 4B
Table 9B: Convenience Expenditure 2026 £Million
Centre/Facilities Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Total Expend Expenditure 2026 £59.25 £104.86 £92.13 £112.04 £101.06 £262.83 £376.78 £372.86 £1,481.83
Chatham £1.19 £30.41 £10.13 £2.24 £11.12 £2.63 £3.77 £11.19 £72.67
Gillingham £0.00 £1.05 £23.95 £7.84 £2.02 £5.26 £0.00 £0.00 £40.12
Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre £2.37 £4.19 £9.21 £23.53 £13.14 £7.88 £0.00 £3.73 £64.06
Rainham £0.00 £1.05 £2.76 £20.17 £2.02 £2.63 £0.00 £0.00 £28.63
Rochester/Strood £42.07 £9.44 £1.84 £0.00 £1.01 £0.00 £0.00 £26.10 £80.46
Large freestanding superstores £2.37 £27.26 £17.50 £23.53 £59.63 £0.00 £3.77 £7.46 £141.52
Other Medway £5.33 £25.17 £21.19 £29.13 £6.06 £0.00 £0.00 £22.37 £109.26
MEDWAY TOTAL £53.33 £98.57 £86.60 £106.44 £95.00 £18.40 £7.54 £70.84 £536.72
Other Destinations £5.93 £6.29 £5.53 £5.60 £6.06 £244.43 £369.25 £302.02 £945.11
Total £59.25 £104.86 £92.13 £112.04 £101.06 £262.83 £376.78 £372.86 £1,481.83
Source: Table 3B and 4B
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) xii
Table 10B: Convenience Turnover/Floorspace Projections 2008 to 2026 (£Million) - Baseline Population Growth
2008 2011 2016 2021 2026 Available Expenditure in Medway Chatham £60.15 £61.97 £65.29 £69.00 £72.67 Gillingham £32.47 £33.63 £35.66 £37.89 £40.12 Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre £55.31 £56.54 £58.82 £61.45 £64.06 Rainham £25.40 £25.85 £26.67 £27.65 £28.63 Rochester/Strood £70.09 £71.43 £74.13 £77.31 £80.46 Large freestanding superstores £120.86 £123.84 £129.25 £135.41 £141.52 Other Medway £92.91 £95.21 £99.52 £104.40 £109.26 Medway Total £457.19 £468.45 £489.35 £513.12 £536.72 Benchmark Turnover of Existing Facilities Chatham £72.35 £72.89 £73.81 £74.74 £75.68 Gillingham £22.71 £22.88 £23.17 £23.46 £23.75 Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre £52.91 £53.31 £53.98 £54.66 £55.34 Rainham £15.75 £15.87 £16.07 £16.27 £16.47 Rochester/Strood £55.35 £55.77 £56.47 £57.18 £57.89 Large freestanding superstores £91.75 £92.44 £93.60 £94.78 £95.97 Other Medway £89.72 £90.39 £91.53 £92.68 £93.84 Medway Total £400.54 £403.55 £408.62 £413.75 £418.95 Benchmark Turnover of Commitments Chatham £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Gillingham £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Rainham £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Rochester/Strood £7.77 £7.83 £7.93 £8.03 £8.13 Large freestanding superstores £7.37 £7.43 £7.52 £7.61 £7.71 Other Medway £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Medway Total £15.14 £15.25 £15.45 £15.64 £15.84 Surplus Expenditure Chatham -£12.20 -£10.92 -£8.52 -£5.74 -£3.01 Gillingham £9.76 £10.75 £12.49 £14.43 £16.37 Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre £2.40 £3.23 £4.84 £6.80 £8.72 Rainham £9.65 £9.98 £10.61 £11.38 £12.16 Rochester/Strood £6.97 £7.83 £9.74 £12.11 £14.44 Large freestanding superstores £21.74 £23.97 £28.13 £33.02 £37.84 Other Medway £3.19 £4.81 £7.99 £11.72 £15.41 Medway Total £41.51 £49.65 £65.28 £83.73 £101.93 Turnover Density for New Floorspace £ per Sq M Large food stores £12,000 £12,108 £12,291 £12,477 £12,665 Small food stores/shops £5,000 £5,045 £5,121 £5,199 £5,277 Sales Floorspace (Sq M Net) Large food stores (80% of surplus) 2,767 3,280 4,249 5,369 6,439 Small food stores/shops (20% of surplus) 1,660 1,968 2,550 3,221 3,863
Sources: Tables 1A, 3A, 5B to 9B
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) xiii
Table 11B: Convenience Turnover/Floorspace Projections 2008 to 2026 (£Million) - High Population Growth
2008 2011 2016 2021 2026 Available Expenditure in Medway Chatham £54.90 £56.74 £60.30 £63.05 £65.40 Gillingham £35.85 £37.97 £42.84 £45.57 £46.83 Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre £56.40 £58.04 £61.45 £63.97 £65.92 Rainham £25.46 £25.99 £27.00 £27.86 £28.54 Rochester/Strood £71.81 £74.50 £82.09 £86.08 £89.52 Large freestanding superstores £122.19 £125.87 £133.14 £138.44 £142.70 Other Medway £93.47 £96.60 £103.40 £108.02 £111.41 Medway Total £460.08 £475.72 £510.22 £532.99 £550.32 Benchmark Turnover of Existing Facilities Chatham £72.35 £72.89 £73.81 £74.74 £75.68 Gillingham £22.71 £22.88 £23.17 £23.46 £23.75 Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre £52.91 £53.31 £53.98 £54.66 £55.34 Rainham £15.75 £15.87 £16.07 £16.27 £16.47 Rochester/Strood £55.35 £55.77 £56.47 £57.18 £57.89 Large freestanding superstores £91.75 £92.44 £93.60 £94.78 £95.97 Other Medway £89.72 £90.39 £91.53 £92.68 £93.84 Medway Total £400.54 £403.55 £408.62 £413.75 £418.95 Benchmark Turnover of Commitments Chatham £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Gillingham £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Rainham £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Rochester/Strood £7.77 £7.83 £7.93 £8.03 £8.13 Large freestanding superstores £7.37 £7.43 £7.52 £7.61 £7.71 Other Medway £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Medway Total £15.14 £15.25 £15.45 £15.64 £15.84 Surplus Expenditure Chatham -£17.45 -£16.15 -£13.51 -£11.69 -£10.28 Gillingham £13.14 £15.09 £19.68 £22.11 £23.08 Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre £3.49 £4.73 £7.47 £9.31 £10.58 Rainham £9.71 £10.13 £10.94 £11.59 £12.07 Rochester/Strood £8.69 £10.91 £17.69 £20.88 £23.50 Large freestanding superstores £23.07 £26.00 £32.02 £36.05 £39.03 Other Medway £3.75 £6.21 £11.87 £15.34 £17.56 Medway Total £44.40 £56.91 £86.15 £103.59 £115.53 Turnover Density for New Floorspace £ per Sq M Large food stores £12,000 £12,108 £12,291 £12,477 £12,665 Small food stores/shops £5,000 £5,045 £5,121 £5,199 £5,277 Sales Floorspace (Sq M Net) Large food stores (80% of surplus) 2,960 3,760 5,607 6,642 7,298 Small food stores/shops (20% of surplus) 1,776 2,256 3,364 3,985 4,379
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) xiv
Appendix C
Comparison Retail Assessment
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) xv
Table 1C: Comparison Goods Expenditure Per Capita (2006 Prices)
Expenditure Per Capita 2008 2011 2016 2021 2026 Growth Growth Growth Growth 2008-2011 2008-2016 2008-2021 2008-2026
1 - Strood £2,748 £3,025 £3,627 £4,350 £5,216 10.1% 32.0% 58.3% 89.8% 2 - Chatham/Rochester £2,668 £2,936 £3,521 £4,222 £5,064 10.1% 32.0% 58.3% 89.8% 3 - Gillingham £2,602 £2,863 £3,434 £4,118 £4,938 10.1% 32.0% 58.3% 89.8% 4 - Rainham/Hempstead £3,018 £3,322 £3,983 £4,777 £5,728 10.1% 32.0% 58.3% 89.8% 5 - Walderslade £2,847 £3,133 £3,757 £4,506 £5,403 10.1% 32.0% 58.3% 89.8% 6 - Sittingbourne/Faversham £2,820 £3,104 £3,722 £4,463 £5,352 10.1% 32.0% 58.3% 89.8% 7 - Maidstone £3,081 £3,391 £4,067 £4,877 £5,848 10.1% 32.0% 58.3% 89.8% 8 - Gravesend £2,927 £3,222 £3,863 £4,633 £5,556 10.1% 32.0% 58.3% 89.8%
Sources: Experian local estimates for 2007 comparison goods expenditure per capita (Excluding special forms of trading - 7.1% in 2008, 7.7% in 2008, 8.9% in 2011 and beyond) Experian Business Strategies - forecast growth rate 3.7% per annum
Table 2C: Total Available Comparison Goods Expenditure (£M - 2006 Prices)
Zone 2008 2011 2016 2021 2026 Growth Growth Growth Growth 2008-2011 2008-2016 2008-2021 2008-2026 Baseline Population Growth 1 - Strood £90.11 £100.46 £123.05 £150.74 £184.40 11.5% 36.5% 67.3% 104.6% 2 - Chatham/Rochester £142.96 £162.60 £205.13 £257.95 £322.93 13.7% 43.5% 80.4% 125.9% 3 - Gillingham £122.41 £140.57 £179.85 £228.80 £289.75 14.8% 46.9% 86.9% 136.7% 4 - Rainham/Hempstead £181.63 £201.31 £244.18 £296.12 £358.91 10.8% 34.4% 63.0% 97.6% 5 - Walderslade £153.69 £171.98 £211.76 £260.56 £319.91 11.9% 37.8% 69.5% 108.1% 6 - Sittingbourne/Faversham £370.55 £419.99 £528.66 £664.87 £831.14 13.3% 42.7% 79.4% 124.3% 7 - Maidstone £565.79 £636.51 £792.20 £985.91 £1,222.39 12.5% 40.0% 74.3% 116.1% 8 - Gravesend £570.23 £634.46 £781.69 £962.86 £1,183.61 11.3% 37.1% 68.9% 107.6%
Total £2,197.37 £2,467.86 £3,066.52 £3,807.83 £4,713.04 12.3% 39.6% 73.3% 114.5% High Population Growth 1 - Strood £92.01 £105.66 £143.29 £177.50 £217.46 14.8% 55.7% 92.9% 136.3% 2 - Chatham/Rochester £142.73 £161.95 £202.08 £247.94 £303.48 13.5% 41.6% 73.7% 112.6% 3 - Gillingham £125.57 £149.27 £210.04 £267.45 £323.63 18.9% 67.3% 113.0% 157.7% 4 - Rainham/Hempstead £181.66 £201.39 £243.29 £293.27 £353.01 10.9% 33.9% 61.4% 94.3% 5 - Walderslade £153.90 £172.55 £213.13 £260.20 £317.13 12.1% 38.5% 69.1% 106.1% 6 - Sittingbourne/Faversham £370.54 £419.99 £528.66 £664.87 £831.14 13.3% 42.7% 79.4% 124.3% 7 - Maidstone £565.78 £636.51 £792.21 £985.91 £1,222.39 12.5% 40.0% 74.3% 116.1% 8 - Gravesend £571.93 £639.14 £796.07 £988.48 £1,224.13 11.8% 39.2% 72.8% 114.0%
Total £2,204.13 £2,486.46 £3,128.77 £3,885.63 £4,792.38 12.8% 42.0% 76.3% 117.4%
Sources: Table 1B and Table 2B
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) xvi
Table 3C: Comparison Shopping Penetration Rates and Available Expenditure 2008
Centre/Facilities Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Total Expenditure Expenditure 2008 £90.11 £142.96 £122.41 £181.63 £153.69 £370.55 £565.79 £570.23 £2,197.37 Market Share Chatham 17% 30% 23% 11% 23% 2% 1% 6% Gillingham 2% 1% 23% 9% 3% 3% 0% 0% Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre 4% 4% 8% 20% 13% 6% 1% 1% Rainham 0% 1% 2% 10% 1% 1% 0% 0% Rochester 4% 6% 1% 3% 2% 0% 1% 1% Strood 22% 6% 0% 1% 3% 0% 0% 5% Dockside Shopping Centre 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 0% 1% Freestanding Retail Parks 2% 9% 13% 12% 15% 3% 1% 2% Other Medway 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 1% 0% 0% Medway Sub-total 62% 69% 82% 77% 72% 17% 4% 16% Gravesham 7% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 30% Maidstone 8% 13% 6% 9% 12% 9% 71% 8% Swale 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 50% 0% 0% Tonbridge & Malling 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 6% 2% Bluewater Shopping Centre 17% 11% 6% 9% 10% 5% 8% 24% Other Outflow 6% 6% 5% 4% 3% 19% 11% 20% Other Sub-Total 38% 31% 18% 23% 28% 83% 96% 84% TOTAL MARKET SHARE 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Total £M Turnover £M Chatham £15.32 £42.89 £28.15 £19.98 £35.35 £7.41 £5.66 £34.21 £188.97 Gillingham £1.80 £1.43 £28.15 £16.35 £4.61 £11.12 £0.00 £0.00 £63.46 Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre £3.60 £5.72 £9.79 £36.33 £19.98 £22.23 £5.66 £5.70 £109.02 Rainham £0.00 £1.43 £2.45 £18.16 £1.54 £3.71 £0.00 £0.00 £27.28 Rochester £3.60 £8.58 £1.22 £5.45 £3.07 £0.00 £5.66 £5.70 £33.29 Strood £19.83 £8.58 £0.00 £1.82 £4.61 £0.00 £0.00 £28.51 £63.34 Dockside Shopping Centre £0.90 £2.86 £2.45 £1.82 £3.07 £3.71 £0.00 £5.70 £20.51 Freestanding Retail Parks £1.80 £12.87 £15.91 £21.80 £23.05 £11.12 £5.66 £11.40 £103.61 Other Medway £9.01 £14.30 £12.24 £18.16 £15.37 £3.71 £0.00 £0.00 £72.79 Medway Sub-total £55.87 £98.64 £100.38 £139.85 £110.66 £62.99 £22.63 £91.24 £682.27 Gravesham £6.31 £1.43 £1.22 £0.00 £1.54 £0.00 £0.00 £171.07 £181.57 Maidstone £7.21 £18.58 £7.34 £16.35 £18.44 £33.35 £401.71 £45.62 £548.60 Swale £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £1.82 £1.54 £185.27 £0.00 £0.00 £188.63 Tonbridge & Malling £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £1.54 £0.00 £33.95 £11.40 £46.89 Bluewater Shopping Centre £15.32 £15.73 £7.34 £16.35 £15.37 £18.53 £45.26 £136.85 £270.75 Other Outflow £5.41 £8.58 £6.12 £7.27 £4.61 £70.40 £62.24 £114.05 £278.67 Outflow Sub-Total £34.24 £44.32 £22.03 £41.77 £43.03 £307.55 £543.15 £478.99 £1,515.10 TOTAL TURNOVER £90.11 £142.96 £122.41 £181.63 £153.69 £370.55 £565.79 £570.23 n/a
Sources: Table 2C NEMS Household Survey 2008
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) xvii
Table 4C: Comparison Shopping Penetration Rates and Available Expenditure 2011
Centre/Facilities Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Total Expenditure Expenditure 2011 £100.46 £162.60 £140.57 £201.31 £171.98 £419.99 £636.51 £634.46 £2,467.86 Market Share Chatham 17% 30% 23% 11% 23% 2% 1% 6% Gillingham 2% 1% 23% 9% 3% 3% 0% 0% Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre 4% 4% 8% 20% 13% 6% 1% 1% Rainham 0% 1% 2% 10% 1% 1% 0% 0% Rochester 4% 6% 1% 3% 2% 0% 1% 1% Strood 22% 6% 0% 1% 3% 0% 0% 5% Dockside Shopping Centre 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 0% 1% Freestanding Retail Parks 2% 9% 13% 12% 15% 3% 1% 2% Other Medway 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 1% 0% 0% Medway Sub-total 62% 69% 82% 77% 72% 17% 4% 16% Gravesham 7% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 30% Maidstone 8% 13% 6% 9% 12% 9% 71% 8% Swale 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 50% 0% 0% Tonbridge & Malling 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 6% 2% Bluewater Shopping Centre 17% 11% 6% 9% 10% 5% 8% 24% Other Outflow 6% 6% 5% 4% 3% 19% 11% 20% Other Sub-Total 38% 31% 18% 23% 28% 83% 96% 84% TOTAL MARKET SHARE 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Total £M Turnover £M Chatham £17.08 £48.78 £32.33 £22.14 £39.55 £8.40 £6.37 £38.07 £212.72 Gillingham £2.01 £1.63 £32.33 £18.12 £5.16 £12.60 £0.00 £0.00 £71.84 Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre £4.02 £6.50 £11.25 £40.26 £22.36 £25.20 £6.37 £6.34 £122.29 Rainham £0.00 £1.63 £2.81 £20.13 £1.72 £4.20 £0.00 £0.00 £30.49 Rochester £4.02 £9.76 £1.41 £6.04 £3.44 £0.00 £6.37 £6.34 £37.37 Strood £22.10 £9.76 £0.00 £2.01 £5.16 £0.00 £0.00 £31.72 £70.75 Dockside Shopping Centre £1.00 £3.25 £2.81 £2.01 £3.44 £4.20 £0.00 £6.34 £23.06 Freestanding Retail Parks £2.01 £14.63 £18.27 £24.16 £25.80 £12.60 £6.37 £12.69 £116.52 Other Medway £10.05 £16.26 £14.06 £20.13 £17.20 £4.20 £0.00 £0.00 £81.89 Medway Sub-total £62.28 £112.19 £115.27 £155.01 £123.82 £71.40 £25.46 £101.51 £766.94 Gravesham £7.03 £1.63 £1.41 £0.00 £1.72 £0.00 £0.00 £190.34 £202.12 Maidstone £8.04 £21.14 £8.43 £18.12 £20.64 £37.80 £451.92 £50.76 £616.84 Swale £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £2.01 £1.72 £209.99 £0.00 £0.00 £213.73 Tonbridge & Malling £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £1.72 £0.00 £38.19 £12.69 £52.60 Bluewater Shopping Centre £17.08 £17.89 £8.43 £18.12 £17.20 £21.00 £50.92 £152.27 £302.90 Other Outflow £6.03 £9.76 £7.03 £8.05 £5.16 £79.80 £70.02 £126.89 £312.73 Outflow Sub-Total £38.17 £50.41 £25.30 £46.30 £48.15 £348.59 £611.05 £532.95 £1,700.92 TOTAL TURNOVER £100.46 £162.60 £140.57 £201.31 £171.98 £419.99 £636.51 £634.46 n/a
Sources: Table 2C
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) xviii
Table 5C: Comparison Shopping Penetration Rates and Available Expenditure 2016
Centre/Facilities Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Total Expenditure Expenditure 2016 £123.05 £205.13 £179.85 £244.18 £211.76 £528.66 £792.20 £781.69 £3,066.52 Market Share Chatham 17% 30% 23% 11% 23% 2% 1% 6% Gillingham 2% 1% 23% 9% 3% 3% 0% 0% Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre 4% 4% 8% 20% 13% 6% 1% 1% Rainham 0% 1% 2% 10% 1% 1% 0% 0% Rochester 4% 6% 1% 3% 2% 0% 1% 1% Strood 22% 6% 0% 1% 3% 0% 0% 5% Dockside Shopping Centre 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 0% 1% Freestanding Retail Parks 2% 9% 13% 12% 15% 3% 1% 2% Other Medway 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 1% 0% 0% Medway Sub-total 62% 69% 82% 77% 72% 17% 4% 16% Gravesham 7% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 30% Maidstone 8% 13% 6% 9% 12% 9% 71% 8% Swale 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 50% 0% 0% Tonbridge & Malling 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 6% 2% Bluewater Shopping Centre 17% 11% 6% 9% 10% 5% 8% 24% Other Outflow 6% 6% 5% 4% 3% 19% 11% 20% Other Sub-Total 38% 31% 18% 23% 28% 83% 96% 84% TOTAL MARKET SHARE 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Total £M Turnover £M Chatham £20.92 £61.54 £41.36 £26.86 £48.71 £10.57 £7.92 £46.90 £264.78 Gillingham £2.46 £2.05 £41.36 £21.98 £6.35 £15.86 £0.00 £0.00 £90.07 Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre £4.92 £8.21 £14.39 £48.84 £27.53 £31.72 £7.92 £7.82 £151.34 Rainham £0.00 £2.05 £3.60 £24.42 £2.12 £5.29 £0.00 £0.00 £37.47 Rochester £4.92 £12.31 £1.80 £7.33 £4.24 £0.00 £7.92 £7.82 £46.33 Strood £27.07 £12.31 £0.00 £2.44 £6.35 £0.00 £0.00 £39.08 £87.26 Dockside Shopping Centre £1.23 £4.10 £3.60 £2.44 £4.24 £5.29 £0.00 £7.82 £28.71 Freestanding Retail Parks £2.46 £18.46 £23.38 £29.30 £31.76 £15.86 £7.92 £15.63 £144.78 Other Medway £12.30 £20.51 £17.98 £24.42 £21.18 £5.29 £0.00 £0.00 £101.68 Medway Sub-total £76.29 £141.54 £147.47 £188.02 £152.47 £89.87 £31.69 £125.07 £952.42 Gravesham £8.61 £2.05 £1.80 £0.00 £2.12 £0.00 £0.00 £234.51 £249.09 Maidstone £9.84 £26.67 £10.79 £21.98 £25.41 £47.58 £562.46 £62.54 £767.27 Swale £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £2.44 £2.12 £264.33 £0.00 £0.00 £268.89 Tonbridge & Malling £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £2.12 £0.00 £47.53 £15.63 £65.28 Bluewater Shopping Centre £20.92 £22.56 £10.79 £21.98 £21.18 £26.43 £63.38 £187.61 £374.84 Other Outflow £7.38 £12.31 £8.99 £9.77 £6.35 £100.45 £87.14 £156.34 £388.73 Outflow Sub-Total £46.76 £63.59 £32.37 £56.16 £59.29 £438.79 £760.52 £656.62 £2,114.10 TOTAL TURNOVER £123.05 £205.13 £179.85 £244.18 £211.76 £528.66 £792.20 £781.69 n/a
Sources: Table 2C
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) xix
Table 6C: Comparison Shopping Penetration Rates and Available Expenditure 2021
Centre/Facilities Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Total Expenditure Expenditure 2021 £150.74 £257.95 £228.80 £296.12 £260.56 £664.87 £985.91 £962.86 £3,807.83 Market Share Chatham 17% 30% 23% 11% 23% 2% 1% 6% Gillingham 2% 1% 23% 9% 3% 3% 0% 0% Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre 4% 4% 8% 20% 13% 6% 1% 1% Rainham 0% 1% 2% 10% 1% 1% 0% 0% Rochester 4%6%1%3%2%0%1%1% Strood 22% 6% 0% 1% 3% 0% 0% 5% Dockside Shopping Centre 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 0% 1% Freestanding Retail Parks 2% 9% 13% 12% 15% 3% 1% 2% Other Medway 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 1% 0% 0% Medway Sub-total 62% 69% 82% 77% 72% 17% 4% 16% Gravesham 7% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 30% Maidstone 8% 13% 6% 9% 12% 9% 71% 8% Swale 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 50% 0% 0% Tonbridge & Malling 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 6% 2% Bluewater Shopping Centre 17% 11% 6% 9% 10% 5% 8% 24% Other Outflow 6% 6% 5% 4% 3% 19% 11% 20% Other Sub-Total 38% 31% 18% 23% 28% 83% 96% 84% TOTAL MARKET SHARE 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Total £M Turnover £M Chatham £25.63 £77.39 £52.62 £32.57 £59.93 £13.30 £9.86 £57.77 £329.07 Gillingham £3.01 £2.58 £52.62 £26.65 £7.82 £19.95 £0.00 £0.00 £112.63 Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre £6.03 £10.32 £18.30 £59.22 £33.87 £39.89 £9.86 £9.63 £187.13 Rainham £0.00 £2.58 £4.58 £29.61 £2.61 £6.65 £0.00 £0.00 £46.02 Rochester £6.03 £15.48 £2.29 £8.88 £5.21 £0.00 £9.86 £9.63 £57.38 Strood £33.16 £15.48 £0.00 £2.96 £7.82 £0.00 £0.00 £48.14 £107.56 Dockside Shopping Centre £1.51 £5.16 £4.58 £2.96 £5.21 £6.65 £0.00 £9.63 £35.69 Freestanding Retail Parks £3.01 £23.22 £29.74 £35.53 £39.08 £19.95 £9.86 £19.26 £179.66 Other Medway £15.07 £25.80 £22.88 £29.61 £26.06 £6.65 £0.00 £0.00 £126.07 Medway Sub-total £93.46 £177.99 £187.62 £228.02 £187.61 £113.03 £39.44 £154.06 £1,181.21 Gravesham £10.55 £2.58 £2.29 £0.00 £2.61 £0.00 £0.00 £288.86 £306.88 Maidstone £12.06 £33.53 £13.73 £26.65 £31.27 £59.84 £700.00 £77.03 £954.11 Swale £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £2.96 £2.61 £332.43 £0.00 £0.00 £338.00 Tonbridge & Malling £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £2.61 £0.00 £59.15 £19.26 £81.02 Bluewater Shopping Centre £25.63 £28.37 £13.73 £26.65 £26.06 £33.24 £78.87 £231.09 £463.64 Other Outflow £9.04 £15.48 £11.44 £11.84 £7.82 £126.32 £108.45 £192.57 £482.97 Outflow Sub-Total £57.28 £79.97 £41.18 £68.11 £72.96 £551.84 £946.48 £808.81 £2,626.62 TOTAL TURNOVER £150.74 £257.95 £228.80 £296.12 £260.56 £664.87 £985.91 £962.86 n/a
Sources: Table 2C
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) xx
Table 7C: Comparison Shopping Penetration Rates and Available Expenditure 2026
Centre/Facilities Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Total Expenditure Expenditure 2026 £184.40 £322.93 £289.75 £358.91 £319.91 £831.14 £1,222.39 £1,183.61 £4,713.04 Market Share Chatham 17% 30% 23% 11% 23% 2% 1% 6% Gillingham 2% 1% 23% 9% 3% 3% 0% 0% Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre 4% 4% 8% 20% 13% 6% 1% 1% Rainham 0% 1% 2% 10% 1% 1% 0% 0% Rochester 4%6%1%3%2%0%1%1% Strood 22% 6% 0% 1% 3% 0% 0% 5% Dockside Shopping Centre 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 0% 1% Freestanding Retail Parks 2% 9% 13% 12% 15% 3% 1% 2% Other Medway 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 1% 0% 0% Medway Sub-total 62% 69% 82% 77% 72% 17% 4% 16% Gravesham 7% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 30% Maidstone 8% 13% 6% 9% 12% 9% 71% 8% Swale 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 50% 0% 0% Tonbridge & Malling 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 6% 2% Bluewater Shopping Centre 17% 11% 6% 9% 10% 5% 8% 24% Other Outflow 6% 6% 5% 4% 3% 19% 11% 20% Other Sub-Total 38% 31% 18% 23% 28% 83% 96% 84% TOTAL MARKET SHARE 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Total £M Turnover £M Chatham £31.35 £96.88 £66.64 £39.48 £73.58 £16.62 £12.22 £71.02 £407.79 Gillingham £3.69 £3.23 £66.64 £32.30 £9.60 £24.93 £0.00 £0.00 £140.39 Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre £7.38 £12.92 £23.18 £71.78 £41.59 £49.87 £12.22 £11.84 £230.77 Rainham £0.00 £3.23 £5.80 £35.89 £3.20 £8.31 £0.00 £0.00 £56.43 Rochester £7.38 £19.38 £2.90 £10.77 £6.40 £0.00 £12.22 £11.84 £70.87 Strood £40.57 £19.38 £0.00 £3.59 £9.60 £0.00 £0.00 £59.18 £132.31 Dockside Shopping Centre £1.84 £6.46 £5.80 £3.59 £6.40 £8.31 £0.00 £11.84 £44.23 Freestanding Retail Parks £3.69 £29.06 £37.67 £43.07 £47.99 £24.93 £12.22 £23.67 £222.30 Other Medway £18.44 £32.29 £28.98 £35.89 £31.99 £8.31 £0.00 £0.00 £155.90 Medway Sub-total £114.33 £222.82 £237.60 £276.36 £230.33 £141.29 £48.90 £189.38 £1,461.00 Gravesham £12.91 £3.23 £2.90 £0.00 £3.20 £0.00 £0.00 £355.08 £377.32 Maidstone £14.75 £41.98 £17.39 £32.30 £38.39 £74.80 £867.90 £94.69 £1,182.20 Swale £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £3.59 £3.20 £415.57 £0.00 £0.00 £422.36 Tonbridge & Malling £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £3.20 £0.00 £73.34 £23.67 £100.21 Bluewater Shopping Centre £31.35 £35.52 £17.39 £32.30 £31.99 £41.56 £97.79 £284.07 £571.96 Other Outflow £11.06 £19.38 £14.49 £14.36 £9.60 £157.92 £134.46 £236.72 £597.98 Outflow Sub-Total £70.07 £100.11 £52.16 £82.55 £89.57 £689.85 £1,173.50 £994.23 £3,252.04 TOTAL TURNOVER £184.40 £322.93 £289.75 £358.91 £319.91 £831.14 £1,222.39 £1,183.61 n/a
Sources: Table 2C
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) xxi
Table 8C: Comparison Expenditure Projections 2008 to 2026 (constant market shares - baseline population growth)
Centre 2008 2011 2016 2021 2026 Available Expenditure Chatham £188.97 £212.72 £264.78 £329.07 £407.79 Gillingham £63.46 £71.84 £90.07 £112.63 £140.39 Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre £109.02 £122.29 £151.34 £187.13 £230.77 Rainham £27.28 £30.49 £37.47 £46.02 £56.43 Rochester £33.29 £37.37 £46.33 £57.38 £70.87 Strood £63.34 £70.75 £87.26 £107.56 £132.31 Dockside Shopping Centre £20.51 £23.06 £28.71 £35.69 £44.23 Freestanding Retail Parks £103.61 £116.52 £144.78 £179.66 £222.30 Other Medway £72.79 £81.89 £101.68 £126.07 £155.90 Total £682.27 £766.94 £952.42 £1,181.21 £1,461.00 Turnover of Existing Floorspace Chatham £188.97 £197.61 £212.88 £229.33 £247.05 Gillingham £63.46 £66.36 £71.49 £77.01 £82.96 Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre £109.02 £113.99 £122.80 £132.30 £142.52 Rainham £27.28 £28.53 £30.73 £33.11 £35.67 Rochester £33.29 £34.81 £37.50 £40.40 £43.52 Strood £63.34 £66.23 £71.35 £76.87 £82.81 Dockside Shopping Centre £20.51 £21.44 £23.10 £24.89 £26.81 Freestanding Retail Parks £103.61 £108.34 £116.72 £125.74 £135.45 Other Medway £72.79 £76.11 £81.99 £88.33 £95.16 Total £682.27 £713.43 £768.57 £827.97 £891.96 Commitments Chatham n/a £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Gillingham n/a £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre n/a £10.34 £11.14 £12.00 £12.93 Rainham n/a £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Rochester n/a £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Strood n/a £17.59 £18.95 £20.41 £21.99 Dockside Shopping Centre n/a £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Freestanding Retail Parks n/a £49.42 £53.24 £57.35 £61.79 Other Medway n/a £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Total n/a £77.35 £83.33 £89.77 £96.71 Surplus Expenditure Chatham n/a £15.11 £51.90 £99.74 £160.74 Gillingham n/a £5.48 £18.58 £35.62 £57.43 Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre n/a -£2.04 £17.39 £42.83 £75.32 Rainham n/a £1.96 £6.74 £12.91 £20.76 Rochester n/a £2.56 £8.83 £16.98 £27.35 Strood n/a -£13.07 -£3.05 £10.28 £27.51 Dockside Shopping Centre n/a £1.62 £5.61 £10.81 £17.42 Freestanding Retail Parks n/a -£41.24 -£25.17 -£3.43 £25.06 Other Medway n/a £5.78 £19.69 £37.74 £60.74 Total n/a -£23.84 £100.52 £263.47 £472.34
Sources: Tables 3A, 3C to 7C
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) xxii
Table 9C: Comparison Floorspace Projections (constant market shares - baseline population growth)
Centre 2008 2011 2016 2021 2026 Surplus Expenditure Chatham n/a £15.11 £51.90 £99.74 £160.74 Gillingham n/a £5.48 £18.58 £35.62 £57.43 Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre n/a -£2.04 £17.39 £42.83 £75.32 Rainham n/a £1.96 £6.74 £12.91 £20.76 Rochester n/a £2.56 £8.83 £16.98 £27.35 Strood n/a -£13.07 -£3.05 £10.28 £27.51 Dockside Shopping Centre n/a £1.62 £5.61 £10.81 £17.42 Freestanding Retail Parks n/a -£41.24 -£25.17 -£3.43 £25.06 Other Medway n/a £5.78 £19.69 £37.74 £60.74 Total n/a -£23.84 £100.52 £263.47 £472.34 Sales Density for New Floorspace £5,000 £5,228 £5,632 £6,068 £6,537 Sales Floorspace (Sq M Net) Chatham n/a 2,891 9,215 16,437 24,590 Gillingham n/a 1,049 3,298 5,870 8,786 Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre n/a -390 3,088 7,059 11,523 Rainham n/a 375 1,196 2,128 3,176 Rochester n/a 489 1,567 2,798 4,185 Strood n/a -2,500 -541 1,694 4,208 Dockside Shopping Centre n/a 310 996 1,781 2,665 Freestanding Retail Parks n/a -7,888 -4,469 -566 3,834 Other Medway n/a 1,105 3,496 6,219 9,293 Total n/a -4,560 17,847 43,422 72,260 Gross Floorspace (Sq M Gross) Chatham n/a 3,854 12,287 21,917 32,787 Gillingham n/a 1,398 4,398 7,827 11,714 Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre n/a -520 4,118 9,412 15,364 Rainham n/a 499 1,595 2,837 4,234 Rochester n/a 652 2,090 3,731 5,580 Strood n/a -3,334 -721 2,259 5,611 Dockside Shopping Centre n/a 414 1,328 2,375 3,554 Freestanding Retail Parks n/a -10,517 -5,959 -755 5,112 Other Medway n/a 1,474 4,661 8,292 12,390 Total n/a -6,079 23,796 57,896 96,347
Sources: Table 8C
Table 10C: Comparison Shopping Penetration Rates and Available Expenditure 2016 (increased shares for Medway)
Centre/Facilities Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Total Expenditure Expenditure 2016 £123.05 £205.13 £179.85 £244.18 £211.76 £528.66 £792.20 £781.69 £3,066.52 Market Share
Medway 70% 75% 85% 80% 75% 20% 5% 20%
Elsewhere 30% 25% 15% 20% 25% 80% 95% 80%
TOTAL MARKET SHARE 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Total £M Turnover £M
Medway £86.13 £153.84 £152.87 £195.34 £158.82 £105.73 £39.61 £156.34 £1,048.69
Elsewhere £36.91 £51.28 £26.98 £48.84 £52.94 £422.93 £752.59 £625.35 £2,017.83
TOTAL TURNOVER £123.05 £205.13 £179.85 £244.18 £211.76 £528.66 £792.20 £781.69 n/a
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) xxiii
Table 11C: Comparison Shopping Penetration Rates and Available Expenditure 2021 (increased shares for Medway)
Centre/Facilities Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Total Expenditure Expenditure 2021 £150.74 £257.95 £228.80 £296.12 £260.56 £664.87 £985.91 £962.86 £3,807.83 Market Share
Medway 70% 75% 85% 80% 75% 20% 5% 20%
Elsewhere 30% 25% 15% 20% 25% 80% 95% 80%
TOTAL MARKET SHARE 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Total £M Turnover £M
Medway £105.52 £193.47 £194.48 £236.90 £195.42 £132.97 £49.30 £192.57 £1,300.63
Elsewhere £45.22 £64.49 £34.32 £59.22 £65.14 £531.89 £936.62 £770.29 £2,507.20
TOTAL TURNOVER £150.74 £257.95 £228.80 £296.12 £260.56 £664.87 £985.91 £962.86 n/a
Table 12C: Comparison Shopping Penetration Rates and Available Expenditure 2026 (increased shares for Medway)
Centre/Facilities Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Total Expenditure Expenditure 2026 £184.40 £322.93 £289.75 £358.91 £319.91 £831.14 £1,222.39 £1,183.61 £4,713.04 Market Share
Medway 70% 75% 85% 80% 75% 20% 5% 20%
Elsewhere 30% 25% 15% 20% 25% 80% 95% 80%
TOTAL MARKET SHARE 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Total £M Turnover £M
Medway £129.08 £242.20 £246.29 £287.13 £239.93 £166.23 £61.12 £236.72 £1,608.69
Elsewhere £55.32 £80.73 £43.46 £71.78 £79.98 £664.91 £1,161.27 £946.89 £3,104.35
TOTAL TURNOVER £184.40 £322.93 £289.75 £358.91 £319.91 £831.14 £1,222.39 £1,183.61 n/a
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) xxiv
Table 13C: Comparison Expenditure/Floorspace Projections (increased share for Medway - Baseline Population)
Centre 2008 2011 2016 2021 2026
Available Expenditure in Medway £682.27 £766.94 £1,048.69 £1,300.63 £1,608.69
Turnover of Existing Floorspace in Medway £682.27 £713.43 £768.57 £827.97 £891.96
Commitments in Medway n/a £77.35 £83.33 £89.77 £96.71
Surplus Expenditure n/a -£23.84 £196.80 £382.89 £620.03
Sales Density for New Floorspace £5,000 £5,228 £5,632 £6,068 £6,537
Sales Floorspace (Sq M Net) n/a -4,560 34,940 63,103 94,854
Gross Floorspace (Sq M) n/a -6,079 46,586 84,137 126,471
Sources: Tables 3A, 3C, 4C, 9C, 11C and 12C
Table 14C: Comparison Expenditure/Floorspace Projections (contant market shares and high population growth)
Centre 2008 2011 2016 2021 2026
Available Expenditure in Medway £686.32 £778.09 £990.23 £1,224.23 £1,495.81
Turnover of Existing Floorspace in Medway £686.32 £717.67 £773.13 £832.88 £897.25
Commitments in Medway n/a £77.35 £83.33 £89.77 £96.71
Surplus Expenditure n/a -£16.93 £133.77 £301.58 £501.85
Sales Density for New Floorspace £5,000 £5,228 £5,632 £6,068 £6,537
Sales Floorspace (Sq M Net) n/a -3,238 23,750 49,702 76,775
Gross Floorspace (Sq M) n/a -4,317 31,666 66,269 102,366
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) xxv
Table 15C: Comparison Expenditure/Floorspace Projections (increased share for Medway and high population growth)
Centre 2008 2011 2016 2021 2026
Available Expenditure in Medway £686.32 £778.09 £1,089.43 £1,347.28 £1,647.35
Turnover of Existing Floorspace in Medway £686.32 £717.67 £773.13 £832.88 £897.25
Commitments in Medway n/a £77.35 £83.33 £89.77 £96.71
Surplus Expenditure n/a -£16.93 £232.98 £424.63 £653.39
Sales Density for New Floorspace £5,000 £5,228 £5,632 £6,068 £6,537
Sales Floorspace (Sq M Net) n/a -3,238 41,363 69,981 99,958
Gross Floorspace (Sq M) n/a -4,317 55,151 93,308 133,277
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) xxvi
Appendix D
Operator Requirements
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) i
MEDWAY COUNCIL OPERATOR REQUIREMENTS SURVEY
Over 300 questionnaires were sent to a range of national/regional retail and leisure companies.
10 responses were received (approximately 3% response rate) from the following companies:
Companies with a requirement
Space Required Operator & Trading Names Locations Sq Ft Expanded Hempstead Valley Shopping Adams Children’s wear 3,000 Centre unit Chatham or expanded Hempstead Valley BHS 35-40,000 Shopping Centre unit. New unit in Chatham, Strood, Rainham, JD Wetherspoon 7,000 Gillingham and Local Centres New unit in Chatham, Rochester or Local Tesco 150,000 Centres. Expanded unit in Strood or Gillingham Dunelm 40,000 Out of Centre
Companies with no current requirement
Toys R Us WH Smith Dolland & Aitchinson DFS Furniture Edinburgh Woollen Mill
Questionnaire Results
Does your company have a requirement for new or expanded premises in Medway?
Yes 5 (50%) No 5 (50%) Total 10
What are the main reasons why you are not looking for premises?
Reasons cited:
‘Not looking to locate in Medway’ 1 ‘Requirements met/sufficient representation’ 3 ‘Wrong demographic profile’ 1
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) ii
What additional information might influence you in deciding to locate in Medway?
Information cited:
‘Large enough units’ ‘Environmental and infrastructure improvements’ ‘’Further retail space provision’ ‘Rent/Lease Term’
What has prevented you from securing this requirement to date?
Reasons cited:
‘Availability of Larger Space’ ‘Size of units’ ‘Suitable available premises’ ‘Planning process’ ‘Time delays on land acquisition’
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) iii
ESTATES GAZETTE (EGI) – RETAILER AND LEISURE REQUIREMENTS (JULY 2008 TO DECEMBER 2008)
CHATHAM
REQUIREMENT REQUIREMENT COMPANY NAME SECTOR (SQ M) (CENTRE/AREA) Argos Department Store & Variety 465-1,486 Edge of town/In town/ Store Out of town PC World Electrical & Computer Goods 929-1,115 Edge of town/In town Pizza Hut Restaurant Bars & Cafes 296 Edge of town/Out of town Priceless Shoes Clothing 139-186 In town River Island Accessories & 650-1,394 In town/Shopping Centre Jewellery/Clothing SPAR Food 139-557 In town Subway Restaurant Bars & Cafes 46-167 In town/Shopping Centre Waitrose Food 929-3,252 Edge of town/In town
GILLINGHAM
REQUIREMENT REQUIREMENT COMPANY NAME SECTOR (SQ M) (CENTRE/AREA) David Lloyd Leisure Services- Leisure 8,094 Edge of town/In town/ Out of town Dominos Pizza Restaurant Bars & Cafes 93-111 Edge of town/In town/ Out of town PC World Electrical & Computer Goods 929-1,115 Edge of town/In town Pets At Home Pets & Accessories 279-1,115 Edge of town/Out of town Pizza Hut Restaurant Bars & Cafes 296 Edge of town/Out of town Priceless Shoes Clothing 139-186 In town River Island Accessories & 650-1,394 In town/Shopping Centre Jewellery/Clothing SPAR Food 139-557 In town Subway Restaurant Bars & Cafes 46-167 In town/Shopping Centre Waitrose Food 929-3,252 Edge of town/In town
STROOD
REQUIREMENT REQUIREMENT COMPANY NAME SECTOR (SQ M) (CENTRE/AREA) Iceland Food 372-557 In town PC World Electrical & Computer Goods 929-1,115 Edge of town/In town Peacocks Clothing 418-697 In town/Out of town/Shopping Centre Pets At Home Pets & Accessories 279-1,115 Edge of town/Out of town
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) iv
REQUIREMENT REQUIREMENT COMPANY NAME SECTOR (SQ M) (CENTRE/AREA) Pizza Hut Restaurant Bars & Cafes 296 Edge of town/Out of town River Island Accessories & 650-1,394 In town/Shopping Centre Jewellery/Clothing SPAR Food 139-557 In town Subway Restaurant Bars & Cafes 46-167 In town/Shopping Centre Waitrose Food 929-3,252 Edge of town/In town
ROCHESTER
REQUIREMENT REQUIREMENT COMPANY NAME SECTOR (SQ M) (CENTRE/AREA) PC World Electrical & Computer Goods 929-1,115 Edge of town/In town Pets At Home Pets & Accessories 279-1,115 Edge of town/Out of town Pizza Hut Restaurant Bars & Cafes 296 Edge of town/Out of town River Island Accessories & 650-1,394 In town/Shopping Centre Jewellery/Clothing SPAR Food 139-557 In town Starbucks Coffee Restaurant Bars & Cafes 28-232 Edge of town/Factory Outlet/In town/ Out of town/Shopping Centre Strada Restaurant Bars & Cafes 255-465 In town Subway Restaurant Bars & Cafes 46-139 In town/Shopping Centre Waitrose Food 929-3,252 Edge of town/In town
RAINHAM
REQUIREMENT REQUIREMENT COMPANY NAME SECTOR (SQ M) (CENTRE/AREA) Pizza Hut Restaurant Bars & Cafes 79-93 Edge of town/In town
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) v
Appendix E
Household Survey Results
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) vi
Appendix F
Evaluation of Potential Development Sites
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) vii
SITE - CHAT1: Chatham Waterfront Regeneration Area
The commercial and waterside areas to the west of Sir John Hawkins Way are poorly linked to the rest of the core shopping area. This area is occupied by surface car parks, car sales outlets and relatively secondary retail uses. The total redevelopment area totals approximately 3 hectares and is identified as part of four key projects within the Chatham City and Waterfront Development Framework SPG and the Centre and Waterfront Supplementary Planning Document. The SPG identified this area as suitable for residential and mixed use development. It proposes the removal of the flyover and through traffic on Sir John Hawkins Way. This development area could provide opportunities for retail and leisure development.
Evaluation Criteria Comment Availability Medium to Long term Scale of Development Large scale (about 10,000 sq m gross additional (retail/leisure/community/cultural) commercial floorspace). The SPD suggest between 6,000 to 10,000 sq m gross of retail could be developed. Commercial Potential Part of the site is within the designated Core Retail Area and the remainder is within the City Riverside Allocation. If the flyover is removed the site could provide an opportunity to extend the Core Retail Area with linkages to the Pentagon Centre and the High Street. Likely type of development Major mixed use regeneration areas, which could included traditional high street shopping. This could be in the form of small scale unit shops and ground floor level or larger units. There is an opportunity to link the High Street with the waterfront. Development Constraints Land assembly will be required for major redevelopment and development will need to fund the removal of the flyover. The may be a need to relocate existing occupiers. Impact on the open space to the north would need to be considered. Possible Alternative uses Retention of existing uses or high density residential or mixed use development as envisaged in the SPG. Access Existing access from the High Street, Globe Lane and Best Street. Overall Development Prospects Reasonable/Good
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) viii
SITE - CHAT2: The Pentagon Shopping Centre
The Pentagon Centre is in need of refurbishment in order to provide a high quality and modern shopping environment. The centre and surrounding land provides an opportunity to extend the centre particularly to the south east (currently occupied by multi-storey car parking and possibly Halfords). The area is identified as part of Shopping Heart key projects within the Chatham City and Waterfront Development Framework SPG and the Pentagon Centre Development Brief. These documents identify this area as suitable for retail and mixed use development.
Evaluation Criteria Comment Availability Medium/Long term Scale of Development Large scale (at least 15,000 sq m gross additional (retail/leisure/community/cultural) floorspace). Commercial Potential Within the designated Core Retail Area. The shopping centre forms part of the main shopping circuit.
Likely type of development Extension to the covered shopping centre to provide new and enlarged retail units for high street comparison outlets, including better linkages to the High Street. Development Constraints Adjacent land may need to be assembled. The increase in commercial space will need to be significant to cover development/refurbishment costs. Refurbishment and development may be disruptive to existing operators. Possible Alternative uses Retention of existing multi-storey car parks and other uses. Access Existing access from The Brook. Overall Development Prospects Reasonable/Good
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) ix
SITE - CHAT3: Best Street Regeneration Area
Land between Best Street and the Debenhams department store is occupied by surface/multi-storey car parks and other low density uses. The total redevelopment area is about 2ha and is identified as part of the Shopping Heart key projects within the Chatham City and Waterfront Development Framework SPG. The SPG identifies this area as suitable for a new multi-storey car park, a new food store and retail uses to the rear of Debenhams on Clover Street. Part of the site is allocated for Class A1 retail development (Policy R1) in the Adopted Medway Local Plan
Evaluation Criteria Comment Availability Medium term Scale of Development Large scale (a food store of 8,000 sq m gross and 3,500 (retail/leisure/community/cultural) sq m gross of other retail floorspace) as envisaged in the SPG or a comparison led development (about 10,000 sq m gross). Commercial Potential Within the designated Core Retail Area with excellent linkages to the High Street.
Likely type of development Combination of small shop units and/or large format store. Development Constraints Cost of demolition and replacement multi-storey car parking. Acquisition and relocation of some existing uses moving/relocating existing uses may be required.
Possible Alternative uses Retention of existing car parks or high density residential or mixed use development. Access Existing access from Best Street. Overall Development Prospects Good
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) x
SITE – CHAT4: Post office Sorting Office and Telephone Exchange, Best Street
This area is identified as part of the Best Street and New Road Upper High Street Key Project Area within the Chatham City and Waterfront Development Framework SPG. The SPG identifies this area as suitable for residential development with some mixed use development on the road frontage. The development area could be up to one hectare.
Evaluation Criteria Comment Availability Medium/Long term Scale of Development Large scale (up to 4,000 sq m gross at ground floor (retail/leisure/community/cultural) level) Commercial Potential Just outside the designated core retail area but within a relatively secondary location. Development potential would be enhanced by the implementation of development on the adjacent public car parks. Likely type of development Secondary shop premises or large format outlets with residential or office uses above. Development Constraints Availability for development uncertain. Possible Alternative uses Retention of existing uses or high density residential as envisaged in the SPG. Access Existing access from Best Street or New Road. Overall Development Prospects Reasonable
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) xi
SITE – CHAT5: Tesco and Home Plus Stores, the Brook
Former market hall is occupied by Tesco and Home Plus with a public multi-storey car park to the rear. This area is identified as part of the Brook and Upper High Street Key Project Area within the Chatham City and Waterfront Development Framework SPG and the Centre and Waterfront SPD. The SPG identifies this area as suitable for residential development with some mixed use development on the road frontage. The SPD suggest a new food store and associated development could be implemented. The household survey results suggest the Tesco store is trading significantly below the company average for a store of its size (5,500 sq m net) and Tesco may seek to redevelop/improve the store. Evaluation Criteria Comment Availability Medium term Scale of Development Large scale if retail led. Additional retail floorspace could (retail/leisure/community/cultural) be about 5,000 sq m gross, and would predominantly be comparison space. Commercial Potential Just outside the designated core retail area. Good road frontage onto The Brook, but separated from the centre by a busy road. Likely type of development Replacement food store or mixed use development with commercial uses at ground floor level. Development Constraints Cost of demolition and redevelopment may prohibit development. Possible Alternative uses Retention of existing uses or high density residential or mixed use development. Access Existing access from The Brook. Overall Development Prospects Reasonable/Good
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) xii
SITE – CHAT6: Former PFS and Water Pumping Station, The Brook
The vacant PFS and water pumping station could provide a development site of about 0.2ha, fronting on to The Brook. This area is identified as part of the Brook and Upper High Street Key Project Area within the Chatham City and Waterfront Development Framework SPG and the Centre and Waterfront Supplementary Planning Document. The SPG identifies this area as suitable for residential development.
Evaluation Criteria Comment Availability Short term Scale of Development Small scale (up to 800 sq m gross floorspace at ground (retail/leisure/community/cultural) floor level) Commercial Potential Just outside the designated core retail area. Good road frontage onto The Brook, but separated from the centre by a busy road. Likely type of development Single large format unit or 5 unit shops within residential or office use above. Development Constraints Availability of water pumping station is uncertain. Impact on amenity of neighbouring residential uses would need to be considered. The site is separated form the rest of the town centre and is in a relatively secondary position Possible Alternative uses High density residential development as envisaged in the SPG. Access Existing access from the Brook/King Street/Queen Street. Overall Development Prospects Poor/Reasonable
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) xiii
SITE CHAT7: Grays Cars, the High Street (west)
The area to the west of Anchorage House is predominantly occupied by a low density car sales operation. There are vacant shop premises on part of the frontage. Part of the site is allocated for housing development (Policy H1 – ME407 28 units). It could provide a development area of about 0.7ha, fronting on to The High Street.
Evaluation Criteria Comment Availability Short/ term Scale of Development Large scale (up to about 3,000 sq m gross additional (retail/leisure/community/cultural) floorspace) Commercial Potential About 200 metres from the Shopping Core and is an edge of centre site. Within a relatively secondary area, but improvements within the Chatham Waterfront area could increase this areas commercial potential.
Likely type of development Up to 15 units fronting on to the high street with residential above and to the rear, or a large format unit. Development Constraints Availability for development uncertain. Housing development may be preferred use. .
Possible Alternative uses Retention of existing uses or residential development as envisaged in the Local Plan. Access Existing access from the High Street. Overall Development Prospects Reasonable
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) xiv
SITE GILL1: Land at High St/James St/Jeffery St/King St
The land to the north of the High Street between James Street and King Street is occupied by existing retail units, surface car parks, service areas and a vacant Woolworth store. The total redevelopment area is about 1 hectare and is identified as a key project within the Gillingham Town Centre Development Framework. The Framework identifies this area as a retail development opportunity including a new medium sized food store and other mixed uses including employment and residential uses.
Evaluation Criteria Comment Availability Medium/Long term Scale of Development Large scale (food store of about 3,500 sq m gross as (retail/leisure/community/cultural) envisaged in the Development Framework). However, the amount of other retail floorspace on the site is likely to reduce. Commercial Potential A prime location within the designated Core Retail Area. Likely type of development New and improved shop units fronting on to the High Street, James Street and King Street with a new food store to the rear. Basement car parking would be required. Development Constraints Land assembly would be required for comprehensive development. The increase in commercial space will need to be significant to cover development costs and underground car parking. Redevelopment may be disruptive to existing operators Possible Alternative uses Retention of existing uses or high density residential/employment mixed use development. Access Existing access from Jeffery Street. Overall Development Prospects Reasonable
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) xv
SITE GILL2: Land at High St/Skinner St/Jeffery St/James St
The land to the north of the High Street between Skinner Street and James Street is occupied by a small surface car park, about 25 shop units and a public house. The site is allocated in the Local Plan for retail development to include a new food store of 2,000 sq m gross. The total redevelopment area is about 0.6 hectare. The car park area to the rear of the site is identified as an opportunity area within the Gillingham Town Centre Development Framework, and high density residential development is suggested. This part of the site is only 0.2ha. A food store of 2,000 sq m gross could only be accommodated on the site if shop units on Skinner Street and/or the High Street where redeveloped
Evaluation Criteria Comment Availability Short/medium term Scale of Development Medium scale (about 1,000 sq m gross at ground floor (retail/leisure/community/cultural) level). Commercial Potential Within the designated Core Retail Area, with potential to provide linkages to the High Street and Skinner Street and potential shop units fronting on to James Street.
Likely type of development Up to 5 new shop units fronting on to James Street or a large single unit (1,000 sq m gross footprint) Development Constraints Loss of public car parking spaces may need to be replaced elsewhere. Acquisition of shop units and multiple ownerships may prevent a larger development site being assembled.
Possible Alternative uses Retention of existing car park and public house or high density residential development as envisaged in the GTCDF. Access Existing access from Jeffery Street. Overall Development Prospects Reasonable - (development of car park/public house only)
Poor - (redevelopment of larger area)
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) xvi
SITE GILL3: Former Library Annex and Air Training Corp Buildings
Land to the west of Marlborough Road is occupied by low density buildings and could have redevelopment potential if available. A site of about 0.3ha could be assembled. The Library Annex part of the site is identified as the Gillingham Hub within the Gillingham Town Centre Development Framework, and landmark civic buildings were suggested.
Evaluation Criteria Comment Availability Short/Medium term Scale of Development Medium scale (up to about 1,500 sq m gross floorspace (retail/leisure/community/cultural) at ground floor level) Commercial Potential The site is about 100 metres outside the Core retail Area and is in a relatively secondary position, but has relatively good road frontage.
Likely type of development About 10 new shop units or a single large format store of about 1,000 sq m gross. Development Constraints Availability of site uncertain. The site is within the Conservation Area and the impact on open space and mature tree would need to be considered.
Possible Alternative uses Retention of existing uses or cultural or residential development. Access Existing access from Marlborough Road. Overall Development Prospects Reasonable
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) xvii
SITE GILL4: Post Office and BT Switch Centre
Land to the south of the High Street on Green Street is occupied by the Post Office and BT facility. A site of about 0.4ha could be assembled. The BT part of the site is identified for residential and employment development within the Gillingham Town Centre Development Framework.
Evaluation Criteria Comment Availability Medium/Long term Scale of Development Medium scale (up to about 2,000 sq m gross floorspace (retail/leisure/community/cultural) at ground floor level) Commercial Potential The site is just outside the Core retail Area and is in a relatively secondary position, but is visible form the High Street.
Likely type of development About 5 new shop units to replace the Post Office or a single large format store of about 2,000 sq m gross if the BT site is also included. With residential development above. Development Constraints Availability of site uncertain and the cots of relocation the BT and Post Office uses may be prohibitive.
Possible Alternative uses Retention of existing uses or cultural or residential development. Access Existing access from Greet Street. Overall Development Prospects Reasonable
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) xviii
SITE HEMP1: Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre
There is planning permission to extend east mall of the shopping onto one of the surface car parking areas to provide new shop units. There may also be potential for further extension into the surface car parks if further multi-storey car parking can be provided. There may also be potential for upward extensions to existing shop units.
Evaluation Criteria Comment Availability Short term Scale of Development Large scale (at least 2,500 sq m gross additional (retail/leisure/community/cultural) floorspace) Commercial Potential Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre is a very successful shopping destination and development should be attractive to new operators.
Likely type of development Upward or outward extension to the shopping malls. Development Constraints Loss of surface car parking may need to be replaced with multi-storey car parks. Cumulative impact of the proposed extension and additional extensions on other centres and the development strategy would need to be carefully considered. The scale development should be appropriate to the centres role as a district centre.
Possible Alternative uses Retention of existing surface car parks. Access Existing access from Hempstead Valley Drive and Sharsted Way. Overall Development Prospects Good
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) xix
SITE HEMP2: Vacant Unit and Travel Agents
The vacant restaurant unit and travel agents could be redeveloped to provide large format store.
Evaluation Criteria Comment Availability Short term Scale of Development Small scale (up to 1,000 sq m gross) (retail/leisure/community/cultural) Commercial Potential This site has a prominent location with adjacent surface car parking.
Likely type of development Large format retail or leisure use, e.g. a discount food store. Development Constraints Availability of travel Agent unit is uncertain
Possible Alternative uses Retention of existing uses or high density residential or mixed use development. Access Existing access from Sharsted Way. Overall Development Prospects Reasonable
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) xx
SITE RAIN1: Rainham Shopping Centre
The Rainham Shopping Centre is relatively low rise and low density and there could be scope for expansion/redevelopment. The shopping centre occupies a site of about 1.3ha. There may also be potential to extend into the adjacent surface car park if decked replacement parking can be provided. The extended site area is about 1.8ha. The site is allocated in the Local Plan for refurbishment, reconfiguration and/or extension to include a new food store of up to 2,000 sq m gross.
Evaluation Criteria Comment Availability Medium/Long term Scale of Development Small scale (less than 1,000 sq m gross additional (retail/leisure/community/cultural) floorspace) if reconfiguration/extensions only.
Large scale (up to 3,000 sq m gross additional floorspace) if redevelopment of the car is included Commercial Potential Within the designated Core Retail Area. Likely type of development Extensions and reconfiguration of existing shop units and or possible expansion of the precinct into the adjacent car park, which could include new shop units or a new food store. Perhaps with residential development above. Development Constraints The centre has a low vacancy rate and the availability for redevelopment is uncertain. High occupancy may make this form of development unattractive and unviable. Expansion on to the car park would require replacement decked parking.
Possible Alternative uses Retention of existing shop units and car park. Access Existing access from Longley Road. Overall Development Prospects Poor – reconfiguration only
Reasonable – expansion on the car park area
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) xxi
SITE RAIN2: Hidson Cars, High Street (East)
This car sales outlet has good road frontage on to the High Street and if available could provide a development site of about 0.4ha. The development area could be extended to include the adjacent public house and its large car parking areas to the rear to provide a site of about 0.6ha.
Evaluation Criteria Comment Availability Medium term Scale of Development Medium scale (up to 2,000 sq m gross at ground floor (retail/leisure/community/cultural) level) Commercial Potential The site is about 150 metres from the Retail Core but has good road frontage on the High Street.
Likely type of development Up to 20 new shop units along the high street and a new parade or a large format store, such as a food store with customer car parking. Residential units above. Development Constraints Availability of public house and car sales outlet is uncertain. Cost of relocating existing uses may preclude redevelopment. The site is part within the conservation area. Possible Alternative uses Retention of existing uses or high density residential or mixed use development. Access Existing access from the High Street. Overall Development Prospects Reasonable
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) xxii
SITE RAIN3: Rainham Social Club, Station Road
The social club and adjacent car sales outlet if available could provide a development site of 0.3 ha.
Evaluation Criteria Comment Availability Medium term Scale of Development Medium scale (up to 1,500 sq m gross additional (retail/leisure/community/cultural) floorspace at ground floor level) Commercial Potential The site is about 100 metres from the Retail Core but is within a relatively secondary location. It is separated from the centre by residential properties.
Likely type of development Up to 10 new shop units along Station Road.
Development Constraints Availability for development is uncertain. Cost of relocating existing uses may preclude redevelopment. Possible Alternative uses Retention of existing uses or high density residential or mixed use development. Access Existing access from Station Road. Overall Development Prospects Poor
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) xxiii
SITE ROCH1: Rochester Car Wash, Corporation Street
Three small vacant units and a former PSF (now used for car washing) could provide a development site of about 0.1ha.
Evaluation Criteria Comment Availability Short term Scale of Development Small scale (about 500 sq m gross additional floorspace) (retail/leisure/community/cultural) Commercial Potential Within the designated Core Retail Area, but in a relatively secondary position in relation to the High Street. Good road frontage on Corporation Street.
Likely type of development Retail store or leisure use with customer car parking. Development Constraints Poor linkages to the High Street.
Possible Alternative uses Residential or mixed use development. Access Existing access from Corporation Street. Overall Development Prospects Reasonable
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) xxiv
SITE ROCH2: Rochester Open Market/Car Park
The long stay car park also accommodates the market. If an alternative site can be found for the car parking and market, a development site of about 0.5ha would be available.
This site is included within the Rochester Riverside Development Brief, which proposes the relocation of the market to allow multi-storey parking and an active commercial frontage.
Evaluation Criteria Comment Availability Short/Medium term Scale of Development Medium scale (up to 1,500 sq m gross additional (retail/leisure/community/cultural) floorspace) Commercial Potential Outside the designated Core Retail Area on the opposite side of Corporation Street. Good road frontage on Corporation Street.
Likely type of development Retail showrooms along an active frontage with multi- storey parking to the rear. Development Constraints Poor linkages to the High Street. The cost of replacement multi-storey car parking may prohibit development.
Possible Alternative uses Retention of existing car park/market or residential or mixed use development. Access Existing access from Corporation Street. Overall Development Prospects Reasonable
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) xxv
SITE ROCH3: Former PFS, Corporation Street
This vacant petrol filling station provides a development opportunity of about 0.2ha. The site could be combined with the development of Site ROCH4 open market/car park to provide a total site area of 0.7ha.
This site is included within the Rochester Riverside Development Brief, and development is linked with the adjacent market/car park site.
Evaluation Criteria Comment Availability Short term Scale of Development Small scale (about 500 sq m gross additional floorspace) (retail/leisure/community/cultural) Commercial Potential Outside the designated Core Retail Area on the opposite side of Corporation Street. Poor linkages to the High Street but with good road frontage on to Corporation Street.
Likely type of development Retail showrooms along an active frontage with multi-storey parking to the rear. Development Constraints Poor links to the rest of the centre. Possible Alternative uses Residential or mixed use development. Access Existing access from Corporation Street. Overall Development Prospects Reasonable.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) xxvi
SITE ROCH4: Rochester Motor Company, High Street (East)
Rochester Motor Company and the HSS Hire Shop could if available provide a development site of about 0.5ha
Evaluation Criteria Comment Availability Medium term Scale of Development Medium scale (up to 2,000 sq m gross additional (retail/leisure/community/cultural) floorspace) Commercial Potential Outside the designated Core Retail Area on the opposite side of Corporation Street. Good road frontage on Corporation Street.
Likely type of development Retail store or leisure use with customer car parking. Development Constraints Poor linkages to the main shopping area. The availability of site for development is uncertain.
Possible Alternative uses Retention of existing uses or residential or mixed use development. Access Existing access from Corporation Street and the High Street. Overall Development Prospects Reasonable.
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) xxvii
SITE ROCH5: Rochester Riverside Regeneration Area
The Rochester Riverside Regeneration Area is relatively close to Rochester centre, but linkages are poor due to the railway line. The site is allocated in the Local Plan (Policy S7) predominantly residential development with a school, leisure facilities, hotel and employment uses.
The Rochester Riverside Development Brief proposes some community facilities within the Central Quarter.
Evaluation Criteria Comment Availability Medium/Long term Scale of Development Small scale community facilities. (retail/leisure/community/cultural) Commercial Potential Out of centre site and is poorly linked to Rochester centre.
Likely type of development Local community facilities and riverside leisure uses. Development Constraints Poor linkages with centre prevent expansion of the centre into this area.
Possible Alternative uses Residential and mixed use development. Access Need for improved access under the railway line. Overall Development Prospects Poor
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) xxviii
SITE STRO1: Tesco Store and Environs
This Tesco store is dated and could be redeveloped and expanded onto neighbouring land occupied by workshops/depots. A development site of at least 1.4ha could be assembled.
Evaluation Criteria Comment Availability Short/Medium term Scale of Development Large scale (about 3,000 sq m gross additional (retail/leisure/community/cultural) floorspace). Commercial Potential Close to the retail core with potential to provide improved linkages with the High Street and road frontage on to Commercial Street.
Likely type of development Food store extension perhaps with decked car parking. Development Constraints Assembly of neighbouring employment uses is required.
Possible Alternative uses Retention of existing uses or high density residential or mixed use development. Access Existing access from Cuxton Road/Charles Street. Overall Development Prospects Good
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) xxix
SITE STRO2: Car Park/Land at Corporation Street/High Street
Land on the corner of the High Street and Commercial Road is occupied by a public car park and a car sales outlet. In total a site of about 03ha. The site could also form part of a larger development site with the adjacent Tesco store.
Evaluation Criteria Comment Availability Short/medium term Scale of Development Medium scale (about 1,500 sq m gross additional (retail/leisure/community/cultural) floorspace) Commercial Potential Close to the retail core with good frontage on to the High Street and Commercial Road.
Likely type of development About 10 new shop units with frontage on the High Street/Commercial Street. . Development Constraints Availability of car sales outlet is uncertain. Part of the site is a safeguarded corridor for a new road. Possible Alternative uses Retention of existing car park and car sales or high density residential or mixed use development. Access Existing access from Commercial Road. Overall Development Prospects Good
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) xxx
SITE STRO3: Knight Road Employment Area
This employment area is part of the Strood Waterfront Action Area designated in the Local Plan. The Local Plan does not propose retail or leisure uses, but part of the area could provide an edge of centre development opportunity. The land north of Alma Place could provide a development area of up to about 0.8ha.
Evaluation Criteria Comment Availability Medium/Long term Scale of Development Large scale (up to 3,000 sq m gross additional (retail/leisure/community/cultural) floorspace) Commercial Potential Close to the retail core with good frontage on to Commercial Road and Knight Road.
Likely type of development Large format stores or commercial leisure uses Development Constraints Land assembly required and availability for development is uncertain. Cost of removing/relocating existing uses may preclude redevelopment.
Possible Alternative uses Retention of existing uses or employment development. Access Existing access from Knight Road. Overall Development Prospects Reasonable
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) xxxi
SITE STRO4: Car Park/Land South of High Street
The land to the south side of the High Street is occupied by surface car parking, a vacant site and County Car Sales. If available and assembled this site could provide a development area of about 0.5ha.
Evaluation Criteria Comment Availability Medium/Long term Scale of Development Large scale (up to 3,000 sq m gross additional (retail/leisure/community/cultural) floorspace) Commercial Potential Within the designated Core Retail Area, with linkages to the High Street and road frontage on to Commercial Road. Likely type of development High street shops linking the High Street with Strood Retail Park, with active frontages on Tolgate Lane and Commercial Road. Development Constraints Availability for uncertain. Cost of removing/relocating existing uses may preclude redevelopment.
Possible Alternative uses Retention of existing uses or high density residential or mixed use development. Access Existing access from Commercial Road. Overall Development Prospects Reasonable
LON\R11788-008 (Final Report) xxxii