Document Ref: Mid Devon Local Plan Review 2013 – 2033 Proposed Submission (incorporating proposed modifications) Examination in Public Hearing 1: Policy J27 (20/09/2018) Issues 2, 3, 4 and 8 Parties: Mid Devon District Council Aviva Life & Pensions UK Ltd Date: July 2018 Mid Devon Local Plan Review 2013 – 2033 Proposed Submission (incorporating proposed Modifications) Examination in Public Signatures Signature …………………………. Jenny Clifford, Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration On behalf of Mid Devon District Council Signature ………………………….. Robert Clarke, Senior Partner Rapleys LLP on behalf of Aviva Life & Pensions UK Ltd \\mddcsan\Shared\Planning\Forward Planning\Local Development Frameworks\Local Plan Review\Examination Documents\Statements of Common Ground\Updated Statements for PO Aug18\J27 Retial SoCG - Final Draft 31-07-18 Signed.docx Page 2 of 123 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This statement replaces and supersedes the statement signed by Mid Devon District Council and Friends Life Ltd (since acquired by Aviva Life & Pensions UK Ltd; any subsequent reference to Friends Life Ltd should be understood in this context) dated in August 2017 relating to Issues 2, 3, 4 and 8, as follows. 2. Has a regional need for the retail element and the comparison goods floorspace in particular, been demonstrated? 3. Has the ‘sequential test’ been approached with sufficient rigour? 4. Has the analysis of the potential impacts of the retail element (2 and 3 above) of the proposal properly fulfilled the duty to co-operate? 8. Can existing town centre uses be properly protected through planning controls? 1.2 The new statement addresses the following areas of common ground in relation to these issues. Issue 2 relates to the need for the retail element of the proposed Junction 27 site allocation in the emerging Local Plan. This issue is addressed in Section 2 of this Statement. 1.3 Issues 4 and 8 above relate to whether the scale and type of retail development proposed will have a significant adverse impact on town centres, planned investment and/or allocations. These issues are addressed in Section 3 of this Statement. 1.4 Issue 3 relates to the application of the sequential approach to site selection. This issue is addressed in Section 4 of this Statement. Also related to the sequential approach is Issue 5 which addresses the ‘synergy’ between the Outlet Shopping Village, tourism and leisure elements of the proposed allocation. Issue 5 has been addressed in a separate statement of common ground. 1.5 CBRE prepared a Town Centre Uses Statement (April 2015) on behalf of the developer. This statement was independently reviewed by Lichfields (previously NLP), and the findings of this review were set out in Lichfields’ critique report (July 2015). Lichfields undertook additional analysis to provide a more robust evidence-based assessment of the EW proposals, as set out in Lichfields' addendum critique (March 2016). Following Lichfields’ critique, a revised scheme was submitted as part of representations to the Proposed Submission Local Plan, and CBRE updated the Town Centre Uses Statement (August 2016). 1.6 The evidence set out in these previous reports now needs to be reviewed. This statement has been prepared to assist the Inspector by updating evidence, and by addressing issues raised by the \\ mddcsan\Shared\Planning\Forward Planning\Local Development Frameworks\Local Plan Review\Examination Documents\Statements of Common Ground\Updated Statements for PO Aug18\J27 Retial SoCG - Final Draft 31-07-18 Signed.docx Page 3 of 123 Inspector and relevant representations. This statement not only replaces the previous statement of common ground, but also supersedes, replaces and expands on the evidence contained within Lichfields’ previous reports. It also updates, where relevant, the evidence contained within the CBRE reports (and, by association, their statements). \\ mddcsan\Shared\Planning\Forward Planning\Local Development Frameworks\Local Plan Review\Examination Documents\Statements of Common Ground\Updated Statements for PO Aug18\J27 Retial SoCG - Final Draft 31-07-18 Signed.docx Page 4 of 123 2 RETAIL NEED Relevant Issue 2. Has a regional need for the retail element and the comparison goods floorspace in particular, been demonstrated? 2.1 This matter was addressed in CBRE’s Town Centre Uses Statement (April 2015 and updated August 2016), although these statements did not fully address commitments and allocations within the wider region. To address issues raised by objectors, the retail need assessment prepared by CBRE has been updated and refined to address the specific issues raised, including additional analysis of commitments and allocations, as shown in Appendix A of this Statement. Planning policy and guidance 2.2 Planning for town centre uses is addressed at paragraph 23 of the NPPF. It explains that in drawing up Local Plans, local planning authorities should: Allocate a range of suitable sites to meet the scale and type of retail, leisure, commercial, office, tourism, cultural, community and residential development needed in town centres. Overall approach to the assessment of need 2.3 It is appropriate to consider need in both qualitative and quantitative terms: qualitative need typically exists where there is, for example, poor consumer choice and an inadequate distribution of facilities; and quantitative need for A1 retail floorspace typically arises where there is, or will be, an imbalance between the turnover capacity of existing facilities and available expenditure in any given area. 2.4 Both qualitative and quantitative need for the proposed retail allocation in Policy J27 can be demonstrated. 2.5 In this case, the need for the retail floorspace must be seen in the context of its ability to: Help deliver a step-change in the tourism offer in Mid Devon, by acting as an attraction and one of a range of attractions between which there will be linked trips (an issue addressed in the statement of common ground between the two parties dealing with issues 1, 5, 6 and 7); and Facilitate the development of other elements of the scheme sought by the allocation (an issue addressed in the statement of common ground between the two parties dealing with issues 1, 5, 6 and 7). \\ mddcsan\Shared\Planning\Forward Planning\Local Development Frameworks\Local Plan Review\Examination Documents\Statements of Common Ground\Updated Statements for PO Aug18\J27 Retial SoCG - Final Draft 31-07-18 Signed.docx Page 5 of 123 Assessment of qualitative need 2.6 Qualitative need is a subjective concept, but of the factors frequently identified as components of qualitative need, three are particularly relevant in this case: deficiencies or ‘gaps’ in existing provision; consumer choice and competition; and the quality of existing provision. 2.7 In terms of the comparison goods element, the south west is currently served by the following outlet villages/centres: Atlantic Village, Bideford (around 50 mins from Tiverton by car) Clarks Village, Street (around 50 mins from Tiverton) Gloucester Quays (around one hour 35 mins from Tiverton) Wilton Shopping Village, Salisbury (around one hour 35 mins from Tiverton) Swindon Designer Outlet (around one hour 45 mins from Tiverton) Poole Pottery Factory Outlet (around one hour 50 mins from Tiverton) Dolphin Quay, Poole (around one hour 50 mins from Tiverton) 2.8 All but one of these is located north or east of Tiverton, meaning that anyone living or holidaying south or west of the town will need to travel for a significant time. The only outlet village which does lie south or west of Tiverton is Atlantic Village, but it: only serves as an outlet village to a limited degree with, for example, Asda, Aldi and Poundland forming part of the retail offer; lacks many of the ‘higher end’ brands typically associated with outlet villages; and is located on the coast and is not well placed to serve passing trade in a way which a more centrally located outlet village would be. 2.9 That implies a significant qualitative deficiency in the south west region, particularly the area to the south and west of Tiverton. The proposed designer outlet village (DOV) at Junction 27 would help to address that deficiency by improving the distribution of factory outlets across the south west, thereby improving customer choice and helping to provide a diverse retail offer, both of which are aims identified in the NPPF (paragraph 23, bullet 4). 2.10 In addition, the DOV would function as an important component in the mix of attractions that would entice people to visit the proposed tourist destination. \\ mddcsan\Shared\Planning\Forward Planning\Local Development Frameworks\Local Plan Review\Examination Documents\Statements of Common Ground\Updated Statements for PO Aug18\J27 Retial SoCG - Final Draft 31-07-18 Signed.docx Page 6 of 123 2.11 It is agreed, therefore, that the proposed shopping village would help to meet an identified qualitative need which arises at a regional level. 2.12 The proposed agronomy centre includes up to 1,000sqm of ancillary retail floorspace, forming an integral part of this attraction. It would provide an opportunity for related food and drink products from a range of producers across Devon and the region to be showcased and sold within the agronomy centre. Although some farm shops and similar outlets operate in Devon and the wider area, most simply sell products from single providers. As such, the area lacks a base from which a range of products can be sold. Ancillary retail floorspace at the agronomy centre would address this qualitative deficiency, improving customer choice and improving the diversity of the retail offer, as a component part of the visitor attraction. Quantitative Floorspace Capacity 2.13 The proposed Food Hall within the agronomy centre forms part of the ancillary retail floorspace referred to above. It will cater for the needs of tourists visiting the agronomy centre and will help to serve a local need.