Impact Assessment

Charnwood Borough Council Planning applications P/16/2141/2 & P/17/0942/2 Retail review and impact assessment Peter Brett Associates November 2017 Office Address: 33 Bowling Green Lane, Clerkenwell, London EC1R 0BJ T: +44 (0)203 824 6600 E: [email protected] Project Ref 42796 Name Position Signature Date Prepared by Cathy Hall Senior Associate CH 11.17 Reviewed by Cathy Hall Senior Associate CH 11.17 Approved by Kieran Rushe Equity Director KR 11.17 For and on behalf of Peter Brett Associates LLP Revision Date Description Prepared Reviewed Approved 1 20.11.17 Final draft CH CH KR 2 23.11.17 Final CH CH KR Peter Brett Associates LLP disclaims any responsibility to the client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of this report. This report has been prepared with reasonable skill, care and diligence within the terms of the contract with the client and taking account of the manpower, resources, investigations and testing devoted to it by agreement with the client. This report has been prepared for the client and Peter Brett Associates LLP accepts no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties to whom this report or any part thereof is made known. Any such party relies upon the report at their own risk. © Peter Brett Associates LLP 2017 THIS REPORT IS FORMATTED FOR DOUBLE-SIDED PRINTING. ii Planning applications P/16/2141/2 & P/17/0942/2 Retail review and impact assessment CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 Retail planning policy and other material considerations .............................................. 2 2 LIDL APPLICATION REVIEW ..................................................................................... 5 Summary of the Lidl proposal ....................................................................................... 5 Sequential test ............................................................................................................. 5 Impact assessment ...................................................................................................... 7 3 ALDI APPLICATION REVIEW ....................................................................................10 Summary of Aldi application ........................................................................................10 Sequential assessment ...............................................................................................11 Impact assessment .....................................................................................................15 4 IMPACT ASSESSMENT .............................................................................................18 Method ........................................................................................................................18 Our findings .................................................................................................................19 Conclusions and recommendations .............................................................................21 TABLES Table 1.1 Proposed retail and other floorspace by planning application (sqm) ...................... 1 Table 2.1 Sequential sites review – Lidl application ............................................................... 6 Table 2.2 Assumptions and quantitative inputs to the Rapleys impact assessment ............... 8 Table 3.1 Sequential site review – Aldi application ...............................................................11 Table 3.2 Assumptions and quantitative inputs to the Turley impact assessment .................15 Table 4.1 Assumptions informing the PBA impact assessment ............................................18 Table 4.2 Impact summary for main town centres ................................................................19 Table 4.3 Health check review ..............................................................................................20 APPENDICES APPENDIX A QUANTITATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT November 2017 iii Planning applications P/16/2141/2 & P/17/0942/2 Retail review and impact assessment 1 INTRODUCTION Peter Brett Associates LLP (PBA) were instructed by Charnwood Borough Council in November 2017 to provide retail advice to assist in their determination of two foodstore-led planning applications: ° P/16/2141/2 New Retail Store, (1424 m ² net sales floor space) at land north of Station Avenue, Loughborough (Lidl UK) (‘the Lidl application’) ° P/17/0942/2, (1,254m ² of net sales floor space) coffee shop with drive through and take away facility (Class A3/A5), three retail units (Class A1/A2/A3) at Allendale Road, Loughborough (Aldi Stores Ltd) (‘the Aldi application’) We set out a brief summary of the two applications in the table below. Table 1.1 Proposed retail and other floorspace by planning application (sqm) Gross Gross Convenience Comparison Net sales Application Units external internal goods goods area area (GEA) area (GIA) floorspace floorspace Lidl Lidl 2,550 2,460 1,424 1,139 285 Aldi 1,254 1,800 1,003 251 Costa Not n/a Aldi 198 n/a n/a Coffee specified None 322 None specified None specified Other units specified Total 4,870 2,142 636 Source: Rapleys and Turley reports This report is structured in three main parts: ° Section 2: Review of the Lidl application and submitted retail assessment ° Section 3: Review of the Aldi application and submitted retail assessment ° Section 4: Independent impact assessment and conclusions In preparing this report, we have had regard to the following reports submitted in support of the two applications: ° Planning and retail statement (September 2016) prepared by Rapleys in support of the Lidl application (‘the Rapleys report’) ° Planning and retail statement (May 2017) prepared by Turley in support of the Aldi application (‘the Turley report’). As part of this advice, we were also asked to liaise with the developer of the urban extension at Grange Park, William Davis Homes, to understand the status of any planned investment in the allocated local centre. November 2017 1 Planning applications P/16/2141/2 & P/17/0942/2 Retail review and impact assessment Retail planning policy and other material considerations Both sites are out-of-centre in retail planning terms 1 and, as a consequence, much of the relevant retail planning policy is common to the determination of both applications. We therefore set out a brief summary here of the retail and town centre policies within the development plan and also the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which sets the context of our assessment of the applications in Parts A and B, and also informs our approach to assessing impact in Part C. Development Plan The development plan for Charnwood comprises the Charnwood Borough Local Plan 2011 to 2028 Core Strategy (2015) and the saved policies of the Borough of Charnwood Local Plan (2004). Policy CS9 Town Centres and Shops confirms the retail strategy for Loughborough town centre, the district centres and local centres. In relation to Loughborough, south east of the town centre and Devonshire Square are identified as the short-term focus for retail development. For proposals outwith defined town centres, the policy confirms that proposals must comply with the sequential approach and that impact assessments are required for proposals in excess of 1,000 sqm (for Loughborough). National Planning Policy Framework The NPPF articulates a town-centre first approach to development. In decision- making terms these objectives are embodied at paragraphs 24 and 26 which relate to the sequential approach and impact respectively. In respect of the sequential test, the NPPF sets out three important considerations which include: ° the sequential status of the application site; ° the extent of connectivity with the town centre; and, ° the extent to which flexibility on format and scale has been demonstrated. The NPPF requires applications for retail development in excess of 2,500 sqm that are ‘outside of town centres which are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan’ to include an assessment of: ° ‘the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and, ° the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to five years from the time the application is made.’ 1 We discuss their exact status in in Parts A and B. November 2017 2 Planning applications P/16/2141/2 & P/17/0942/2 Retail review and impact assessment Finally, paragraph 27 of the NPPF makes it clear that an application can only be refused on retail grounds where it ‘fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impact’. Guidance and recent case law With regard to the sequential test, paragraph 009 of the National Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) states that in order to satisfy the test applications must demonstrate that the following points have been considered: ° The suitability of more central sites to accommodate the proposal with due regards to the requirement to demonstrate flexibility. ° The contribution that more central sites are able to make individually to accommodate the proposal. Paragraph 010 of the PPG states that the application of the sequential test should be proportionate and appropriate for the given proposal. The PPG states that the sequential test is passed if there are no suitable sequentially preferable locations

Load more