London Borough of Brent BRENT RETAIL NEED & CAPACITY STUDY
Final Report February 2006
ROGER TYM & PARTNERS
Fairfax House 15 Fulwood Place London WC1V 6HU t (020) 7831 2711 f (020) 7831 7653 e [email protected] w www.tymconsult.com
.
RTP Job Number - P1616
.
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION...... 1 Introduction...... 1 The Study Aims ...... 1 The Study Approach...... 2 Report Structure ...... 4 2 POLICY CONTEXT...... 5 National Guidance ...... 5 London Plan...... 6 Draft West London Sub-Regional Development Framework...... 7 LB Brent Unitary Development Plan...... 8 Conclusion...... 9 3 EXISTING SURVEY BASE...... 11 Introduction...... 11 Existing Survey Base...... 11 4 WEMBLEY...... 15 Overview...... 15 Summary of Shoppers’ Survey Findings...... 16 Summary of Healthcheck Findings...... 17 Potential Development Opportunity Sites ...... 23 5 KILBURN, HARLESDEN & WILLESDEN GREEN ...... 25 Introduction...... 25 Kilburn...... 25 Harlesden ...... 28 Willesden Green ...... 32 6 OTHER DISTRICT CENTRES ...... 37 Introduction...... 37 Burnt Oak...... 37 Cricklewood ...... 38 Ealing Road ...... 38 Kenton ...... 39 Kingsbury...... 39 Wembley Park ...... 40 Colindale...... 41 Kensal Rise...... 41 Neasden ...... 42 Preston Road...... 42 Queens Park...... 43 Sudbury ...... 43 7 QUANTITATIVE RETAIL NEED ANALYSIS ...... 45 Introduction & Assumptions...... 45 Spending Pattern in 2003...... 46 Population of LB Brent...... 46 Expenditure of LB Brent Residents ...... 47 Retail Capacity ...... 47 Floorspace Requirements ...... 52 8 CAPACITY & OPPORTUNITY SITES ...... 57 Introduction...... 57 Development Opportunity Sites...... 58
9 RETAIL STRATEGY & POLICY OPTIONS...... 67 Introduction...... 67 Suggested Basis for Revised Borough Wide Retail Policies ...... 67 Suggested Centre Specific Retail Policies...... 71 Need for Updated Household Survey...... 78
APPENDICIES
1. National Retail Trends 2. Technical Note on Retail Capacity 3. Household Survey Results 4. Comparison Need Tabulations 5. Convenience Need Tabulations
Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
1 INTRODUCTION Introduction 1.1 In June 2005 the London Borough of Brent (LB Brent) commissioned Roger Tym & Partners (RTP) to carry out a borough-wide retail need and capacity study. The study provides background information for the emerging Local Development Framework and informs town centre enhancement and management strategies for Wembley, Harlesden and Willesden Green. 1.2 In addition to the above, the study will enable LB Brent to respond to the emerging West London Sub-Regional Development Framework. The draft framework of June 2005 makes a number of estimates about the retail capacity of the borough and the future role of the centres in its retail hierarchy. This study assesses those estimates. 1.3 LB Brent already has a wide range of recent and relatively retail survey data, including: § A borough-wide Household Shopping Survey (2003); § A Town Centre Healthcheck Report (2003) of all the main and district centres in the borough; § A Shoppers Survey (2005) of Wembley, Harlesden and Willesden Green; and § A Wembley Retail Capacity Study (2001) undertaken by Driver Jonas; 1.4 In addition, retail assessments have been prepared in support of planning applications in and around Wembley town centre and for development at Wembley Stadium. 1.5 On this basis, additional data has been sourced for this study but the latter primarily focuses on interpreting the existing retail data to provide a framework to guide retail development over the next decade. In particular, the study reconsiders the capacity of Wembley town centre following retail planning approvals and suggests a re- assessment of its strategy. The Study Aims 1.6 LB Brent’s study brief comprises two aims: i) To identify the demand and capacity in terms of quality, quantity, type, and sites for additional retail development for convenience and comparison goods within the borough generally; and ii) To re-assess in particular, the retail capacity of, and strategy for, Wembley town centre in the light of the retail and leisure floorspace permitted within Wembley Stadium precinct, other developments in the locality, and key mixed-use opportunity sites within the town centre. 1.7 There are five main objectives of the study: i) To undertake a qualitative analysis of the existing structure and hierarchy of town centres within Brent, with a particular focus on new Wembley. ii) To establish the current and potential catchment areas of the major and main district town centres. iii) To undertake a qualitative and quantitative assessment of the need for comparison and convenience retail facilities within the borough up to 2010 and 2015, taking into account the major retail and leisure proposals within LB Brent and in neighbouring boroughs. iv) Where the retail need exists, to identify potential development sites and assess their suitability for retail / mixed use development.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 1 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
v) To provide a robust framework for retail development within the borough over the next 10 years, to help consolidate and enhance the position of the centres, particularly Wembley, within the retail hierarchy. The framework will enable LB Brent to prepare policies for the borough’s emerging Local Development Framework. The Study Approach Task 1 (Reported in Sections 4, 5, and 6) 1.8 The first task was to undertake a qualitative analysis of the existing structure and hierarchy of town centres within Brent. This task was achieved through a shoppers’ survey in Wembley, Harlesden and Willesden Green (undertaken by Adsearch Ltd on behalf of LB Brent in 2005) and a healthcheck survey (as last undertaken by LB Brent in 2003). We provide a factual commentary on the adequacy of each survey for this borough-wide retail study in Section 3. 1.9 The shoppers’ survey provides a profile of the visitors using Wembley, Harlesden and Willesden Green town centres in order to assess how each centre functions and what role it performs. The key information drawn from the survey concerns the type of visitors present in the centres, along with the reasons for their visit and the amount of expenditure made on goods. The survey also provides a qualitative review of visitor satisfaction with the facilities provided in each centre. 1.10 The healthcheck survey draws together all the information sourced from the various surveys to assess how each of the LB Brent town centres functions, the role it performs and the scope for future growth. The survey measures the vitality and viability of each centre through an assessment of the key performance indicators set out in PPS6. In their biennial healthcheck surveys, LB Brent have gathered large amounts of primary data and other published information from a wide range of sources to inform their assessment of each centre against the key performance indicators. No one indicator will demonstrate on its own how a town centre is performing, but taken together the twelve indicators will provide a sound barometer of performance and point to each centre’s general outlook. 1.11 We reassessed the main conclusions drawn from each survey and, where available, we supplemented the data collected by LB Brent with additional retail information. In Sections 4, 5 and 6 we highlight the key issues which arose from each of the surveys. Task 2 (Reported in Section 7) 1.12 The second task was to establish the current and potential catchment areas of the major and main district town centres in Brent. This task was achieved by the use of data derived from LB Brent’s borough-wide household survey, undertaken in December 2003 / January 2004. The survey identified current shopping patterns in the borough through a sample of households. The survey was questionnaire based and asked a series of structured questions to determine where households undertake their shopping. It also included questions relating to mode of travel, trip frequency and sought qualitative views on the existing retail provision. 1.13 The LB Brent household survey provides information that is used in the capacity assessments sections of this report as the basis for the calculation of the market share of the various centres drawing trade from the Study Area. The survey data identifies which centres in the Study Area households visit for their shopping needs and, crucially where these centres are not within Brent, it provides useful insight of the reasons why households are attracted to centres elsewhere. 1.14 RTP divided the borough into four separate study zones. The approach to analysing this data is set out in Appendix 2. Then we manually divided these responses into each of the zones, on the basis of the post code supplied when the survey was returned. The purpose of this task is to understand the shopping patterns within the
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 2 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
borough in more detail and to allow for the different levels of expenditure in the different parts of the borough. A total of 91 respondents did not supply a postcode; therefore to ensure the results are robust, we excluded these results from the assessment. This left a total of 584 respondents, which are divided across the four separate zones. We used this data as the basis of our quantitative assessment and it provided a detail pattern of shopping in the LB Brent in 2003 (the year the household survey was undertaken). Task 3 (Reported in Section 7) 1.15 The third task was to undertake a qualitative and quantitative assessment of the need for comparison and convenience retail facilities within the borough up to 2010 and 2015, taking into account the major retail and leisure proposals within LB Brent and in neighbouring boroughs. This task involved a modelling exercise drawing on data from the household and shopper’s surveys. The other key data sets included in this work are population change data sourced from the GLA via the client, and expenditure data (both current per capita expenditure data and forecasts of growth) sourced from one of the principal economic forecasting organisations and suppliers of such data, Mapinfo1. 1.16 The modelling exercise produces total expenditure forecasts incorporating growth to 2010 and 2015, from which claims on the expenditure in respect of turnover growth of the existing provision (referred to as sales density growth) are made. The likely turnover of planning commitments are deducted and the residual expenditure is converted to a borough-wide floorspace requirement in the case of comparison goods, and to a more localised basis for convenience goods which reflects the much more localised shopping patterns inherent in that form of retailing. 1.17 RTP undertook work in order to quantify the need for comparison and convenience floorspace in the forecast years of 2010 and 2015. A detailed technical note explaining the methodology adopted is set out in Appendix 2. The key quantitative retail capacity assessment set out in Section 7. Task 4 (Reported in Section 8) 1.18 Having identified the borough’s retail need, in Task 4 we identified potential development sites and assessed their suitability for retail / mixed use development. This was based on the need assessment (Task 3) and the potential development sites identified in the healthcheck survey (Task 1). The potential development sites are explored in more detail in Section 8 where we assess the policy background to each site, the land use issues concerning current uses and neighbouring uses, and the suitability and availability of the sites. Task 5 (Reported in Section 9) 1.19 The final task was to provide a robust framework for retail development within the borough over the next 10 years, which would help to consolidate and enhance the position of the centres, particularly Wembley, within the retail hierarchy. The framework will enable LB Brent to prepare policies for the borough’s emerging Local Development Framework. 1.20 Taking into account the current position of the centres in the retail hierarchy (Tasks 1 to 4) – established from household, shoppers and healthcheck surveys, plus the need and ability of centre to accommodate it, and suitability / availability of sites, we have developed a framework for centres.
1 Mapinfo are a GIS software company that acquired The Data Consultancy, who were formally known as the Unit for Retail Planning Information (URPI). Mapinfo’s expenditure growth forecasts are produced through their associate company Oxford Economic Forecasters (OEF).
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 3 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
Report Structure 1.21 In Section 2 we set out the current national, London and local policy context for the study. In Section 3 we provide a factual commentary on the existing LB Brent shopping surveys and set out details of the major retail commitments within the borough. In the next three sections we provide a summary of the baseline position for the town centres - Wembley (Section 4), Kilburn, Harlesden and Willesden Green (Section 5) and the other centres (Section 6). 1.22 In Section 7 we calculate the future quantum of additional floorspace needed in the Brent centres in the forecast years. This is achieved by modelling the drivers of growth in available expenditure, namely population and expenditure growth across the Study Area, plus the borough’s current and potential market share, plus an estimate of the amount of expenditure that it is reasonable to expect will flow to the LB Brent centres from beyond the Study Area. The results produce estimates of the additional floorspace need at each of the forecast years. 1.23 In Section 8 we provide an assessment of where, within the borough, the growth identified in the preceding section could potentially be met by the provision of new floorspace. In Section 9 we identify the main shopping and town centre planning policy issues that the borough is facing, set out policy options, and make planning policy recommendations. 1.24 To put the Study in context in terms of the retail industry, we outline in Appendix 1 some of the more relevant trends that are important considerations in the preparation of strategic retail studies such as this. In Appendix 2.we provide a technical note on retail capacity in the borough. In Appendix 3 we provide a summary of the results from the LB Brent Household Survey 2003. In Appendix 4 we set out the comparison goods need tabulations, and in Appendix 5 we set out the tabulations for convenience goods need.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 4 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
2 POLICY CONTEXT National Guidance Introduction 2.1 The national policy context in so far as it relates to town centres and the location of new retail and leisure developments is set, in the main, by PPS 1, PPS 6, PPG 13, the Transport White Paper, and the White Paper “A better quality of life – a strategy for sustainable development for the United Kingdom”’. The Fundamental Principles 2.2 The combined effect of these national policy documents has been to establish 14 fundamental principles, as follows: i) the Government’s primary objective to promote, sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of existing town, district and local centres as part of a package of initiatives to promote sustainable development; ii) the need ‘to focus development, especially retail development, in locations where the proximity of businesses facilitates competition from which all consumers are able to benefit and maximises the opportunity to use means of transport other than the car’; iii) the objective of ‘concentrating development for uses which generate a large number of trips in places well served by public transport, especially town centres, rather than in out-of-centre locations’; iv) the need ‘to maintain an efficient, competitive and innovative retail sector’; v) the need ‘to ensure the availability of a wide range of shops, employment, services and facilities to which people have easy access by a choice of means of transport’; vi) the need for plans to establish a hierarchy of centres and a strategy for the location of employment, shopping, leisure, hospital, education and other uses which generate many trips so as to identify the preferred locations for major retail and leisure investment in particular and ensure that all significant generators of travel are well served by public transport; vii) the need to adopt a plan-led approach to the promotion of all types of new development which generate many trips so as to ensure that they are well served by public transport; viii) the need to adopt a sequential approach to selecting sites for new retail and leisure development and other town centre uses - in areas where there is a need and capacity for such development - which is an approach which requires flexibility on the part of local planning authorities, developers and retailers; ix) the need to incorporate the principle of ‘disaggregation’ in applying the sequential approach, so that large retail and leisure development proposals are broken down into their constituent parts in seeking to fit them into existing town, district and local centres; x) the need to reduce overall travel and the demand for car travel in particular; xi) the need to resist applications for retail development on land designated for other uses in an approved development plan; xii) the twin requirements that ‘new retail developments should support the Government's objectives for sustaining and enhancing existing centres and should be in accord with the strategy for retail development set out in the development plan’;
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 5 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
xiii) the need to promote mixed-use developments, especially within town centres, and maximise the use of previously developed brownfield land; and xiv) the need to improve access to leisure, retail and other services – particularly in local centres – for residents of deprived areas as part of the drive to promote social inclusion. 2.3 These represent a rigorous set of principles which confirm the preference for town centre locations for all types of new development which generate many trips. Edge-of- centre and out-of-centre retail and leisure developments represent, respectively, the less favoured and last resort options; such retail and leisure developments can only be justified by exceptional circumstances where they pass each of the six key national policy tests, as follows: § the ‘need’ test; § the sequential approach; § the likely impact on the development plan’s strategy; § the likely impact on the vitality and viability of existing centres; § accessibility by a choice of means of transport, including by foot and bicycle modes; and § the likely effect on travel and car use. 2.1 National guidance makes it clear that all proposals for town centre type uses should be directed towards town centres. 2.2 PPS6 sets out the key indicators which local authorities should collect information on in order to measure the vitality and viability and monitor the health of their centres. These are as follows: § Diversity of uses § Amount of floorspace in edge-of-centre and out-of-centre locations § Potential capacity § Retailer representation § Shopping rents § Proportion of vacant property § Commercial yields § Pedestrian flows § Accessibility § Customer and residents views § Crime and safety § Environmental quality 2.3 Annex A of PPS6 sets out a typology of definitions for different centres and different retail locations. On the basis of the current definitions for town, district, and local centres, and the observed characteristics and function of each centre during the healthcheck surveys, we have recommended some amendments to LB Brent’s current retail hierarchy. These proposed changes are set out in Section 9. London Plan 2.4 The London Plan was adopted in February 2004 and is currently under review. It reiterates the aims and objectives of national planning guidance for town centres and
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 6 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
retailing, particularly in terms of sustaining and enhancing the vitality and viability of town centres throughout London by making them the main focus for new retail development. 2.5 Annex 1 of the London Plan sets out the retail hierarchy for London’s town centres, and confirms that future capacity for new retail and leisure development should be identified through town centre healthchecks and through an assessment of retail needs. Town Centre Network 2.6 The London Plan identifies a town centre network that at its pinnacle has the two international centres Knightsbridge and the West End. These are followed by ten metropolitan centres - the nearest to LB Brent being Harrow and Ealing. Below the metropolitan centres are 35 major centres, which are acknowledged to be important shopping and service centres often with a borough-wide catchment. These centres provide a mix of comparison and convenience goods retailing, normally in excess of 50,000 sqm, and some provide leisure and entertainment functions. Wembley and Kilburn (part within Camden) are identified in the Plan as Major Centres. The other Major Centres within the West London sub-region are Southall, Hammersmith, Fulham, Uxbridge, and Chiswick. Brent Cross is identified as a Regional Shopping Centre, but not a town centre. 2.7 The next tier down the town centre pyramid are the district centres, which provide the main convenience goods and service provision for more local communities than the Major Centres, although some have developed specialist shopping functions. The Plan identifies eleven district centres within LB Brent – Cricklewood (part within Barnet), Colindale (part within Harrow), Burnt Oak (part within Barnet and Harrow), Harlesden, Willesden Green, Wembley Park, Preston Road, Neasden, Ealing Road, Kingsbury (part within Harrow) and Kenton (part within Harrow). 2.8 At the base of the retail pyramid are the undefined neighbourhood centres that provide local shopping facilities and help foster social inclusion by providing shops and services to all. Opportunity Areas 2.9 The London Plan identifies Opportunity Areas within different parts of London, on the basis that they are capable of accommodating substantial numbers of new jobs or homes, and associated development. The Opportunity Areas relevant to this study are: § Wembley - for leisure related development § White City - for significant new retail provision § Cricklewood / Brent Cross – for redevelopment as a town centre 2.10 Any major development within these opportunity areas will have an impact upon the existing protected town centres in LB Brent, and on new retail development and regeneration efforts within them. Clearly, retail developments at White City and Brent Cross should not compromise efforts to strengthen Wembley’s role as a Major Centre. Draft West London Sub-Regional Development Framework 2.11 The draft West London Sub-Regional Development Framework (SRDF) provides non- statutory guidance on the implementation of London Plan policies in the light of circumstances in West London. The various actions and questions contained in the draft SRDF are derived directly from London Plan policies. 2.12 LB Brent is within the West London sub-region, along with Hammersmith & Fulham, Ealing, Harrow, Hillingdon and Hounslow. A draft Sub Regional Development Framework (SRDF) was published in June 2005 for consultation, with responses to be made by late October 2005. The results of this study will assist LB Brent in responding
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 7 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
to the consultation, and in particular to comment on the current estimates of floorspace need for the borough. 2.13 In summary, the floorspace estimates for LB Brent in the draft SRDF are: § Borough-wide comparison goods floorspace : additional requirement of 18,000 - 26,000sqm gross between 2001-2016 § Borough-wide convenience goods floorspace : additional requirement of 1,000 to 7,000sqm gross between 2001-2016 2.14 Appendix 1 of the draft SRDF provides floorspace growth potential summary of each centre and makes commentary on some of the centres as follows: § Wembley – regeneration proposals should strengthen its role as an integrated town centre - need for 5,000sqm addition comparison goods floorspace § Kilburn – comprehensive approach to regeneration required by strategic and local stakeholders in Camden, Brent, Barnet and Westminster. § Cricklewood – healthcheck indicates that this centre may already be functioning as a Major Centre. LB Brent Unitary Development Plan 2.15 The LB Brent Unitary Development Plan (UDP) was adopted in January 2004. The strategic policies in the UDP reflect national and regional planning guidance. They seek to sustain and enhance the function of the town centres, promoting their vitality and viability and encouraging the provision of a wide range of goods and services that are well located and accessible. 2.16 The existing retail hierarchy comprises major, main district, other district, local neighbourhood centres, and undefined isolated shop units as follows: § Major Town Centres – Wembley, and Kilburn § Main District Centres – Burnt Oak, Cricklewood, Harlesden, Kingsbury, Willesden Green, and Ealing Road § Other District Centres – Wembley Park, Colindale, Kensal Rise, Kenton, Neasden, Preston Road, Queens Park, and Sudbury. § Local Centres – 36 defined centres 2.17 The current retail hierarchy is broadly in accordance with the London Plan network of town centres. But a key difference is that the smaller centres of Kensal Rise, Queens Park and Sudbury are defined as district centres in the UDP. 2.18 The UDP retail policy approach can broadly be summarised as follows: § To maintain and improve the status of the major and district centres; § To specify the criteria against which new retail development outside town centres will be judged; § To ensure that new retail development in local centres is of an appropriate scale and mainly serve the local catchment area. § To define primary and secondary shopping frontages to seek to restrict the loss of A1 uses by limiting the amount of non-retail uses in primary frontages. 2.19 The UDP has specific policies for certain town centres. These are as follows: § For Kilburn town centre, the Council will develop and implement a programme to achieve economic regeneration and environmental improvement. § Ealing Road town centre will not be allowed to expand beyond its current defined boundaries.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 8 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
§ The Council will work with local residents and businesses to regenerate and improve the local environment in Harlesden. § The regeneration of Kensal Rise district centre will be promoted and action to diversify the range of uses will be supported. Wembley Regeneration 2.20 The UDP contains an entire chapter on the regeneration of Wembley. The Inspector’s Report into the UDP considered there to be convincing evidence of need for new retail development to regenerate Wembley. Whilst the exact scale of such development was not clear, it is likely that it will have to be met on a site or sites beyond the existing town centre boundary. 2.21 The UDP’s specific policies which relate to Wembley town centre and retail development are as follows: § WEM1 – supports the regeneration of Wembley town centre, and accepts that this may involve the eastwards expansion of the existing centre towards the Stadium. § WEM3 – seeks to direct large scale leisure entertainment and retail uses to the National Stadium Policy Area. New development should function as an extension of the existing town centre and be integrated with it § WEM 21 – supports the diversification and regeneration of Wembley town centre, and proposes a comprehensive programme of environmental improvements. Development should not lead to increased congestion on the High Road and reduce conflict between road users and other visitors § WEM22 – library in Wembley should be located in Central Square § WEM23 – change of use of shops in Wembley Park to provide facilities to visiting members of the public will be permitted south of the Station. § WEM28 identifies town centre opportunity sites. The relevant retail related sites are: o Curtis Lane o Wembley Market o Central Square o Chiltern Line Cutting Conclusion 2.22 At a national, strategic and local level Wembley is the primary town centre in the borough. It is the focus for regeneration efforts. Wembley and Kilburn are at the top of the retail hierarchy within the borough and as such should be the main shopping destinations for borough residents. These centres should also be the preferred location for national retailers seeking to operate stores in the borough, particularly those selling comparison goods. 2.23 However, as with other centres across London, the LB Brent centres will not operate in isolation, but will be influenced by neighbouring retail locations. The LB Brent centres will be affected in particular by current and future development at Brent Cross, as a regional shopping centre. Harrow and Ealing are neighbouring Metropolitan centres, which will continue to attract some of the retail expenditure of Brent’s residents. White City is being developed into a major retail destination, which will attract residents from the south of the borough. Finally, the West End, as the principal shopping destination for London, will always attract Brent shoppers. 2.24 Basically all these centres will compete with Wembley for shoppers and for national retailers. Major retailers are only likely to seek to occupy larger units, within prime retail locations, where the footfall is high and other major retailers are located. There is thus an over-arching need to be realistic about what can be expected from LB Brent centres
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 9 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
and the proportion of the borough’s expenditure which these centres can actually retain.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 10 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
3 EXISTING SURVEY BASE Introduction 3.1 This section provides details of the existing LB Brent retail survey base - contained in the household, shoppers’, and healthcheck surveys - and provides a factual commentary on the adequacy of the surveys for this borough-wide retail study. Where relevant, we identify the limitations of the surveys and set out how we have used existing data and added new data or assumptions. We also provide details of the main current retail commitments in LB Brent, which all happen to be located in Wembley. Existing Survey Base Household Survey 2003 3.2 Our need assessment has been based partly on the LB Brent household survey 2003. In summary, the survey obtained information on the following: § Customer views and behaviour; § Main food, day-to-day food, and non-food shopping trips; § Households shopping patterns; § Mode of transport used for shopping trips; § Spending patterns; § Frequency of shopping trips; § Suggested improvements to centres; and § A demographic profile of shoppers. 3.3 A total of 584 valid survey responses were obtained. This provides an adequate base for assessing the shopping patterns in LB Brent, and will enable the capacity for additional comparison and convenience goods provision to be calculated. 3.4 However, like all market survey exercises, this survey has certain drawbacks concerning its methodology. The main drawbacks of the LB Brent household survey are as follows: § The survey was based on postal respondents, which might arguably mean that it provides a sub-optimal cross section of the community. § The survey was restricted to the LB Brent boundary and therefore the shopping patterns into the boundary were not assessed. There is, however, some data available for out-of-borough shopping patterns. § The survey was not split into survey zones. This issue has been addressed, post- survey, but the result is that the sampling frame is smaller – i.e. some responses have been discarded in order to ensure the data was zonally robust. § Questions on convenience shopping identified only out-of-centre stores. It is thus not possible to identify a market share for town centre stores from the survey, although the greater part of convenience spend does flow to the larger, out-of- centre stores which are identified. § Questions on comparison shopping did not split the type of goods into recognized categories. This presented some difficulty when weighting was applied to the responses to ensure that they represented local expenditure patterns. 3.5 This study incorporates a series of assumptions in order to overcome these difficulties and to improve the robustness of the raw data. The detailed explanation of the
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 11 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
assumptions used and how the data was interrogated is included within the note at Appendix 2. However in summary, the key stages undertaken to manipulate the data were as follows: § We divided the household data into zones based on postcode sectors in order to reflect the differences in expenditure of different parts of the borough. § Where answers were unclear (due to inputting inconsistencies for example), we manually sorted the data in order to ensure as many of the responses as possible could be included within the analysis. § We used the centres and stores as included within the survey and assigned the responses to each centre or store. For comparison goods and where a retail park was included, we used the whole retail park rather than the individual store in order to calculate an overall market share. § Once we established market shares, we applied a system of weighting so that the market shares were reflective of households real expenditure patterns. Shoppers’ Survey 2005 3.6 In 2005, LB Brent instructed Adsearch Limited to undertake a shoppers’ survey of Wembley, Harlesden, and Willesden Green town centres. The purpose of the survey was to provide information on the shopping habits, shopper demographics and shopper opinions in the three centres. The results are used to formulate town centre strategies for the three centres. Methodology 3.7 Shoppers’ surveys were undertaken by a team of interviewers in the three centres. The surveys were undertaken during normal shopping hours, both during the week and at weekends, between 22nd April 2005 and 19th May 2005. The chosen location for conducting the interviews in each centre was based upon those with the highest footfall count. 3.8 The survey was based on a structured questionnaire that asked a series of unprompted questions aimed at drawing out information on visitor habits and attitudes in each specific centre. The questionnaire asked a fairly standard series of questions one would expect to find in a shoppers’ survey. In summary, the survey obtained information on the following: § Visitor demographics; § Trip characteristics; § Visitor spending; § Mode of transport; § Visitor attitudes; and § Suggested improvements 3.9 A total of 1,132 surveys were undertaken, with 509 conducted in Wembley, 308 in Harlesden, and 315 in Willesden Green. This sample size for each centre is high, providing a comprehensive set of results and a robust evidence base for the borough’s emerging LDF and town centre strategies. Survey Updates 3.10 Having conducted shoppers’ surveys in 2005 for Wembley, Harlesden, and Willesden Green, we suggest that LB Brent should not need to undertake another survey of these centres for at least three to five years. This time period will enable a town centre strategy to be prepared and a start made to its implementation. It will also allow for the commencement and probably partial completion of major planning commitments in Wembley.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 12 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
3.11 In terms of the other town centres, we suggest that LB Brent should only undertake a shoppers’ survey where evidence is required to prepare a town centre strategy, or to justify a programme of planned improvements. Following the initial survey, periodic updates should be undertaken to monitor the progress of the strategy or programme. Healthcheck Survey 2003 and 2005 3.12 LB Brent regularly monitors the health of all its defined town centres, as advised in PPS6. Healthcheck surveys are carried out by LB Brent every two years, where information is gathered on most of the key indicators set out in PPS6. 3.13 The last full survey was undertaken in 2003. This will be updated for 2005. At the time of this study, updated information was available for the schedule of uses within each centre, as well as pedestrian flow counts for Wembley, Kilburn, Harlesden, and Willesden Green. All other healthcheck data relates to the 2003 survey. Methodology 3.14 There are three different aspects which overall contribute to the healthcheck survey. These are as follows: § Land Use Survey: An officer from LB Brent visited each town centre and recorded the current use of each unit. The survey provides information on the diversity of uses in the centre including non-retail uses, the retail frontage within each use, retailer representation, key attractors, and vacancy rates. § Pedestrian Survey: LB Brent instructed Pedestrian Market Research Services Ltd (PMRS Ltd) to undertake pedestrian counts in each town centre. For the 2003 survey PMRS Ltd conducted the surveys in May, and for the 2005 update for Wembley, Kilburn, Harlesden, and Willesden Green, they conducted the surveys in April. For each centre, surveys sampled the footfall at a number of locations within the centre, ranging from the busiest to those less busy. The surveys involved a team of enumerators counting the total number of pedestrians passing along the street. § Qualitative Environmental Assessment: An officer from LB Brent visited each town centre to assess and comment on the state of its environmental quality. Officers assessed a range of qualitative indicators, including retailer quality, accessibility, environmental conditions, and security. 3.15 The above survey information is supplemented by rental data collected from Colliers CRE, plus crime and safety information obtained from the borough-wide household survey. 3.16 While LB Brent’s healthcheck survey collects data for most of the key indicators and provides a fairly comprehensive evidence base for the LDF, there is some additional data available which would complement it. The additional healthcheck data which we refer to in this study are set out below: i) LB Brent already records the diversity of uses and retail frontage within each centre. We considered that, as required by the key indicators in PPS6, the amount of floorspace within each unit was also important. Using LB Brent’s 2005 schedule of uses data we calculated the gross floorspace for each unit based on OS digital mapping data. ii) LB Brent already refers to Colliers CRE rental data. We updated this using the 2005 “In-Town Retail Rents Map” for the LB Brent centres, which in addition to Wembley and Kilburn, now includes information for Willesden Green. For comparison purposes we have referred to rental data for other centres in the West London sub-region which have a comparable role in the London retail hierarchy i.e. Southall, Uxbridge, Chiswick, Hammersmith, and Fulham.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 13 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
iii) In terms of retail yields, which give an indication of the attractiveness of a centre to investors, we obtained data from the latest available Valuation Office Agency (VOA) January 2005 “Property Market Report”. We referred to data for the LB Brent centres, where available, which includes the four centres of Wembley, Kilburn, Willesden and Harlesden. We compared these centres to others in the West London sub-region with a comparable role in the London retail hierarchy. iv) Through their land use surveys LB Brent already identified the retailers within a centre, and record those retailers who have moved to or left a centre. However, they do not collect data on retailer’s intentions to change their representation. Retailer demand provides an indication of how attractive a centre is to traders that are currently not represented. We used the FOCUS database to establish retailer requirements for the LB Brent centres, where available. The database provides a regularly updated guide to the property requirements of leading multiple retail chains in the UK and Ireland. Our search of the database was conducted in July 2005. We have obtained data for the current demand for A1 “convenience”, A1 “comparison”, A2, A3, A4, A5 space for the Brent centres, and also for other centres in the West London sub-region. Survey Updates 3.17 LB Brent already undertakes a biennial healthcheck survey. In terms of the monitoring requirements of both PPS6 and LDF policies, we advise that the borough continues to undertake these surveys and to supplement them with the additional information identified above. Retail Commitments 3.18 Below we set out the major retail commitments in LB Brent, all of which are in Wembley. Quintain 3.19 Outline Application 03/3200 – approved 03/06/04 § Sports retailing A1 – 11,800sqm § Designer outlets A1 – 14,200sqm § Boutique retailing A1 – 400sqm § Food & Drink retailing A3/A4 – 12,700sqm § Local shops – A1/A2 – 8000sqm inc. 2,000sqm foodstore London Development Agency 3.20 Outline Application 04/0379 – approved 25/08/04 § Gross retail floor area – 7,475sqm Wembley Central Square 3.21 Full Application 03/3765 – approved 28/04/04 § Total Retail Floorspace 10,650sqm § Retain 3,209sqm existing retail § 7,440sqm new retail, comprising 1,843sqm foodstore, 2,835sqm clothes store, and food and drink uses (Class A1/A3/A4). 3.22 In the next three sections we identify the key findings from the shoppers’ and healthcheck surveys and provide an overview of the vitality, viability and future prospects for each centre. This assessment leads directly to the suggested policy options in Section 9.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 14 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
4 WEMBLEY Overview 4.1 Wembley is identified as a Major Centre in the London Plan. Alongside Kilburn, which straddles the LB Brent and LB Camden borough boundary, Wembley is one of the primary town centres in LB Brent. It is the third largest of Brent’s town centres, smaller than both Kilburn and Cricklewood. The floorspace survey indicates that Wembley provides approximately 54,000sqm gross of floorspace, of which 40,300sqm (75%) is currently used for retailing2 purposes. 4.2 These totals, however, are slightly misleading as a large proportion of Central Square is currently vacant and awaiting redevelopment. As such in the near future Wembley town centre will have approximately 10,000sqm of additional retail floorspace, taking the amount of floorspace in retail use to over 50,000sqm – above Cricklewood, but still smaller than Kilburn. Furthermore, the Quintain and London Development Agency proposals will add to the retail attractions in Wembley town centre and its immediate surroundings. 4.3 The centre, as currently defined in the UDP broadly extends along Wembley High Road from Ealing Road in the west to Wembley Hill Road in the east. Central Square, a pedestrian precinct, is at the heart of the town centre. The redevelopment of Central Square will improve the attractiveness of Wembley town centre, both in terms of improving the overall shopping environment and the number and range of multiple retailers in it. 4.4 Wembley is also the administrative and civic centre of Brent, containing a number of offices associated with the Council’s functions. However, Wembley lacks other town centre uses one would expect to find in a Major Centre e.g. library, cinema, and other commercial leisure facilities. 4.5 Management Horizons Europe compiles an index of the rank of shopping centres in the UK. The latest data is for 2003-04. The data clearly demonstrates that Wembley is a declining centre, which has been falling down the UK shopping centre index ranking, and has been for some time. In 2003-04 Wembley is ranked in 491st place in the UK shopping index, which represents a fall of more than 200 places from its position in 1995-96 (279). In comparison, Kilburn is ranked 367th in 2003-04, and although the centre has also declined the fall is nowhere near as great as that of Wembley. 4.6 Therefore, the overall strategy for Wembley town centre will be: to continue reversing its decline; improve its position in the UK shopping index; and to increase the amount of floorspace in the centre. The strategy will be dealt with in more detail in Section 9, but in summary it has seven main strands: i) To identify the need for additional floorspace in Wembley – set out in Section 7; ii) To identify development opportunity sites in Wembley to meet the retail need - assessed in Section 8; iii) To direct the majority of additional comparison goods floorspace to Wembley - as the main centre in the borough; iv) To seek to retain market share at approx 40% (comparison) and 76% (convenience) – recognising that Brent Cross and other competing centres will continue to attract LB Brent residents; v) To ensure that the development opportunity sites provide modern units which are of sufficient size and are suitable for national multiple retailers;
2 Retail classes A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 15 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
vi) To increase the number of GOAD defined key attractors who can enhance the appeal of Wembley to local residents, and have a sufficiently strong brand to attract shoppers to a centre; and vii) To undertake a programme of environmental improvements. Summary of Shoppers’ Survey Findings 4.7 The key findings from the shopper’s survey are: Trip Characteristics 4.8 The key trip characteristics in the centre are: § Shopping is main reason why people visit Wembley, with 65% of visitors doing so. In comparison, 56% of visitors to Harlesden and 43% of visitors to Willesden Green cite shopping as the main reason for their visit. This illustrates the importance of Wembley as the main shopping destination in Brent. § While shopping is main reason for visiting Wembley, few visits are made for eating and drinking uses3 facilities, with only 8% of visitors citing this as the main reason for their visit. This suggests a lack of these facilities or a limited range and quality of existing facilities. § Wembley has the lowest proportion of visitors who do their main food shopping in the centre visited (34%), whereas 63% of Harlesden’s visitors and 54% of Willesden Green’s visitors use their centre for these goods. Instead, Wembley’s visitors use main supermarket located outside its town centre – Asda in Wembley Park and Sainsbury in Alperton. This demonstrates that Wembley currently lacks a main foodstore, but there are proposals to include a supermarket as part of the Central Square redevelopment scheme. § A high proportion of Wembley’s visitors use that centre for their non-food shopping (50%). In comparison only 38% of Harlesden’s visitors and 20% of Willesden Green’s visitors use their respective centres for this type of shopping. This demonstrates that within Brent, Wembley is comparatively well served by non-food retailers, and emphasises its dominant shopping role within the borough. However, high proportions of Wembley’s visitors also visit Brent Cross, Harrow and Central London for these goods, which demonstrates the attraction of nearby centres for these types of goods, and the limited offer in Wembley. Transport & Accessibility 4.9 The key transport and accessibility characteristics in Wembley are: § The majority of visitors to Wembley travel to the centre by bus (38%), which is the highest proportion using this mode of transport of all LB Brent centres. This is not surprising as Wembley is well served by buses. § 31% of Wembley’s visitors travel to the centre on foot, which is high but is still lower than the proportions that do so to both Harlesden and Willesden (44% and 47% respectively). This indicates that Wembley attracts visitors from beyond its local walk-in catchment area. § Wembley has the highest proportion of visitors who travel to the centre by car (24%). In comparison, Harlesden and Willesden Green have 17% and 19% respectively of their visitors who use the car for trips to the centre. This demonstrates that Wembley has a wider catchment area than the other centres and contains attractions that encourage visitors to make longer journeys requiring the car.
3 Eating and drinking uses comprise A3 (restaurants and cafes), A4 (drinking establishments), and A5 (hot food takeaway)
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 16 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
Visitor Attitudes 4.10 The key visitor attitudes in the centre are: § Wembley scores only “average” at fulfilling the needs of its visitors for most shops and services. Interestingly, entertainment and leisure facilities score poorly, which is not surprising because Wembley lacks these facilities. There is clearly an opportunity for Wembley to improve both the amount and quality of entertainment and leisure facilities it provides. § 52% of visitors never visit Wembley for cafes and bars, and 42% never visit Wembley to eat out. This demonstrates that there is a lack of these facilities in the centre and the existing provision is inadequate. Therefore, Wembley town centre should be increasing the amount, range and quality of its cafes, bars and restaurants to attract visitors, both during the day and in the evening. § In terms of suggested town centre improvements, 44% of visitors to Wembley wanted a better environment. Improvements to the shopping environment will be made when the Central Square redevelopment is complete. This will deliver a more pleasant car-free shopping environment and provide seating for visitors away from the congested High Street. § 56% of Wembley’s visitors wanted to see more car parking provided in the centre. This is an interesting dilemma because there is a clear desire for more car parking spaces by visitors, and other competing shopping centres, such as Brent Cross, provide ample and convenient parking facilities, and yet Wembley is well-served by public transport. Therefore, the existing level of parking spaces in Wembley will at least need to be retained, with additional spaces also provided but preferably meeting the needs of more than one use i.e. office, retail, and leisure uses at different times during the day and throughout the week. Summary of Healthcheck Findings 4.11 The key findings from the healthcheck survey for Wembley are as set out below. Market Indicators 4.12 The key market indicators for the centre are rent levels, yields, retailer requirements, diversity of uses and the proportion of vacant units. These are detailed below. 4.13 According to Colliers CRE 2005 retail rental data, Wembley achieved a rental level of approximately £650/sqm, which is lower than Kilburn, but higher than the only other Brent centre for which data is collected, Willesden Green. As with all Colliers CRE data this assessment is based on an optimum retail unit in the primary pitch, whereas other retail units will achieve much lower rental levels. Retail rents in Wembley have doubled in the ten years since 1995, but still remain considerably lower than Kilburn, which achieves rental levels of almost £1,025/sqm. 4.14 For a more informative guide as to how Wembley performs in terms of rental levels, we have compared it to other centres in the West London sub-region at a comparable level in the retail hierarchy. This data is set out in Table 4.1 below. This indicates that Wembley has rental levels which are substantially lower than most of West London’s Major Centres. For example, in 2005 Uxbridge achieved retail rents of £2,153/sqm, which is more than three times higher than in Wembley. Therefore, in terms of rental levels, Wembley is performing poorly.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 17 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
Table 4.1: West London Town Centre Prime Zone A Retail Rents
Year 1995 2000 2005 Wembley £323 / sqm £323 / sqm £646 / sqm Willesden Green n/a n/a £484 / sqm Kilburn £484 / sqm £753 / sqm £1023 / sqm Southall £377 / sqm £592 / sqm £696 / sqm Uxbridge £915 / sqm £1399 / sqm £2153 / sqm Chiswick £646 / sqm £915 / sqm £1453 / sqm Hammersmith £592 / sqm £807 / sqm £1833 / sqm Fulham £807 / sqm £1023 / sqm £1507 / sqm Source: Colliers CRE - In Town Retail Rents 2005 4.15 Rental levels will only increase substantially when improvements are made to the shopping environment, and new or refurbished retail units can be provided to meet the needs of those willing to pay premium rents. The redevelopment of Central Square will provide both improvements to the shopping environment and large units suitable for national multiple retailers. 4.16 The Valuation Office Agency’s 2005 yield data, shown in Table 4.2 below, indicates that yields in Wembley have improved considerably in the last decade, from 10% in 1995 to 6.75% in 2005. This represents the largest fall in retail yields of the comparable West London centre. Wembley now has the lowest yields of the West London centres. This demonstrates increasing investor confidence in Wembley, and is almost certainly a result of the prospects of major improvements in trading which redevelopments at Central Square and the Quintain scheme will herald for Wembley. Table 4.2: West London Town Centre Retail Yields
Year 1995 2000 2005 Wembley 10.00 % 9.00 % 6.75 % Harlesden 12.00 % 12.75 % >=10.00 % Willesden Green 12.00 % 12.25 % >=10.00 % Cricklewood 12.00 % 12.00 % >=10.00 % Kilburn 10.00 % 10.00 % 7.50 % Burnt Oak 10.50% 11.00% >=10.00 % Southall 10.00 % 8.50 % 9.00 % Uxbridge 6.50 % 6.00 % 6.00 % Chiswick 7.50 % 7.00 % 7.00 % Hammersmith 9.50 % 9.50 % 9.00 % Fulham 10.50 % 9.75 % 9.00 % Source: Valuation Office Property Market Report (January 2005) 4.17 Table 4.3 sets out the FOCUS published retailer requirements for Wembley town centre. This indicates that there are 28 national multiples with space requirements in Wembley. This is the centre with the highest number of retailers of the LB Brent centres. In comparison, 23 retailers are seeking space in Kilburn, whereas less than ten retailers are seeking space in either Willesden Green or Harlesden. This clearly demonstrates that Wembley is the primary centre in the borough, and the centre where multiple retailers wish to locate. 4.18 However, Wembley, along with Southall, has the lowest level of retailer demand for space when compared to other Major Centres in the West London sub-region, most of whom have over 70 retailers seeking space within them. There are a number of factors which contribute to Wembley’s comparatively low level of demand. It suffers from a
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 18 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
poor image amongst retailers, which stems from a perception of a poor environment. This undermines the centre’s attraction as a place to shop. The redevelopment proposals taking place should reverse this trend. 4.19 The majority of those seeking space in Wembley are comparison goods retailers. Interestingly, Matalan, Habitat and TK Maxx are seeking fairly large retail units, between 1,400sqm and 3,700sqm, which Wembley town centre does not currently have available. However, TK Maxx has been named as a potential occupier in the Central Square scheme, and there will be other larger units provided as part of this development which could accommodate multiple retailer demands. There are also a few A3 restaurant and café operators seeking space in Wembley, which is positive news because the shoppers’ survey highlighted that visitors are not currently attracted to Wembley for these facilities.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 19 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
Table 4.3: Retailer Requirements for Wembley Town Centre
Floorspace Company Name Retail Type Requirement
A1 Comparison 99p Stores Variety/Discount Stores 279 Sqm - 929 Sqm Bon Marche Ltd Women's Wear 232 Sqm - 279 Sqm British Heart Foundation Charity Shops 56 Sqm - 112 Sqm David Deyong Jewelers/Watch Sellers 19 Sqm - 46 Sqm Fads Homestyle Ltd Homeware 93 Sqm - 139 Sqm Habitat UK Ltd Household Accessories 1394 Sqm - 1673 Sqm Hpj The Jewellers Jewellers/Watch Sellers 74 Sqm - 112 Sqm Laura Ashley Holdings Plc Clothing/Household Linens 279 Sqm - 743 Sqm Matalan Retail Ltd Clothing 2788 Sqm - 3717 Sqm Orange Plc Mobile Phones 46 Sqm - 139 Sqm Peacocks Stores Ltd Department Stores 465 Sqm - 1394 Sqm Pets At Home Ltd Pet Shops 372 Sqm - 1115 Sqm Scope Charity Shops 70 Sqm - 465 Sqm Shoe Zone Group Ltd Shoe Shops 93 Sqm - 232 Sqm Shoefayre Ltd Shoe Shops 112 Sqm - 232 Sqm Superdrug Stores Plc Chemists 139 Sqm - 558 Sqm Tk Maxx Variety/Discount Stores 1394 Sqm - 2788 Sqm
A1 Convenience Farmfoods Ltd Food 465 Sqm - 743 Sqm Sensations Newsagent/Cards/Stationer 70 Sqm - 163 Sqm
A2 Financial & Professional Fred Done Ltd Turf Accountants 93 Sqm Islamic House Of Britain Plc Banks 74 Sqm - 139 Sqm
A3 Restaurant & Café Ashas Cafe/Restaurant/Bar 418 Sqm Barcelos Cafe/Restaurant/Bar 232 Sqm - 418 Sqm Curry Republic Ltd Cafe/Restaurant/Bar 28 Sqm - 93 Sqm Nandos Chickenland Ltd Cafe/Restaurant/Bar 232 Sqm - 325 Sqm
A5 Hot Food Takeaway Kfc (Gb) Ltd Fast Food/Takeaway Outlets 163 Sqm - 465 Sqm Papa Johns Perfect Pizza Fast Food/Takeaway Outlets 70 Sqm Subway Fast Food/Takeaway Outlets 28 Sqm - 112 Sqm Source: FOCUS database (July 2005) 4.20 While Table 4.3 demonstrates that national multiple retailers are seeking space in Wembley, none are the key attractors defined by GOAD, which would significantly improve the quality of retailers in Wembley. Wembley currently only contains 6 out of 27 key attractors defined by GOAD – Argos, Boots, Dixons, Superdrug, Wilkinsons, and Woolworths. GOAD identifies 27 key attractors which are considered to greatly enhance the appeal of a town centre to local consumers. The key attractors are identified by their strong branding, and are sufficiently attractive in themselves to attracts customers to a centre.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 20 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
4.21 Furthermore, not only does Wembley lack a good supply of key attractors, but unfortunately in recent years some have left the centre – BhS and WH Smith, and most recently M&S. This fact clearly demonstrates the decline of Wembley town centre. Therefore, the overall retail strategy for Wembley should seek to continuing the reverse this decline by providing conditions which attract the key attractors back into the centre e.g. development opportunity sites, provision of modern and suitably sized retail units, and environmental improvements in the centre. In Section 9 we will set out in more detail the retail strategy for Wembley, and identify the key attractors which LB Brent should seek to encourage back into the centre. 4.22 In Table 4.4 below, we present the aggregate total floorspace by use class for Wembley town centre. The table shows that Wembley is the third largest of LB Brent’s town centres with almost 54,000sqm of floorspace, of which 40,300sqm is in retail use. Wembley is smaller than Kilburn and Cricklewood, both of which straddle adjoining boroughs. 4.23 As expected for the primary centre in the borough, comparison goods retailers use the most floorspace in Wembley (37%), which represents almost 20,000sqm or nearly half of the total retail floorspace in the centre. It is the lack of convenience goods floorspace in Wembley which is most striking, with only 5,100sqm of floorspace. There is a clear lack of such retail in the centre, as highlighted in the shoppers’ survey, where visitors to Wembley tend to shop for food in the large supermarkets located outside the centre. The lack of convenience floorspace should be resolved when the proposed supermarket within the Central Square scheme is complete. The proportion of comparison goods retail floorspace in the town centre will also increase as a result of this development. 4.24 The “other” uses comprise all the non-retail uses located in the centre. In the case of Wembley, offices (B1) and non-residential uses (D1) are the main non-retail uses. Of particular concern for Wembley is the lack of floorspace used for leisure in the centre. This shortcoming will clearly need to be resolved if Wembley is to retain its role in the retail hierarchy, compete with other centres, and attract and retain visitors, particularly outside normal shopping hours. Table 4.4: Diversity of Use in Wembley Town Centre
Total Floorspace Floorspace (%) (sqm)
A1 Convenience 5,105 9 A1 Comparison 19,865 37 A1 Other 1,630 3 A2 Financial & Professional 6,980 13 A3 Restaurants & Cafes 2,640 5 A4 Drinking Establishments 2,760 5 A5 Hot Food Takeaway 1,400 3 Sui Generis 1,880 3 Vacant 5,970 11 Other 5,590 10 TOTAL RETAIL 40,380 75 TOTAL CENTRE 53,820 100 Source: LB Brent Survey 2005 using OS derived floorspace data
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 21 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
4.25 Table 4.4 also shows the amount of vacant units in Wembley. There is currently almost 6,000sqm of vacant retail floorspace in the centre, which equates to 11% of the total floorspace. This proportion is significantly higher than Kilburn (7%) and Willesden Green (4%) and slightly higher than Harlesden (10%). The currently high proportion of vacant space for Wembley is misleading, and is largely as a result of redevelopment proposals for Central Square. This scheme will eventually reduce the vacancy rate to more acceptable levels. Qualitative Indicators 4.26 Wembley is very accessible by public transport, with nine bus routes passing through the centre, and three underground stations within close proximity of the centre. Wembley Central station is located within the centre, and will be redeveloped as part of the Central Square scheme. The good public transport accessibility is a positive aspect of Wembley, and should make visiting the centre easy, provided the attractions exist to encourage visits. 4.27 As with many of London’s town centres, Wembley is located on a busy main route out of the city, which is routinely heavily congested. As a result, Wembley is not very accessible by private transport. There is a perception of an undersupply of car parking in the centre, and no opportunity for car borne shoppers to stop and park for a limited period of time, given that Wembley High Road is a busy route and any vehicles that do stop will immediately create congestion problems. 4.28 The provision of pedestrian crossing points both at the station and between the main multiple retailers, and the location of bus stops close by, means that the main arrival points and the principal retail attractions are all highly accessible. The highway and traffic amendments proposed as part of the redevelopment of Central Square will make the prime shopping area even more accessible. The redevelopment of Central Square will provide an area for shoppers to escape from the heavily trafficked High Road and its often narrow and congested pavements. 4.29 Footfall surveys show that the location with the highest footfall count in Wembley town centre is outside Primark, on the northern side of Wembley High Road. This is where the main bus stops are sited, and is adjacent to Wembley Central Station. When the Central Square redevelopment scheme is complete, new retail attractions are open, and the shopping environment is improved, we predict that in the future this area will have higher considerably higher footfall counts. 4.30 The latest household survey shows that 16% of respondents considered Wembley town centre to be unsafe. This is a lower proportion than respondents in Harlesden (25%). Wembley already has the benefit of CCTV cameras, and the actual crime statistics do not support the view that Wembley is unsafe. However, there is a huge perception of crime. Therefore, reducing crime, and the perception of crime, in Wembley is an issue that must be tackled if the centre is to be attractive to shoppers and national multiple retailers and to allow the centre to improve. 4.31 The environmental quality of Wembley is currently quite poor, which was confirmed by respondents to the shoppers’ survey who considered it to have an unpleasant environment. There are no open spaces, the pavements are often narrow, and there is a lack of trees, seating and landscaping. There have been some recent improvements at the eastern end of the High Road, outside Argos, where trees have been planted and benches are provided. When the Central Square redevelopment scheme is completed there will be major improvements to the environmental quality of Wembley. In addition to the action already taking place, it is clear that Wembley requires a comprehensive programme of environmental improvements, to provide more seating and trees.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 22 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
Potential Development Opportunity Sites 4.32 There are a number of opportunity sites in Wembley, in addition to those already committed, which provide the opportunity to increase the retail and leisure provision in the centre. Most of these sites are encouragingly located within the town centre and adjacent to the defined shopping area. 4.33 The potential opportunity sites are as follows: § Curtis Lane car park site § Wembley Market site § High Rd / St John’s Rd / Ecclestone Mews site § Marks & Spencers Site, High Rd / St John’s Rd /Elm Rd site § Ecclestone Place / High Rd site 4.34 The suitability of these sites for retail / leisure / mixed use will be assessed in detail in Section 8.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 23
Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
5 KILBURN, HARLESDEN & WILLESDEN GREEN Introduction 5.1 In this section we provide an overview of the vitality, viability and future prospects of Kilburn, as the other Major Centre in the borough, and Harlesden and Willesden Green, as district centres where town centre strategies will be prepared. Our assessment is based upon the findings from the healthcheck survey for all centres, and the shoppers’ survey for Harlesden and Willesden Green. Kilburn Overview 5.2 Kilburn is identified as a Major Centre in the London Plan. It is the largest of Brent’s town centres, although approximately half of the centre is outside the borough boundary in LB Camden. The floorspace survey indicates that Kilburn provides approximately 84,000sqm gross of floorspace in total. Over 55,000sqm of the total floorspace is currently used for retailing purposes, which equates to 66% of the floorspace. 5.3 Kilburn town centre, as currently defined in the UDP extends along Kilburn High Road, and the centre is approximately 1.5km in length. As a result there is no strong focus for retail development or retail attractions in the centre. However, the centre can be divided into three distinct zones by their characteristics: the southern section for national multiple retailers; the northern section for entertainment and leisure plus restaurants, cafes and bars; the middle section for secondary and independent retailers. 5.4 Kilburn is characterised by having a strong evening economy, with a number of bars and restaurants, and also the Tricycle theatre and cinema. The centre also contains some leisure uses including a bingo hall and gym. All these uses add to the overall attraction of Kilburn. Summary of Healthcheck Findings 5.5 A healthcheck survey of Kilburn was undertaken as part of LB Camden’s retail study in 2003/04. Where appropriate we have utilised the findings from this survey to support the healthcheck assessment carried out by LB Brent. The key findings from the healthcheck surveys are set out below. Market Indicators 5.6 According to Colliers CRE 2005 retail rental data, Kilburn achieved the highest rental level of all the LB Brent centres for which data was collected. Retail rents for an optimum unit in the primary pitch in Kilburn is almost £1025/sqm. 5.7 However, if we compare rental levels in Kilburn to those of other centres in the West London sub-region (set out in Table 4.1), Kilburn has much lower rents to all the other centres, except Southall. This indicates that Kilburn is not performing as well as it should. Although, Kilburn’s retail rents will be lower largely because it is a less attractive centre, and is located between competing shopping destinations i.e. Brent Cross to the north west and Central London to the south east. 5.8 The Valuation Office Agency’s 2005 yields data (set out in Table 4.2) shows that yields in Kilburn have improved between 1995 and 2005, from 10% to 7.5%. The yield levels in Kilburn are not as low as those in Wembley, which demonstrates that in comparison there is less investor confidence in the centre. However, Kilburn does have some opportunities to provide new retail development, mostly as a result of redevelopment and refurbishment of existing sites. These opportunities will lead to major improvements in the centre in the future, and increased confidence in its future.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 25 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
5.9 In Table 5.1 below, we set out the retailer requirements for Kilburn town centre, as derived from the FOCUS database. This indicates that there are 23 national multiples seeking space in Kilburn. This level of interest is slightly less than Wembley (28), which is not surprising as those retailers seeking space in the borough will tend to direct their search to the larger centres. 5.10 Similar to Wembley, the majority of retailers seeking space in Kilburn are comparison goods retailers. TK Maxx and Peacocks are the retailers seeking the largest units, 2,800sqm and 1,400sqm respectively. Kilburn currently has very few units of this size available, which means that for the centre to attract these and other multiple retailers, larger units will need to be created through redevelopment / refurbishment of existing units. Furthermore, it is generally the case that national multiple retailers will seek to locate in the primary shopping area close to other major retailers. Therefore, in Kilburn they will require units in the southern section of the centre. Table 5.1: Retailer Requirements for Kilburn Town Centre Company Name Retail Type Floorspace Requirements
A1 Comparison 99p Stores Variety/Discount Stores 279 Sqm - 929 Sqm Atlantic Fashions Ltd Women's Wear 167 Sqm - 465 Sqm Bon Marche Ltd Women's Wear 232 Sqm - 279 Sqm British Heart Foundation Charity Shops 56 Sqm - 112 Sqm Clarks Shoes Shoe Shops 112 Sqm - 139 Sqm Darker Enterprises Ltd Hosiery/Lingerie 46 Sqm - 112 Sqm Flight Centre (Uk) Ltd Travel Agents 37 Sq - 93 Sqm Game Ltd Computers & Software 93 Sqm - 186 Sqm Halfords Ltd Motor Accessories 372 Sqm - 929 Sqm Mfi Furniture Group Plc Furniture 325 Sqm - 372 Sqm Peacocks Stores Ltd Department Stores 465 Sqm - 1394 Sqm Shoe Zone Group Ltd Shoe Shops 93 Sqm - 232 Sqm Sofa Workshop Ltd Furniture 232 Sqm - 325 Sqm Superdrug Stores Plc Chemists 139 Sqm - 558 Sqm Tk Maxx Variety/Discount Stores 1394 Sqm - 2788 Sqm Warren James (Jewellers) Ltd Jewellers/Watch Sellers 56 Sqm - 93 Sqm
A1 Convenience Farmfoods Ltd Food 465 Sqm - 743 Sqm Greggs Plc Bakers 74 Sqm - 112 Sqm Iceland Foods Plc Supermarket 279 Sqm
A3 Restaurant & Café Strada Cafe/Restaurant/Bar 186 Sqm - 465 Sqm
A5 Hot Food Takeaway Basilico Fast Food/Takeaway Outlets 74 sqm - 186 sqm Papa Johns Perfect Pizza Fast Food/Takeaway Outlets 74 sqm - 186 sqm Subway Fast Food/Takeaway Outlets 28 sqm - 112 sqm Source: FOCUS database (July 2005) 5.11 In Table 5.2 below, we present the total floorspace by use class for Kilburn town centre, including those parts of the centre outside the borough within LB Camden.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 26 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
Kilburn has almost 84,000sqm of gross floorspace, of which over 55,000sqm is in retail use. As with other Major Centres, comparison goods retailers occupy the greatest proportion of floorspace in Kilburn, utilising almost 21,500sqm of floorspace – one quarter of the total floorspace in the centre. 5.12 Kilburn is characterised by the large number of bars, restaurants and cafes in the centre. These uses occupy almost 10,000sqm of floorspace, which equates to 11% of the total. In comparison, Wembley has only 5,400sqm of floorspace occupied by these uses – which confirms the lack of these types of uses in that centre. 5.13 The amount of floorspace in “other” uses Kilburn is almost one quarter of the total floorspace (20,185sqm). This is considerably higher than the proportion devoted to “other” uses in Wembley. Office and employment uses account for approximately half of the “other” floorspace. However, in contrast to Wembley, Kilburn also contains commercial leisure uses. These comprise the Tricycle theatre and cinema, Mecca Bingo, and a Living Well gym. Table 5.2: Diversity of Use in Kilburn Town Centre 4
Total Floorspace Floorspace (%) (sqm)
A1 Convenience 10,310 12 A1 Comparison 21,490 26 A1 Other 5,350 6 A2 Financial & Professional 6,540 8 A3 Restaurants & Cafes 6,260 7 A4 Drinking Establishments 3,670 4 A5 Hot Food Takeaway 1,570 2 Sui Generis 2,750 3 Vacant 5,720 7 Other 20,185 24 TOTAL RETAIL 55,190 66 TOTAL CENTRE 83,845 100 Source: LB Brent Survey 2005 using OS derived floorspace data
5.14 Table 5.2 also highlights the amount of vacant floorspace in Kilburn. There is 5,720 sqm (7%) of vacant floorspace in the centre. Healthcheck data over a number of years demonstrates that vacancy rates in Kilburn town centre have fallen. In addition, the majority of vacant units are located outside the primary shopping areas. In these circumstances, the vacant units are unlikely to be attractive to multiple retailers, who only wish to locate in the primary areas, and so are likely to appeal to independent retailers or to other non-retail uses. Qualitative Indicators 5.15 Kilburn, like other Brent centres is very accessible by public transport. There are seven bus routes which pass through the centre, and four stations served by both the underground (Kilburn and Kilburn Park) and the overground rail network (Kilburn High Road and Brondesbury). The good accessibility will encourage visitors to use public transport to access the centre. However, it will also enable local residents to easily travel to other nearby competing town centres, taking trade from Kilburn.
4 Total floorspace data includes units located outside LB Brent borough boundary
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 27 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
5.16 The busy A5 main road passes through Kilburn. As with other main routes into / out of Central London it tends to be congested throughout the day. In addition, while the A5 is a fairly wide road, vehicles making deliveries to retail units can slow the traffic down, leading to further congestion. As a result, Kilburn is not very accessible by private transport. 5.17 Footfall surveys show that it is the southern part of Kilburn which has the highest footfall counts - outside Sainsbury. This is not surprising as it is in this section where the national multiple retailers are located. 5.18 Crime prevention schemes have been implemented in Kilburn, and there is CCTV cameras in operation. However, the household survey clearly indicates that there are still concerns about safety in Kilburn, in particular in the evening. Tackling these outstanding issues will be necessary if the centre is to attract more visitors throughout the day. 5.19 There have been some environmental and streetscape improvement schemes in Kilburn. However, overall Kilburn remains an unattractive shopping environment, and would benefit from more comprehensive improvements to provide more trees and street furniture. Potential Development Opportunity Sites 5.20 There is one identifiable development opportunity in Kilburn, but there may also be other opportunities to redevelop existing buildings. As Kilburn is a very long linear centre, it is not surprising to find that the development opportunities occur within the centre boundaries. However, the type of uses which will be attracted to the development opportunities, both identified and potential redevelopment sites, will depend on where they are located within the centre. The southern section of the centre will be attractive for multiple retailers, the northern section for leisure / retail, and the middle section for mixed-use. All redevelopment opportunities in Kilburn will be suitable for residential uses above ground floor level. 5.21 The potential opportunity site is as follows: § Kilburn Square Market site 5.22 The suitability of this site for retail development will be assessed in detail in Section 8. Harlesden Overview 5.23 Harlesden is defined as a District centre in the London Plan and a Main District centre in the adopted UDP. In terms of the amount of floorspace, Harlesden is one of the larger centres in LB Brent. The floorspace survey indicates that Harlesden contains over 50,000sqm of floorspace, of which almost 38,000sqm (76%) is in retail use. 5.24 Harlesden town centre broadly comprises two streets – the High Street and Craven Park Road. The primary shopping frontage is located on Craven Park Road and the High Street. Harlesden town centre is characterised by the high proportion of local convenience (butchers and greengrocers) and service uses (hairdressers), some of which serve the local Afro-Caribbean community. In general, the centre lacks national multiple retailers. 5.25 A key issue for Harlesden is the need to improve the shopping and built environment. The centre is located within a Conservation Area, and contains some attractive buildings. However, these qualities are overshadowed by poorly designed shopfronts and signage and a general lack of regard to good urban design. The setting of Harlesden’s attractive and visually prominent buildings should be enhanced.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 28 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
Summary of Shopper Survey Findings 5.26 The key findings from the shoppers’ survey are set out below. Trip Characteristics 5.27 Shopping is main reason for the majority of visitors being in Harlesden. 56% of visitors cite shopping as the main reason for their visit, which is a lower proportion than Wembley (65%), but higher than Willesden Green (43%). Shopping is therefore less important to Harlesden visitors than it is for those visiting Wembley, which is the primary centre in the borough. 5.28 Harlesden is the centre where the highest proportion of its shoppers tend to visit for main food shopping, with 63% doing so. This indicates that Budgens and the small local convenience stores in Harlesden meet the needs of its visitors. However, Harlesden does not contain a large supermarket, and the main foodstore for Harlesden shoppers’ is Asda at Park Royal, which is located outside the borough. 5.29 Some 38% of Harlesden’s visitors do their main non-food shopping in the centre. In comparison, 50% of Wembley’s shoppers do so in that centre. This demonstrates that Wembley is the dominant centre in the borough for comparison goods, and also that Harlesden is weak in this respect and lacks these types of retailers. Interestingly, 17% of Harlesden visitors use Asda as the main destination to purchase non-food goods, which indicates the strength of the attractions on offer at the store. Transport & Accessibility 5.30 In Harlesden, 44% of visitors travel to the centre on foot, which is only slightly lower than Willesden Green (47%). In contrast, Harlesden is the centre with the lowest proportion of visitors who travel to the centre by car (17%). This indicates that Harlesden predominantly serves a local catchment area. Visitor Attitudes 5.31 Harlesden scores “good” at fulfilling the needs of its visitors for food and drink grocery shopping. Therefore, LB Brent should be protecting the role of the small convenience retailers in serving the local community. Although, it could be argued that Harlesden has too many small grocers for a centre of its size, and the loss of some units to other retail uses may benefit the centre and add to the range of other non-food shops. 5.32 For most other shops and services Harlesden scores “average”. As with other town centres in LB Brent, entertainment and leisure facilities in Harlesden tend to be “poor” at meeting the needs of its visitors. Therefore, an opportunity exists to improve both the amount and quality of entertainment and leisure facilities in Harlesden, to meet the needs of existing visitors and also attract others to the centre. 5.33 In terms of suggested town centre improvements, Harlesden’s visitors generally had similar priorities to visitors of other town centres, but with slightly lower proportions. For example, 37% of Harlesden’s visitors suggested improvements to the environment, whereas 44% requested this improvement in Wembley and 48% did so in Willesden Green. While the responses indicate a certain level of satisfaction, there is still a need to introduce programmes to make the suggested improvements for the benefit of the centre as a whole. Summary of Healthcheck Findings 5.34 The key findings from the healthcheck survey are set out below. Market Indicators 5.35 Colliers CRE do not publish retail rental data for Harlesden, which means that it is outside the top 610 centres in the UK, and will achieve a lower rental level than centres surveyed.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 29 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
5.36 The Valuation Office Agency’s 2005 yield data, shown in Table 4.2 above, indicates that yields in Harlesden have remained above 10% during the last decade. Both Willesden Green and Cricklewood show similar patterns. This clearly indicates that there is limited investor confidence in Harlesden. This is not surprising. First, it is a lower order centre in the retail hierarchy than Wembley. Secondly, Harlesden is an unattractive centre, with no prospects for improvement unless there is direct intervention by public agencies to initiate change. However, a potential development opportunity site exists at Harlesden Plaza which could start the improvement process. 5.37 The FOCUS retailer requirements for Harlesden are set out in Table 5.3. There are only 7 national multiple retailers seeking space in the centre. This clearly demonstrates that Harlesden is a lower order centre in the borough’s retail hierarchy than Wembley – where 28 retailers were seeking space. It is generally the case that national retailers will seek space in the larger and busier centres. 5.38 Most of the retailers seeking space in Harlesden have floorspace requirements which could be accommodated within one of the vacant units in the centre. It is only Argos, seeking units of between 900 and 1,500sqm, who could not currently be accommodated within an available unit, and would require the redevelopment / refurbishment of a number of existing units. Table 5.3: Retailer Requirements for Harlesden Town Centre
Floorspace Company Name Retail Type Requirement
A1 Comparison Argos Ltd Variety/Discount Stores 929 Sqm – 1487 Sqm Carphone Warehouse Group Mobile Phones 46 Sqm - 93 Sqm
A1 Convenience Farmfoods Ltd Food 465 Sqm - 743 Sqm Sensations Newsagent/Cards/Stationer 70 Sqm – 163 Sqm
A3 Restaurant & Café Barcelos Cafe/Restaurant/Bar 232 Sqm - 418 Sqm
A5 Hot Food Takeaway KFC (GB) Ltd Fast Food/Takeaway Outlets 163 Sqm - 465 Sqm Papa Johns Perfect Pizza Fast Food/Takeaway Outlets 74 Sqm – 186 Sqm Source: FOCUS database (July 2005) 5.39 In Table 5.4 below, we present the total floorspace by use class for Harlesden town centre. Harlesden is the fourth largest centre in LB Brent with over 50,000sqm of floorspace, of which almost 38,000sqm is in retail use. The centre is characterised by the large proportion of local convenience retailers (butchers and greengrocers) and local service retailers (beauty salons and hairdressers). Almost 20% of the total floorspace in the centre is in use by A1 convenience retailers. This is very high considering Harlesden does not contain a major food supermarket.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 30 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
Table 5.4: Diversity of Use in Harlesden Town Centre
Total Floorspace Floorspace (%) (sqm)
A1 Convenience 9,450 19 A1 Comparison 12,760 25 A1 Other 4,500 9 A2 Financial & Professional 4,400 9 A3 Restaurants & Cafes 2,700 5 A4 Drinking Establishments 2,080 4 A5 Hot Food Takeaway 2,050 4 Sui Generis 1,240 2 Vacant 5,090 10 Other 5,920 12 TOTAL RETAIL 37,940 76 TOTAL CENTRE 50,190 100 Source: LB Brent Survey 2005 using OS derived floorspace data 5.40 Table 5.4 also shows the amount of vacant units in Harlesden. There is currently over 5,000sqm of vacant floorspace in the centre, which equates to 10% of the total floorspace. This represents an increase on the level of vacant floorspace recorded in the centre in 2003 – over 5%. There are at least a couple of large vacant units located within the defined primary shopping frontage on Harlesden High Street – at 34 High Street and 6-8 Bank Buildings, High Street. Both these units could be re-used for retail development, and are suitable for national multiple retailers. The re-use of these vacant units should be a priority. Qualitative Indicators 5.41 As with the majority of Brent’s centres, Harlesden is very accessible by public transport, but this is predominantly by buses. There are eight bus routes which pass through the centre, but the two underground / overground stations (Harlesden and Willesden Junction) are both a short walk from the centre and are not visible from it. 5.42 Harlesden High Street and Craven Park Road are generally busy congested roads. As such, they are not very accessible by private transport. Harlesden has a one-way system, which means that car borne visitors may have to make a circuit of the centre to access the shops they require. Parts of the centre, mainly the High Street can also become congested with delivery lorries. However, Harlesden does benefit from on- street parking bays, which are conveniently located for the shops, and is attractive for visitors seeking to undertake a short-stay visit. 5.43 Footfall surveys show that it is the High Street / Station Road junction which has the highest footfall count in Harlesden. This is not surprising as this is where the primary shopping frontage is located, and is where the majority of bus routes pass through the centre. 5.44 Harlesden is recognised as a declining centre with vacant units, which in general creates a perception of an unsafe centre. The latest household survey shows that 25% of respondents considered Harlesden town centre to be unsafe, making it the centre with the poorest perceived level of safety in the borough. 5.45 The environmental quality of Harlesden is currently quite poor. This is confirmed by the high proportion of respondents to the shoppers’ survey who suggested that environmental improvements were required to the centre. There are no open spaces
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 31 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
within or close to the centre, and trees, seating and landscaping is only provided in one section of the centre – on Craven Park Road. Part of Harlesden town centre is within a defined conservation area, and it contains some architecturally attractive buildings made of brick and stone. However, the quality of the buildings above ground floor level is overshadowed by the poor quality shopfronts and signage. An urban design strategy for Harlesden could assess the built environment qualities of the centre, and devise a strategy to improve and enhance these qualities. Potential Development Opportunity Sites 5.46 New retail development in Harlesden should be directed towards the vacant units, particularly those in the primary shopping frontage. Other opportunities for new retail development could be provided if existing units are refurbished or underused sites are redeveloped to provide higher density development. 5.47 The potential development opportunity site is as follows: § Harlesden Plaza site Willesden Green Overview 5.48 Willesden Green is identified as a district centre in London Plan and as a Main District centre in the UDP. It is one of the larger district centres in the borough, with a total of 42,400sqm floorspace. The floorspace survey indicates that Willesden Green contains over 26,400sqm of retail floorspace, which equates to 62% of the total floorspace in the centre. 5.49 The centre as currently defined in the UDP extends along Walm Lane and Willesden High Road. The primary shopping frontage is located at the eastern end of the centre towards Willesden Green underground station, on Walm Lane and Willesden High Road. It is in this location where Sainsbury, the centre’s main foodstore and key attraction is found. Willesden High Road local centre is almost adjacent to the western end of the centre, which creates the impression that the district centre is a much larger and sprawling linear. 5.50 Willesden Green appears to be a fairly healthy and pleasant centre. The centre is part within a conservation area, and it mostly contains attractive and well-maintained shopfronts. The Sainsbury foodstore and Sainbury’s Local stores both provide for visitors main and top-up convenience shopping needs, alongside other independent convenience retailers. The centre also contains a cinema and library which provide further attractions to visitors. There are a wide range of eating and drinking uses, which add to the diversity of uses and the attraction of the centre. However, Willesden Green does lack national multiple retailers. Summary of Shopper Survey Findings 5.51 The key findings from the shoppers’ survey are: Trip Characteristics 5.52 While 43% of visitors cite shopping as main reason for their visit to Willesden Green, this proportion is much lower than visitors to either Wembley or Harlesden. This suggests that shopping is less important for Willesden Green’s visitors. This will be a reflection of the lack of national multiple retailers in the centre, but also the fact that a high proportion of visitors either travel through the centre on their way to work, or visit the centre for eating and drinking and not shopping. 5.53 54% of Willesden Green’s visitors use the centre for their main food shopping. This high proportion in comparison to Wembley (34%) is not surprising because of the presence of both a Sainsbury superstore and Local store in the centre.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 32 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
5.54 In contrast, only 20% of Willesden Green’s visitors undertake their non-food shopping in the centre, whereas 50% of Wembley’s visitors visit that centre for non-food shopping. This clearly indicates that Willesden Green is poorly served by non-food comparison retailers, and almost certainly explains why higher proportions of Willesden Green’s visitors shop at Brent Cross and Central London (both 24%) than use the centre itself. Kilburn is also a significant centre for Willesden Green’s visitors, demonstrating the close proximity of that centre compared to Wembley, the borough’s other Major Centre. Transport & Accessibility 5.55 Willesden Green has the highest proportion of visitors who travel to the centre on foot, with 47% of visitors doing so. Willesden Green, along with Harlesden (at 44%), serve a predominantly local walk-in catchment area compared to Wembley. There is also fewer bus routes that pass through Willesden Green compared to Wembley, which explains why a lower proportion of visitors travel to the centre by bus (29%). In addition, Willesden Green underground station is located in the centre, providing an alternative means of visiting the centre. Visitor Attitudes 5.56 Willesden Green, along with the other Brent centres, is not particularly good at fulfilling the needs of its visitors, and scores “average” for most shops and services. Willesden Green scores slightly better than the other centres for entertainment and leisure, which will largely be a result of the presence of the cinema in the centre. However, Willesden Green is particularly weak for fashion and clothes shops – scoring “poor”, which is reflected in the lack of national multiple retailers in the centre, but also the attractiveness of larger alternative shopping centres i.e. Central London and Brent Cross for these type of goods. 5.57 The lack of national multiple retailers in Willesden Green is clearly demonstrated by the proportion of visitors who wanted to see improvements made to the shops. A higher proportion suggested this improvement for Willesden Green (13%) than did so for Wembley and Harlesden, and over 50% of respondents suggested that the centre would be improved with more fashion / clothes shops. There is a clear opportunity to increase the amount of multiple retailers and the quality of shops in general. 5.58 The suggested improvements for Willesden Green were broadly similar in terms of the range and priority to the other LB Brent centres. Interestingly, 48% of Willesden Green’s visitors suggested improvements to the environment, which is a higher proportion than did so in Wembley and Harlesden. This is surprising as our observations indicate that Willesden Green is a fairly clean and attractive centre. Summary of Healthcheck Findings 5.59 The key findings from the healthcheck survey are set out below: Market Indicators 5.60 According to Colliers CRE 2005 retail rental data (set out in Table 4.1) Willesden Green achieved rents of £484/sqm. This is the lowest rental level of all the LB Brent centres for which data is collected, and indeed lower than all other centres in the West London sub-region. It is only since 2004 that rental data has been collected for Willesden Green. Although, this demonstrates that the centre is now achieving rental levels which are now at a sufficiently high enough level to be surveyed by Colliers, and is amongst the top 610 centres in the UK. The fact that Colliers collect data for Willesden Green also indicates that rental levels are almost certainly higher than those achieved in other Main District centres in Brent e.g. Harlesden and Cricklewood. 5.61 The Valuation Office Agency’s 2005 yield data (shown in Table 4.2), indicates that yields in Willesden Green have remained above 10% during the last decade. This pattern is similar to that displayed in Harlesden and Cricklewood. This indicates that
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 33 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
like those other centres there is limited investor confidence in Willesden Green. However, a development opportunity exists at the Willesden Lane / Walm Lane Triangle site which could improve confidence in the centre. Furthermore, Willesden Green is an attractive centre which should encourage investors to refurbish the existing stock of units, attracting more national multiple retailers, and thus increasing overall confidence in the centre. 5.62 In Table 5.5 below, we present the retailer requirements from the FOCUS database for Willesden Green town centre. This indicates that 9 national multiple retailers are seeking space in the centre, which is only marginally higher than for Harlesden. It is clear that, like Harlesden, Willesden Green is a lower order centre, and the majority of national multiple retailers would prefer to locate in the larger primary centres in the borough. 5.63 We have already highlighted the lack of multiple retailers, and fashion / clothes retailers in Willesden Green. Therefore, it is interesting that Peacocks are seeking space in the centre. Unfortunately, there are very few units in the centre of the size required by Peacocks, so their needs could only be accommodated by occupying an existing large unit if available, or by combining and re-furbishing a number of adjoining units. It is very likely that similar action would be required to accommodate other A1 comparison retailers in the centre as well. Table 5.5: Retailer Requirements for Willesden Green Town Centre
Floorspace Company Name Retail Type Requirement
A1 Comparison Peacocks Stores Ltd Department Stores 465 Sqm - 1394 Sqm
A1 Convenience Farmfoods Ltd Food 465 Sqm - 743 Sqm Iceland Foods Plc Supermarket 279 Sqm Sensations Newsagent/Cards/Stationer 70 Sqm - 163 Sqm
A3 Restaurant & Café Barcelos Cafe/Restaurant/Bar 232 Sqm - 418 Sqm Nandos Chickenland Ltd Cafe/Restaurant/Bar 232 Sqm - 325 Sqm Pizzaexpress Plc Cafe/Restaurant/Bar 139 Sqm - 186 Sqm
A5 Hot Food Takeaway Bombay Bicycle Club Fast Food/Takeaway Outlets 139 Sqm - 186 Sqm Papa Johns Perfect Pizza Fast Food/Takeaway Outlets 74 Sqm - 186 Sqm Source: FOCUS database (July 2005) 5.64 In Table 5.6 below, we present the total floorspace by use class for Willesden Green town centre. Willesden Green is the fifth largest centre in LB Brent, slightly larger than Burnt Oak. It has 42,400sqm of total floorspace, of which over 26,400sqm is in retail use. Willesden Green is unusual because it contains slightly more convenience goods floorspace than comparison, 17% and 16% respectively. This is a clear demonstration that the centre serves a more local catchment area with a high proportion of local grocers and butchers, but also that it lacks national multiple retailers and clothes retailers in particular. 5.65 Willesden Green is the centre with the highest proportion of other uses (29%). The “other” uses in the centre comprise a number of offices, some residential uses, and also a library, cinema, and police station. The library and the cinema make an
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 34 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
important contribution to the diversity of uses within the centre, and will attract visitors to the centre. Table 5.6: Diversity of Use in Willesden Green Town Centre
Total Floorspace Floorspace (%) (sqm)
A1 Convenience 7240 17 A1 Comparison 6685 16 A1 Other 2310 5 A2 Financial & Professional 4150 10 A3 Restaurants & Cafes 2230 5 A4 Drinking Establishments 2670 6 A5 Hot Food Takeaway 1140 3 Sui Generis 2040 5 Vacant 1720 4 Other 12215 29 TOTAL RETAIL 26425 62 TOTAL CENTRE 42400 100 Source: LB Brent Survey 2005 using OS derived floorspace data 5.66 Table 5.6 also shows the proportion of vacant floorspace in Willesden Green, which is 4%. There is currently only 1,720sqm of vacant space in the centre, which is low in comparison to other centres. For example, both Kilburn and Harlesden contain over 5,000sqm of vacant floorspace. The majority of the vacant units appear to be fairly small and outside the primary shopping areas. However, some of the larger units could be re-used to accommodate those national multiple retailers seeking space in the centre. Qualitative Indicators 5.67 Willesden Green is very accessible by public transport, with 8 bus routes passing through the centre, and Willesden Green underground station is at the eastern end of the centre. However, the shoppers’ survey indicates that the majority of visitors to the centre actually travel to the centre by foot, rather than by public transport. 5.68 In comparison to the other larger centres in the borough, the road which passes through Willesden Green is not a main vehicle route from Central London. Willesden High Road and Walm Lane are still busy roads, but the levels of traffic on them are noticeably lower than those in Wembley, Harlesden, Kilburn and Cricklewood. 5.69 The lower traffic levels, and the ample number of pedestrian crossings makes accessibility within the centre relatively easy. However, the pavements in the centre can be narrow in places, and do become crowded particularly around the bus stops and at the underground station. 5.70 Footfall surveys show that it is the eastern section of the centre which has the highest footfall counts. The busiest pedestrian locations in Willesden Green are at the underground station and in the vicinity of Sainsbury. This is not surprising as the foodstore is the key attraction for the centre, and for many visitors to the centre the station is the main point of access / exit. Footfall counts near the library and cinema indicate that this area can also display quite high counts, reflecting their status as other key visitor attractions for the centre. 5.71 Willesden Green is generally perceived to be one of the safest centres in the borough. 9% of respondents to the latest Household Survey considered the centre to be the
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 35 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
safest centre in the borough to shop. This is a positive aspect of the centre, making it more appealing as a place to visit. 5.72 The majority of Willesden Green centre is within a conservation area. In comparison to Harlesden, which is also located within a conservation area, the shopfronts and built environment in general are of a higher quality and are better maintained. As a result Willesden Green has the appearance of a more visually attractive centre, containing some interesting buildings. However, there is a lack of trees and seating areas in the centre, although this is because of the narrow pavements which will limit the opportunities to provide these facilities. Potential Development Opportunity Sites 5.73 There is one potential development opportunity site in Willesden Green. However, other opportunities for new retail development could be provided if existing units are refurbished or underused sites are redeveloped to provide higher density development. 5.74 The potential development opportunity site is as follows: § Willesden Lane / Walm Lane Triangle site
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 36 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
6 OTHER DISTRICT CENTRES Introduction 6.1 In this section we provide an overview of the vitality, viability and future prospects of the remaining Main District centres, and the Other District centres. Our assessment is based upon the findings from LB Brent’s healthcheck survey and our observations. 6.2 Colliers CRE do not collect retail rental data for any of these Main and Other centres, which means that they are all outside the top 610 centres in the UK, and will achieve a lower rental level than centres surveyed. The Valuation Office Agency also does not collect yield data for the majority of the district centres, and while they do provide data for Burnt Oak and Cricklewood this indicates that investor confidence in these centres is very low. Similarly, the FOCUS database does not record national multiple retailer requirements for these centres. 6.3 The lack of data on market indicators for these centres is a clear indication of the lesser role that they play in the retail hierarchy of the borough. Burnt Oak 6.4 Burnt Oak is defined as a Main District centre in UDP. The floorspace survey indicates that in total the centre provides almost 41,000sqm of floorspace, of which over 29,000sqm (72%) is in retail use. However, only a small proportion of the floorspace is actually within LB Brent, with the remainder split between LB’s Barnet and Harrow. Overall, Burnt Oak is one of the larger district centres serving the borough’s residents. 6.5 The Valuation Office Agency’s 2005 yield data, (set out in Table 4.2 above), indicates that yields in Burnt Oak have remained above 10% during the last decade. This pattern is similar to that displayed in other Main District centres for which data is collected - Harlesden, Willesden Green and Cricklewood. This indicates that like those other centres there is limited investor confidence in the centre. 6.6 Retailers selling comparison goods occupy the largest proportion of the total floorspace in Burnt Oak, accounting for over 30% of the floorspace. The centre has a good mix of national multiple retailers, such as Tesco, Boots, Woolworths and Peacocks, plus smaller convenience retailers including grocers and butchers in particular. Burnt oak also contains a library and a post office, both of which will encourage visitors to use the centre. 20% of the total floorspace in Burnt Oak is occupied by “other” uses, which mostly comprises offices. There are very few leisure and entertainment uses in the centre, which means that local residents need to travel to other centres for these facilities. 6.7 There are very few vacant units in Burnt Oak, which accounts for less than 2,000sqm of the total floorspace in the centre. This amount of vacant floorspace is low in comparison to other Main District centres in the borough. 6.8 Overall, Burnt Oak has a fairly goods mix of uses, but would benefit from more leisure and entertainment facilities. However, it is not a particularly attractive centre and the environmental quality could be improved. This assessment applies to the centre as a whole, and improvements will require programmes to be developed in conjunction with neighbouring boroughs. 6.9 There are no obviously identifiable development opportunity sites in Burnt Oak. This means that new retail development in the centre will have to be achieved through the refurbishment of existing units or the redevelopment of existing sites with higher density development.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 37 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
Cricklewood 6.10 Cricklewood is a defined Main District centre, and is split between Brent and LB Barnet. The floorspace survey indicates that within the centre as a whole there is in total almost 67,000sqm of floorspace, making Cricklewood the second largest centre behind Kilburn. Cricklewood is also larger than the Wembley – the borough’s primary centre. 6.11 On the basis of the overall size of Cricklewood, the draft West London sub-regional development framework suggested that it should be promoted to a Major Centre in the retail hierarchy. However, Cricklewood possess a lack of national multiple retailers and mostly contains local convenience retailers. Those multiple retailers that do exist are mostly grocery retail operators. Furthermore, the household survey indicates that Cricklewood mostly draws its trade from the local area. Cricklewood does not possess the mix of retail attractions to appeal to visitors from a borough-wide catchment area, in the same way that Wembley and Kilburn do. In any event, Brent Cross is located a short distance from the centre, and it will continue to operate as the main destination for comparison goods shopping for Cricklewood residents. As a result, the number of national multiple retailers in Cricklewood is unlikely to increase substantially in the foreseeable future. 6.12 The Valuation Office Agency’s 2005 yield data, shown in Table 4.2 above, indicates that yields in Cricklewood have remained above 10% during the last decade. This pattern is similar to other comparable Main District centres in the borough, and indicates that there is limited investor confidence in Cricklewood. There is one vacant site within Cricklewood suitable for development, but this is on the LB Barnet side of the centre. Therefore, within the centre as a whole yields may improve in the future as new development increases investor confidence. 6.13 A key problem for Cricklewood is that the major retailers in the centre e.g. B&Q, Matalan, and the furniture retailers, whilst located within the centre do not actually contribute to the overall vitality of the centre. Instead they operate as separate attractions in their own right. Hence, visitors to those stores are not encouraged to undertake linked trips to other shops or facilities in the centre. 6.14 Overall, Cricklewood performs quite poorly, although as a centre it has been in decline since Brent Cross shopping centre opened in the 1970’s. As such it is not surprising that Cricklewood is now at a level where it mostly serves its local catchment area, and possess a lack of national multiple retailers which could attract visitors from a wider area. Cricklewood would certainly benefit from improvements to its environmental quality through the introduction of programmes to tackle street cleanliness and graffiti. In addition, the pavements can often become congested around bus stops, making easy and uninterrupted pedestrian movement through the centre more difficult. 6.15 There are no obvious development opportunity sites available in the Brent side of Cricklewood centre, although at least one does exist within LB Barnet. Ealing Road 6.16 Ealing Road is a defined Main District centre, but is small in comparison to other centres with a similar role in the retail hierarchy. The floorspace survey indicates that the centre contains just over 8,100sqm of floorspace, and a large proportion of this is used for retail purposes (83%). 6.17 Ealing Road is characterised by shops and facilities serving the local Asian community. The diversity of uses within the centre reflect this. It contains high proportions of convenience (26%) and comparison (32%) retail, and restaurants and cafes (12%). These uses mostly comprise grocers, jewellers, clothes shops, and restaurants serving Asian food. These characteristics make Ealing Road a unique and vibrant centre. The
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 38 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
grocery stores in particular have stalls and canopies which extend onto the pavement, give the centre a busy and active street scene. 6.18 There are no national multiple retailers in Ealing Road centre. In general this would indicate a centre which is a lower order centre which is performing poorly. However, Ealing Road mostly serves its surrounding population. In addition, Wembley town centre is a very short distance from the centre, and as the primary shopping centre for the borough is expected to be the preferred location for the majority of national multiple retailers. 6.19 The key issue for Ealing Road is the general untidiness associated with the grocery stalls. However, these issues could be resolved through the introduction of a better town centre management regime. 6.20 There are no development opportunity sites in Ealing Road, and the adopted UDP seeks to restrict any extension of the centre beyond its current boundaries. This means that any new or improved retail development will have to be accommodated through the refurbishment or extension of existing units. Kenton 6.21 In the adopted UDP, Kenton is defined as an Other District centre. However, the London Plan defines it as a District Centre, and the LB Harrow UDP defines it as a Local Centre. This current policy approach is clearly inconsistent. 6.22 The floorspace survey indicates that Kenton contains approximately 24,400sqm, which includes that part of the centre within LB Harrow. Over 17,800sqm is in retail use, which equates to 73% of the total floorspace in the centre. 6.23 Kenton contains a high proportion of convenience goods retail floorspace (30%) compared to comparison goods (19%). This indicates that the centre is well provided for in terms of convenience retail, which is not surprising as there is a Sainsbury superstore in the centre, plus a Pick & Save supermarket in the eastern part of the centre (within LB Harrow). These stores will both encourage visitors to the centre. However, the Sainsbury while directly adjacent to the defined centre, is oriented on the site in such a way as to turn its back on the centre. This is not ideal in terms of encouraging visitors to undertake linked trips between the store and the other facilities in the centre. The centre does contain other facilities which would appeal to visitors. Kenton has a high proportion of A2 (financial and professional) uses, including accountants, solicitors and estate agents. The centre also contains a couple of medical and health related uses which would also draw visitors to the centre. 6.24 Apart from Sainsbury, Kenton does not contain any other national multiple retailers, and possesses a limited range of comparison goods retailers. This situation is not surprising as Harrow, a metropolitan centre, is less than a mile away. Harrow is the centre which the majority of residents in the surrounding area will visit for comparison goods, and is the centre where the majority of major retailers will seek to locate. 6.25 Overall, Kenton is an attractive and fairly healthy centre. It cannot be expected to provide the full range of retail facilities because of the close proximity of Harrow town centre. However, its strong convenience retail role and range of other services serving the surrounding population should be retained. Kingsbury 6.26 Kingsbury is defined as a Main District centre in the adopted UDP. A small section of the centre is within LB Harrow. The floorspace survey shows that in total the centre contains almost 21,000sqm of floorspace, which makes it slightly smaller than Kenton. 85% of the total floorspace in the borough is used for retail purposes, which is very high in comparison to other centres, and means that the centre does not contain a wide mix of uses, beyond retail.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 39 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
6.27 The centre contains similar proportions of both convenience and comparison floorspace (26% and 27% respectively). The centre is particularly well-served by grocers and bakers, and also contains an Aldi foodstore. However, the comparison goods retailers are mostly small local independents, and there are very few national multiple retailers. 6.28 Kingsbury, like Kenton, also contains a high proportion of A2 (financial and professional) uses. In Kingsbury’s case, these uses mostly comprise estate agents and banks / building societies. Such uses add to the overall attraction of the centre and will encourage visitors to the centre for these basic, often day-to-day, services. There is a Fitness First gym located above the Aldi store, which provides leisure and recreation facilities for visitors, and encourages visits to the centre outside normal shopping hours. Kingsbury is one of the few centres in the borough which possesses this type of facility. 6.29 Kingsbury is an attractive centre, which appears to be fairly successful and vibrant. The centre benefits from Kingsbury underground station being within the centre, and the presence of a good and convenient supply of on-street and off-street parking. Both these factors encourage visitors to the centre, and it will benefit from passing trade. Harrow town centre will be the main town centre for comparison goods shopping by Kingsbury residents, similar to other centres in the northern part of the borough. 6.30 The former Prince of Wales public house is currently vacant. The site has planning permission for residential use with a retail unit at ground floor level. The site is in a prominent location within the centre and is adjacent to the existing defined shopping frontage. Wembley Park 6.31 Wembley Park is currently defined as an Other District centre. It comprises units both north and south of Wembley Park underground station. The centre as currently defined does not include the Asda superstore to the north of the centre, or Stadium Retail Park in the middle of the centre, and nor does it include the office, educational, and hotel buildings in the centre. We have suggested in Section 9 that most of these uses, except Asda, are brought within the defined town centre, largely because they are immediately adjacent to the centre and are key attractors to this location. Wembley Park will then contain the mix of uses normally found within a District Centre, as defined in PPS6. 6.32 The floorspace survey, which includes both Asda and the retail park, indicates that Wembley Park contains almost 16,400sqm of floorspace, of which 95% (15,600sqm) is in retail use. The proportion of retail use is very high in comparison to other centres. 6.33 The presence of Asda, Lidl and other smaller grocery stores means that Wembley Park is dominated by convenience goods retail. Over 60% of the total floorspace in the centre is used for the sale of convenience goods, amount to approximately 10,000sqm. The proportion of comparison goods floorspace is small, and even this is boosted by the presence of Curry’s and JD Sport at Stadium Retail Park. The lack of other comparison goods retailers in Wembley Park is not surprising because both Wembley and Brent Cross are easily accessible by public transport from the centre. These centres are higher order centres, and as such are the main destination for comparison goods shopping, and will be the preferred locations for national multiple retailers. 6.34 The centre contains a high proportion of food and drink uses, mostly restaurants, cafes and takeaways (10% of total floorspace) for its size. The adopted UDP contains a policy which encourages these types of uses in the southern part of Wembley Park centre – to serve visitors to events at Wembley Stadium. The current policy approach is clearly working, and should continue to deliver more of these uses in this location. 6.35 There are no development opportunities within Wembley Park centre, and it is very likely that further retail development or expansion of the centre would be undesirable.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 40 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
This is largely because there are already retail commitments associated with the nearby Quintain proposals at Wembley Stadium. These proposals are intended to contribute to improving the retail offer of Wembley town centre, whereas further retail at Wembley Park would undermine these overall aims, drawing trade from the primary shopping area of Wembley. 6.36 Below we set out a summary of the healthcheck assessments for the smaller, and lower order district centres in the retail hierarchy. Colindale 6.37 Colindale is defined as an Other town centre in the UDP, and is split between Brent and LB Barnet. The emerging Barnet UDP defines the centre as a Local Centre. In Section 9 we have suggested that Colindale, along with all the defined Other District centres are reclassified as Local Centres. This change is suggested to provide consistency between the development plans, and because Colindale largely serves a small local catchment area and does not possess the same range of facilities as a district centre. 6.38 The floorspace survey indicates that Colindale contains more than 17,700sqm of total floorspace. However, only 10,000sqm is in retail use (57%). 22% of the total floorspace is in sui generis use – there are four car showrooms within the centre. 6.39 The centre mostly contains small and predominantly local convenience stores, and cafes, takeaways and bars. Asda is the main foodstore serving the local area, but this is located outside the centre, between Colindale and Burnt Oak. There are also comparison and bulky goods retailers, and a restaurant which are all located beyond the town centre - Oriental City, MFI, Carpet Right and McDonalds. These retail facilities effectively diminish the role and function of Colindale as a retail centre. 6.40 Colindale is a fairly quiet but attractive centre. Most of the centre benefits from lay-bys outside the shops, providing on-street parking. This facility means that the centre benefits from passing trade, from vehicles travelling along the busy A5 road. 6.41 There are no development opportunities in the centre, and the close proximity of Burnt Oak and large out-of-centre stores will limit the potential to provide new retail development. However, Colindale’s role in the retail hierarchy is largely to serve the local population in its immediate vicinity, and not as a centre which draws trade from across this part of the borough. Kensal Rise 6.42 Kensal Rise is one of the smaller defined Other District centres, but unlike most of the other centres with a similar role in the Brent retail hierarchy it is not included as a District Centre within the London Plan. The floorspace survey indicates that Kensal Rise contains approximately 9,500sqm of floorspace. 66% of the centre’s floorspace is used for retail purposes. 6.43 Kensal Rise is a fairly busy and quite attractive centre, which mostly contains local independent shops. There are no national multiple retailers in the centre, which is not surprising as Kensal Rise functions as a local centre in the retail hierarchy. The local function of the centre is clearly demonstrated by the very broad mix of uses, all of which are present in similar proportions. The amount of floorspace devoted to convenience, comparison, food and drink and other uses are broadly similar, with no one dominant sector. As such Kensal Rise is characterised as containing small grocers, butchers, estate agents, cafes and takeaways, and doctors and dentists. All of which serve the immediately surrounding population. 6.44 Kensal Rise contains a high proportion of vacant units. According to the floorspace survey, 14% of the total floorspace within the centre is vacant, which equates to over 1,300sqm. The vast majority of the vacancies occur in very small units – i.e. below
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 41 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
70sqm. The large proportion of vacant units may be a result of the perception of the centre as one which is unsafe, as confirmed by respondents to the latest household survey. 6.45 As expected for a small local centre, there are no potential development opportunities in Kensal Rise. The main priority for the centre will be to ensure that the vacant units are re-occupied. Although, the size of the vacant units means that this is likely to be for more small local independent traders. Neasden 6.46 Neasden is one of the larger Other District Centres. It contains almost 17,000sqm of floorspace. In general, Neasden contains a poor range of comparison goods retailers and convenience provision is mostly small local and independent shops. It is fair to conclude that Neasden as a centre has suffered because of the close proximity of Tesco at Brent Park (which opened in the 1980’s) and Brent Cross (opened in the 1970’s). It has shown a gradual decline ever since. 6.47 At a result of the general decline in convenience and comparison retail in the centre over the years, one of the dominant uses now found in Neasden is A4 (drinking establishments). While these uses, along with cafes and takeaways, provide attractions for the evening economy, they can also undermine the overall vitality and attractiveness of the centre, as shop units are either closed or almost empty during the day. As a result the centre can appear very quiet at certain times, where very little activity occurs. 6.48 In addition to the competition from other nearby retail stores and centres, Neasden also suffers from having a poor relationship with its surrounding areas. This is largely because the North Circular Road separates the centre from some of its neighbouring residential areas, making pedestrian access difficult – often requiring the use of an underpass or pedestrian bridge. The centre is also inward looking, and turns its back on its surroundings. These aspects make the centre less appealing as a place to visit. 6.49 The Neasden Retail Study, undertaken in March 2003 by Urban Practitioners / CB Hillier Parker, assessed the problems of the centre, and suggested a strategy to improve it, including identifying a number of development opportunities. The potential development opportunities are: Western end of Neasden Lane / North Circular Road; Birse Crescent / Neasden Lane Western Site; Birse Crescent / Neasden Lane Eastern Site; and Neasden Parade. Preston Road 6.50 Preston Road is a defined Other District centre. It is a fairly busy and healthy centre, which mostly meets the needs of its surrounding local population. The floorspace survey indicates that Preston Road contains over 12,000sqm of total floorspace, making the centre larger than Kensal Rise, but smaller than Neasden. 6.51 The centre contains a good mix of convenience stores including a Somerfield supermarket, butchers, bakers, newsagents and small greengrocers. All of which will meet the day-to-day shopping needs of local residents, as well as passing trade from both motorists and those using Preston Road underground station. There are a limited range of comparison goods retailers, most of which are small local independent operators. Surprisingly for a centre of this size, Preston Road has a large proportion of A2 (financial and professional) uses, mostly estate agents. The concentration of these uses is likely to be because of the presence of Preston Road underground station in the centre, and the opportunity for window-shopping by passing trade. 6.52 There are no potential development opportunity sites in Preston Road.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 42 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
Queens Park 6.53 Queens Park is the smallest of Brent’s defined Other District centres, with approximately 3,000sqm of total floorspace. Not surprisingly, the London Plan does not define the centre as a District Centre within its classification because it is too small. 6.54 Queens Park is an attractive centre containing a good mix of small local shops which mostly serves the surrounding residential population. The centre does not possess a supermarket but does contain a number of small grocery stores, off-licences and newsagents. There are also some niche independent shops e.g. selling clothes, books, flowers, antiques and furniture, which meet a more specialist and upmarket local need. The bars and restaurants also reflect the upmarket nature of the surrounding residential areas, including a Starbucks, and Pizza Place. There is only one vacant unit in the centre. 6.55 Queens Park is clearly a small but healthy local centre, which appears to be successful at meeting the day-to-day shopping and service needs of its local surrounding population. The shops and services in the centre will benefit from the presence of Queens Park underground station, as people travelling to and from work visit the facilities. Other larger neighbouring centres will be able to provide residents main comparison and convenience shopping needs. 6.56 Queens Park has one potential development opportunity site at Queens Park Station. A development brief has been prepared for the site, which includes provision for retail and other town centre uses fronting Salusbury Road. However, the key components of the proposed scheme relate to new residential development and associated community facilities, and transport improvements. Sudbury 6.57 Sudbury is a defined Other District centre, and is only slightly larger than Queens Park. The floorspace survey indicates that the centre contains over 4,400sqm of floorspace. 6.58 Similar to Queens Park, Sudbury does not possess a supermarket, but does have a number of small grocery stores, which will meet the top-up needs of the surrounding population and passing trade. There is a limited range of comparison goods retailers, and unsurprisingly no national multiple retailers. However, the centre does provide a range of other facilities and services which serve the local population. Sudbury contains almost 20% food and drink uses, and 20% of A2 (financial and professional0 uses including accountants, solicitors, and estate agents. The proportion of A2 uses is slightly higher than other centres, and certainly high for a centre of this size, however they are likely to serve a local need from a suitable and accessible location. 6.59 Interestingly, 20% of the floorspace in Sudbury is in sui generis use. The three car showroom sites largely contribute to this figure. If the owners of these sites decided to redevelop them, we consider that at least one of them could be used for a small foodstore to add to the retail attraction in the centre.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 43
Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
7 QUANTITATIVE RETAIL NEED ANALYSIS Introduction & Assumptions 7.1 We have drawn on a combination of surveys and existing/published data to develop a means of assessing the need for additional retail capacity within LB Brent. In accordance with the brief, we consider the capacity for both convenience and comparison floorspace to 2010 and 2015. 7.2 In order to undertake the analysis, we have developed a comprehensive model of current comparison and convenience shopping patterns, based on the results of a household survey undertake by LB Brent in 2003. 7.3 In developing our methodology, we have drawn on established best practice and our extensive experience in this field. In particular, we focus on the following basic guiding principles (which we anticipate will be emphasised in forthcoming ODPM Good Practice Guidance on Retail and Leisure need and impact assessments): § the need for a transparent methodology; § the need to use objective and up to date data inputs; § the need to justify the use of growth rates and key assumptions used in the analysis; and § the importance of identifying alternative options and objective testing. 7.4 We have not sought to establish the individual capacities for each of the various centres in the borough. Rather we have taken a macro approach – as is common in capacity studies – which assesses the residual expenditure likely to be generated by residents of the whole of the borough, prior to making recommendations as to where retail development to meet the residual expenditure (if any) should be met, taking full account of the hierarchy of existing centres and of planning policy objectives. 7.5 A further introductory point is that we have not sought in our assessment of comparison capacity to distinguish between conventional of ‘High Street’ comparison shopping and ‘bulky goods’ comparison shopping. In the past, retail capacity studies have commonly drawn such a distinction. However, there has been a shift in policy emphasis in relation to the treatment of ‘bulky goods’ (retail-warehouse) format stores. These stores are increasingly expected to be accommodated in or adjacent to town centres and the Government is disinclined to recognise that they have special locational requirements that justify provision outside centres. On this basis it is not appropriate to make separate provision for bulky goods formats. Accordingly our capacity forecasts do not distinguish between types of comparison expenditure. 7.6 We have liaised with the Greater London Authority (GLA) concerning our methodology, and in summary they make the following comments concerning our data inputs: § The use of GLA population projections is welcomed; § The growth rates used for expenditure per capita of 4.3% per annum for comparison and 0.9% for convenience is similar to that used in the GLA pan- London assessment where 4.1% per annum for comparison, and 1.3% per annum for convenience was used. § It is noted that the allowance for special forms of trading estimated at 12% in 2015 compared to 8% Experian in 2016 is different, but it is accepted that there remains uncertainty about such estimations. § There are slight variations with the pan-London assessment in the retained, leakage and inflow for LB Brent, although the net effect of these positive and negative variations on aggregate turnover appears to be broadly in line with Experian’s estimate.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 45 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
§ The use of turnover efficiencies of 2.25% for comparison and 0.75% for convenience are considered to be acceptable. 7.7 We have reconciled the other GLA comments by amending our methodology slightly to overcome any concerns over the inputs. The differences between the pan-London net requirement for floorspace (as set out in the draft West London SRDF), and our findings are explained below. 7.8 All the monetary values that have been used are in 2001 prices. The analysis provides forecasts using goods based (not business based) expenditure data, in line with guidance in PPS6. We now outline the key data inputs, assumptions and conclusions arising from the needs assessment. The key assumptions are sensitive to the final outputs of the study, and thus we highlighted these with bullet points. A full technical note is provided at Appendix 2. This provides a step-by-step explanation of each stage in the retail needs assessment. All the economic tables are also included within Appendices 3 to 5. In summary, the steps undertaken are as follows: i) Use the household survey data to establish shopping patterns in 2003; ii) Forecast the growth of expenditure to 2010 and 2015 using allowing for population growth and expenditure growth; iii) Estimate the proportion of expenditure flowing into LB Brent; iv) Calculate the turnover performance of the existing floorspace within the LB Brent v) Calculate the residual expenditure to support new floorspace in the forecast years; vi) Deduct allowances for growth of floorspace efficiencies, and claims from the turnover of existing committed retail floorspace; vii) Convert the resulting residual expenditure to a potential sales floorspace capacity for each of the forecast years. Spending Pattern in 2003 7.9 The LB Brent household survey (dated 2003) provides detailed information on the current shopping patterns of LB Brent residents. The survey identifies shopping habits of households for comparison goods and includes three questions on specific comparison goods types. It also collects data on ‘main’ and ‘top up’ convenience goods expenditure. 7.10 Composite market shares in the comparison sector are derived through the application of weights. This process calculates the proportion of expenditure typically dedicated to each type of goods and defines the comparison goods market share for centres. This enables the turnover of these centres to be calculated within the later stages of the model. The key assumption here is as follows: § The weighting used has been derived from MapInfo locally sourced expenditure patterns based on the three types of comparison good identified in The LB Brent household survey 2003. Where these types of good do not match with the questions used in the household survey, we have used planning judgement and experience in other retail studies to inform our assumptions. 7.11 In relation to convenience market shares, weights are similarly applied to ‘primary’ and ‘top up’ shopping trips to calculate a composite market share. This is a standard approach which is typically adopted in retail studies. Population of LB Brent 7.12 One of the key aims to this study is the requirement to identify and assess the scale of retail development requirements arising from any change in population in LB Brent over the next 10 years.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 46 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
7.13 There are a variety of ways to project population growth. We understand that LB Brent have been in dispute with the Office of the National Statistics (ONS) respect of the population projections for LB Brent. Therefore we have not used sub-national population projections for this study. In September 2005, the GLA 2005 Round Interim Demographic Projections were published. These projections include a series of key differences to their predecessors, namely the projections have included the findings of the 2005 London Housing Capacity Study (LHCS), which allows for new residential development within the London boroughs, Accordingly, we consider using the GLA population projections provide the most up-to-date and robust forecast of population growth in LB Brent. 7.14 Overall, the population for LB Brent study area (Zones 1-4) is estimated in 2003 (the base date of the study) to be 271,371. In order to consider the mid and longer term forecasts, we have used projections for 2005, 2010 and 2015 to provide a series of forecasting intervals. Based on the forecasts used, the study area population is set to increase to 275,979 by 2005, to 290,856 by 2010 and 303,132 by 2015. Thus it is forecast that the population in LB Brent will increase by circa 32,000 between 2003 and 2015. Expenditure of LB Brent Residents 7.15 Expenditure estimates have been derived from the MapInfo database, a standard source for expenditure and other datasets. Bespoke expenditure projections on retail goods were commissioned for each of the four expenditure zones in the borough. This is to ensure differences between the current spending within different parts of the study area are reflected in the analysis. The expenditure data provided is in 2001 prices. 7.16 We have made a deduction for special forms of trading5 for each goods base, and this is a key assumption when forecasting expenditure growth, as follows: § A deduction from comparison and convenience expenditure has been allowed to account for special forms of trading. A combination of planning judgement and published economic forecasts has been used to set the current level of special forms of trading of 6% in 2003 and 2005, and the projected increase to 10% in 2010 and 12% in 2015. 7.17 The annual consumer retail expenditure per person within LB Brent is currently £3,582 for comparison goods and £1,865 for convenience goods. This expenditure data is for the base year of 2003, expressed in 2001 the price base. 7.18 We have then generated available spend per capita for 2003, 2005, 2010 and 2015, assuming growth in available expenditure at 4.3 % per annum for comparison goods and 0.9 % per annum for convenience goods. The rate of expenditure growth for comparison goods has been derived from MapInfo Information Brief 05/2 (September 2005). This has replaced the ultra long term projection of 3.6 % per annum previously measured by URPI over the period since 1963, and reflects sustained high levels of per capita expenditure growth on comparison goods in recent years. These growth rates have significant implications for future need for comparison floorspace in LB Brent. Retail Capacity 7.19 In order to establish the capacity for comparison and convenience goods within LB Brent, there are a series of steps which must be followed. The detailed explanation of the process adopted is included within our analysis at Appendix 2. However we have drawn out the main steps in the process below.
5 In order to ensure that the forecasts are based on conservative assumptions, deductions for special forms of trading-related expenditure are made in the capacity assessment process. Full details are provided in Appendix 2.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 47 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
7.20 First the ‘LB Brent expenditure’ needs to be calculated. This is effectively the pot of money generated by LB Brent residents, but minus an allowance for Special Forms of Trading (SFT), as explained above. 7.21 This expenditure is then applied to the market shares for the different centres and stores within the borough, which are derived from The LB Brent household survey. This provides us with a pattern of expenditure in 2003, which we use to inform our capacity assessment. We can then calculate the ‘retained expenditure’, which is the expenditure of LBB residents which is spent within the centres and stores within LB Brent. This, in turn, means we can calculate ‘leakage’, which is the expenditure of LB Brent residents which leaves the borough to be spent in centres and stores outside the borough boundary. For the purposes of this study, centres which straddle the borough boundary are included within the borough. These centres are Kilburn, Cricklewood, Kenton, Burnt Oak, Kingsbury, and Colindale. 7.22 LB Brent is a typical London borough which experiences dynamic shopping patters as demonstrated by the wide range of destinations included within the household survey. The five centres within LB Brent, as noted above, are split between other London Boroughs, namely LB Camden, LB Harrow and LB Barnet. Given this starting point and that the household survey only questioned residents of LB Brent, there is a considerable proportion of expenditure which is drawn into the borough. This money being drawn into the borough is known as ‘inflow’. 7.23 Accordingly, we have estimated the proportion of ‘inflow’ into the borough and added this to the ‘retained expenditure’ to calculate the ‘aggregate turnover’ of LB Brent. Again, this includes cross-boundary centres. Thus ‘aggregate turnover’ equals (a) that part of the expenditure of borough residents which is spent within the borough plus (b) the inflow of expenditure to the borough’s centres (including all cross-boundary centres in full) from those living outside the borough. Shopping patterns are sensitive within LB Brent due to its position within a metropolitan area. Hence, with excellent transport links and a wide choice of shopping locations, shopping patterns are complex and centres are likely to attract a proportion of ‘inflow’ of expenditure from other parts of Greater London. Therefore the key assumption here is as follows: § A proportion of expenditure is assumed to flow into the centres and stores within LB Brent, and this has been estimated on the basis of the geography of the centres and the role of the centres in the shopping hierarchy. 7.24 Drawing this data together, we now set out the spending pattern within LB Brent for both comparison and convenience goods base. This is set out in Table 7.1 below Table 7.1 Spending Pattern of LB Brent, £m (2001 Prices) Comparison spend, 2003 Convenience spend, 2003 (£m) % (£m) %
Retained expenditure (A) 377.2 41.1 388.0 76.4 Leakage 543.0 58.9 116.3 23.6 Inflow (B) 316.7 - 169.1 - Aggregate turnover (= 693.9 - 557.1 - A+B)
7.25 The above table shows the retention rates (percentage of expenditure retained in LB Brent) for both comparison and convenience expenditure. For comparison goods this is 41.1%. This level of retention rate is not unexpected given the excellent transport links to central London, and the location of Brent Cross just outside the borough boundary. In respect of convenience goods, the retention rate is 76.4%. 7.26 Convenience goods expenditure typically remains local to the catchment area, hence the higher retention rate than for comparison goods. The leakage of 23.6% of
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 48 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
convenience expenditure can be explained by the presence of some large superstores positioned outside LB Brent boundary, namely the Tesco stores at Brent Cross and Perivale, the J Sainsbury store near Colindale and the Asda at Park Royal. 7.27 Once this spending pattern has been established, we have retained market shares at a constant level – i.e. we have assumed that over the period to 2015 the spending pattern does not change. We consider a constant market share scenario is realistic for LB Brent because improvements in shopping provision are likely to be replicated in other centres, which will balance any impacts out. 7.28 The spending pattern is then projected forward using population and expenditure projections to achieve a spending pattern for each of the forecast years. We now (Table 7.2 below) set out details of LB Brent expenditure, the retained expenditure and the ‘aggregate turnover’ projected to each of the forecast years. Table 7.2 LB Brent Expenditure and Turnover, £m (2001 Prices) 2003 (£m) 2005 (£m) 2010 (£m) 2015 (£m) COMPARISON LB Brent expenditure 920.2 1,066.8 1,328.7 1,671.2 Retained expenditure 377.2 437.3 544.7 685.1 Aggregate turnover 693.9 804.5 1001.9 1,260.2 CONVENIENCE LB Brent expenditure 504.3 525.2 578.3 629.7 Retained expenditure 388.0 404.1 444.9 484.5 Aggregate turnover 557.1 580.2 638.8 695.6
7.29 Our capacity assessment is based on the ‘aggregate turnover’ starting point, as in the table above. To establish the baseline requirement for additional floorspace, we calculate the ‘turnover performance’ of the existing floorspace within LB Brent. Effectively this means calculating turnover the existing floorspace should generate if it were trading at average turnovers per m2. This enables us to establish whether the floor space is over or under trading. Where available we have used published average turnovers. Where published data is not available, we have estimated the likely turnover for the centres and therefore the key assumption is as follows: § Where published data is not available, a benchmark turnover per m2 net (i.e. sales floorspace) has been estimated for the comparison and convenience floorspace in LB Brent. To estimate this average turnover we have used a combination of planning judgment together with an assessment of the centre’s role in the shopping hierarchy. 7.30 Once we have established the ‘turnover performance’ of the centres and stores within LB Brent (including cross-boundary centres in full), we deduct this from the ‘aggregate turnover’ to calculate the ‘residual expenditure’ within LB Brent. This residual expenditure is in effect the spare capacity which can support new floorspace. This residual expenditure can be explained by some centres in the borough trading successfully, together with larger out-of-centre retail parks and the stand-alone supermarkets over trading. We note that according to our calculations, Wembley town centre is trading very successfully. However our observations on the ground indicate that this is not necessarily the case. This apparent inconsistency can be explained through the likelihood that survey respondents refer to the wider Wembley area, including Wembley Park and adjacent retail parks when indicating they do their comparison shopping in Wembley town centre. Such situations often occur in when household surveys are used, but this does not influence the conclusions from our findings.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 49 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
7.31 Once we have established the baseline position in 2003, we make a series of deductions in order to calculate the residual expenditure in the borough which will be available in 2010 and 2015 to support additional retail development. 7.32 The first deduction from the ‘aggregate turnover’ is that of commitments. There are a series of significant commitments within LB Brent that must be included within our assessment. A commitment is a scheme with planning permission which is not at present constructed (or trading). The “claim” from the commitments can then be deducted from the initial surplus of expenditure. These comprise: § Land adjoining National Stadium, Wembley (‘Wembley Quintain’). The gross comparison floorspace element of this scheme is 32,400 m2, and the gross convenience element is 2,000 m2. § LDA Scheme, Wembley (‘Wembley LDA’). The gross comparison element of this scheme is 3,476 m2, and the gross convenience element is 600 m2. § Wembley Central Square, Wembley Town Centre (‘Wembley Central Square’). The gross comparison floorspace of this scheme is 7,759 m2, and the gross convenience element is 2,891 m2. § Extension to Ikea store, Brent Park (‘Ikea extension’). The gross comparison floorspace of this scheme is 1,607 m2. 7.33 We have assumed these commitments will all be open and trading by 2010. We also make allowances for development commitments (planning permissions) which are located outside the borough boundary, but will nevertheless be expected to draw some trade for LB Brent residents. The main commitment outside LB Brent which needs to be considered is: § White City Centre6. The gross comparison floorspace of is 78,000 m2. We understand the estimated commencement of the initial phase of this development is 2006 and we have assumed that this floorspace will be open and trading by 2010. 7.34 We also understand that Brent Cross shopping centre is likely to be expanded and has been agreed in principle by the Inspector in his report into the objections to the draft Barnet UDP. We further understand that a formal planning application for this scheme is imminent. The likely gross comparison floorspace of the Brent Cross extension will be 55,000 m2. This scheme does not yet benefit from planning permission, but we understand it is likely to proceed, and that trading is anticipated to commence by 2010. Therefore we have included the Brent Cross extension as a scenario option in our analysis, providing a floorspace requirement both with and without Brent Cross. 7.35 In order to incorporate these commitments into our capacity model, we have calculated the likely turnover of this floorspace. Therefore the key assumption we have used here is as follows: § A benchmark turnover per m2 has been estimated for the hard commitments which have been informed by the type of development proposed and its location. 7.36 In respect of the new floorspace located outside the borough boundary, we have estimated the proportion of the new expenditure will be drawn from the projected ‘aggregate turnover’ of LB Brent. The only hard commitment we have included within this main economic model is the White City Centre development, and we have assumed that this proposal will draw 10% of its trade from LB Brent. This is based on the distance White City is located from LB Brent and the regional shopping role that White City will fulfill. 7.37 As noted above, we have included the Brent Cross extension as a scenario within our assessment. The Draft West London SRDF identifies the likely floorspace of the Brent
6 The floorspace is taken from the West London draft Sub Regional Framework for West London
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 50 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
Cross extension at 55,000 m2. We have assumed a net to gross ratio of 65%, a likely floorspace turnover per m2 of £6,500 and estimated that 20% of the turnover of this development would come from LB Brent aggregate turnover. Brent Cross is a regional shopping centre, and therefore draws its trade from the surrounding London boroughs as well as from beyond Greater London. For this reason we consider a 20% proportion of the turnover coming from LB Brent is a ‘worse case’ scenario. 7.38 We have incorporated ‘inflow’ into the model to ensure it is robust, as explained above. However, this means that the entire turnover of the commitments inside the Borough must be deducted from the residual expenditure to ensure the model is consistent. Whilst we have adopted this approach, we understand that a proportion of the floorspace at ‘Wembley Quintain’ will operate as a designer retailer outlet, which will draw its trade from well beyond the borough boundary. Given we are allowing for the all of its expenditure to be deducted from the residual expenditure; we consider the outcome of this study to be conservative. 7.39 The second deduction we make concerns increases in the floorspace efficiencies of the existing centres and stores in LB Brent (including cross boundary centres in full). We have used the turnover efficiencies as cited in the Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note 2.2 ‘Estimating and projecting sales densities’ (April 2005). For comparison goods we have thus used 2.25 % per annum and for convenience goods we have used 0.75 % per annum. This deduction is necessary in order to reflect the improvements of retailers in their turnover to maintain the vitality and viability of centres. 7.40 We combine all the calculations to provide two scenarios of capacity in respect of comparison goods, and one scenario for the convenience sector. Comparison Goods – Scenario 1 (without Brent Cross) 7.41 Table 7.3 combines all of the above calculations and summarises the position (without the Brent Cross extension) in 2003 and 2005 together with the forecast years of 2010 and 2015. Table 7.3 Summary of Capacity (without Brent Cross), £m (2001 Prices) 2003 2005 2010 2015 (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) COMPARISON Aggregate turnover (A) 693.9 804.5 1,001.9 1,260.2 Turnover performance (B) 566.3 592.0 661.7 739.6 Commitments (C) 0.0 0.0 207.0 231.4 Spare capacity (= A – B - C) 127.6 212.4 133.2 289.3
7.42 The above table reveals that there will be £289.3m of spare expenditure to support new comparison floorspace at 2015. However, this capacity is without any impact of the proposed extension of the Brent Cross shopping centre, which we understand is likely to proceed. Therefore, we consider that use of this scenario would unrealistically increase the headroom for additional comparison floorspace in LB Brent and should thus be treated with very considerable caution. Comparison Goods – Scenario 2 (with Brent Cross) 7.43 Table 7.4 brings together the findings, assuming the Brent Cross extension goes ahead and therefore claims some of LB Brent’s available expenditure as from the 2010 forecast year.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 51 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
Table 7.4 Summary of Capacity (with Brent Cross), £m (2001 Prices) 2003 2005 2010 2015 (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) COMPARISON Aggregate turnover (A) 693.9 804.5 1,001.9 1,260.2 Turnover performance (B) 566.3 592.0 661.7 739.6 Commitments (C) 0.0 0.0 253.5 283.3 Spare capacity (= A – B - C) 127.6 212.4 86.7 237.3
7.44 Including the Brent Cross extension has an impact on the available expenditure to support new floorspace in the forecast years in 2010 and 2015. The above table reveals that there is £86.7m spare capacity in 2010, a very considerable reduction from 2005 although this does increase to £237.3m in 2015. Whilst the Brent Cross scheme does not have planning permission yet, we are aware that a scheme is likely to go ahead, and accordingly we consider this is the most likely scenario for projecting comparison floorspace requirements. Convenience goods 7.45 With the convenience goods sector, we have assessed capacity under a single scenario of constant market shares. Table 7.5 below summarises the position. Table 7.5 Summary of Capacity, £m (2001 Prices) 2003 2005 2010 2015 (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m)
CONVENIENCE Aggregate turnover 557.1 580.2 638.8 695.6 Turnover performance 503.3 510.9 530.3 550.5 Commitments 0.0 0.0 35.7 37.1 Spare capacity 53.8 69.3 72.8 108.0
7.46 According to our findings, there will be a spare capacity of £72.8m in 2010 and £108m in 2015 available to support new convenience floorspace. Summary of Retail Capacity 7.47 In summary, the retail capacity position at 2015 for LB Brent’s centres and for the entirety of all cross-boundary centres is as follows: § Comparison goods, scenario 1 (excluding Brent Cross): £289.3m § Comparison goods, scenario 2 (including Brent Cross: £237.3m § Convenience goods: £108m Floorspace Requirements 7.48 The spare capacity identified above is the available money to support new floorspace. Table 7.6 draws together the findings and converts the outputs from each of the comparison and convenience expenditure scenarios – the residual expenditure totals – into theoretical net sales floorspace requirements. 7.49 The conversion requires assumptions to be made in relation to the likely floorspace efficiency achieved by new development. Floorspace efficiencies are determined by a wide range of factors, including type of development, identity of operator, timing of implementation and prevailing market conditions. Further detail is set out in Appendix
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 52 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
2. In taking a view of all these factors, together with the performance achieved by existing centres, we have adopted the following floorspace efficiencies at 2003: § Comparison: £5,300 per net square metre § Convenience: £9,030 per net square metre 7.50 As explained in the note at Appendix 2, we have grown the floorspace efficiencies by 2.25% per annum and 0.75% per annum for comparison and convenience sectors respectively. 7.51 We consider these figures are realistic taking into account the different types of floorspace being proposed, and the 10 year timeframe being adopted. Economic conditions can change significantly over 10 years and therefore these forecasts should be approached with some degree of caution. However if trends continue as predicted, and the assumptions and estimations adopted are realistic, the floorspace requirements set out in Table 7.6 is effectively the quantitative need for new floorspace in LB Brent. Again, we point out that the calculations include cross boundary centres in full (at Kilburn, Burnt Oak, Kenton, Cricklewood, Kingsbury, and Colindale), where a portion of the assumed new floorspace will in fact be located within other boroughs. 7.52 Thereafter, for illustration purposes only, we convert the net floorspace capacities into gross areas, making assumptions regarding the net: gross ratio for each category of development. The resulting capacity estimates for LB Brent, after taking account of all pre-existing claims on expenditure, are set out in Table 7.6 below. Table 7.6 Conversion of Residual Expenditure to Floorspace Requirements 2003 2005 2010 2015 COMPARISON – SCENARIO 1 (without Brent Cross) Spare capacity (£m) 127.6 212.4 133.2 289.3 Net floorspace requirement (m2) 24,077 38,333 21,508 41,791 Gross floorspace requirement (m2) 32,503 51,749 29,036 56,418 COMPARISON – SCENARIO 2 (with Brent Cross) Spare capacity (£m) 127.6 212.4 86.7 237.3 Net floorspace requirement (m2) 24,077 38,333 14,004 34,287 Gross floorspace requirement (m2) 32,503 51,749 18,905 46,288 CONVENIENCE Spare capacity (£m) 53.8 69.3 72.8 108.0 Net floorspace requirement (m2) 5,955 7,562 7,654 10,939 Gross floorspace requirement7 (m2) 8,040 10,209 10,333 14,767
Key Recommendations Comparison Goods 7.53 Based on our assumed floorspace efficiencies, the study provides for some 41,800 m2 net comparison floorspace at 2015, but assumes that that the proposed Brent Cross extension does not go ahead. We consider this is the less likely of the two scenarios tested, and therefore we consider our recommendations should be based on Scenario 2, which assumes the Brent Cross extension goes ahead, and still allows for a capacity of some 34,300 m2 net comparison floorspace at 2015.
7 The gross floorspace is calculated by applying a 65:35 ratio to the gross floorspace.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 53 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
7.54 The floorspace requirement for LB Brent, as set out in the West London SRDF is circa 29,000 m2 gross. We note that there is a residual of 13,000 m2 not allocated to a centre and only 5,000 m2 has been modeled as an indicative requirement for Wembley town centre. If we take the gross floorspace requirement from Table 7.6 (Scenario 2), we find there to be a gross requirement of circa 46,000 m2 gross. Therefore we are recommending that there is capacity for an additional 17,000 m2 of comparison goods floorspace within LB Brent at 2015 than as set out in the SRDF. Whilst there is a difference in the findings, this is because we are in effect looking at an area slightly larger than the borough, in that we are considering all cross boundary centres in full. Therefore we are comfortable with the validity of our floorspace requirements for LB Brent. 7.55 In respect of the location of the floorspace, we consider this should be directed to the two Major Centres and then the main district centres in accordance with the hierarchy of centre in LB Brent (discussed in more detail in Chapter 8) and the sequential approach as set out in PPS6. 7.56 We consider the majority of the floorspace requirement for LB Brent should be directed to the two Major Centres - Wembley and Kilburn. We do not consider that any significant quantum of floorspace should be directed to any other centres or out-of- town locations. However, we consider an allowance should be made for the major district centres within the Borough. The current market share of the existing major district centres8 is 24%; this is the percentage of expenditure attracted to these centres as derived from the household survey, divided by the total aggregate turnover within LB Brent. Given we are assuming constant market shares throughout the study - we consider this should be maintained and accordingly we consider 24% of the floorspace requirement should be directed to these major district centres. This leaves 76% to be directed to Wembley and Kilburn. Given Wembley has been identified as a regeneration area, we consider that 45% of this remaining floorspace requirement should be directed to Wembley, with 31% going to Kilburn. Using this methodology, we have divided the floorspace requirements in 2015 as follows: § Wembley town centre: 15,429 m2 net § Kilburn town centre: 10,629 m2 net § Larger District centres: 8,229 m2 net 7.57 This floorspace requirement assumes all the commitments to be open and trading by 2010. If some of these commitments are delayed and are completed and trading after 2010, some of the identified capacity could be accommodated at 2010. 7.58 This study has produced very specific floorspace requirements for LB Brent. However these floorspace requirements are based on a series of assumptions and a household survey from 2003. Therefore the bottom line floorspace requirements are sensitive to increases and decreases if assumptions are adjusted. However, the allowance for the entire of the Quintain scheme to be deducted from the whole of LB Brent means that the outputs are conservative, because we understand it is likely that much of the expenditure will be drawn from well beyond LB Brent. Also, under Scenario 2, we have allowed for a generous trade draw of 20% for the proposed Brent Cross extension to come from LB Brent, when in reality this is likely to be lower. Convenience Goods 7.59 We have tested the provision under one scenario and the study provides for some 10,939 m2 net floorspace in LB Brent in 2015, which increases from some 7,654 m2 in 2010. The location for any new convenience floorspace is discussed in more detail at Chapter 8.
8 These are Ealing Road, Burnt Oak, Kenton, Kingsbury, Cricklewood, Willesden Green, Harlesden and Wembley Park
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 54 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
Recommended Floorspace Requirements at 2015 7.60 We consider that given the sensitivity of many of the inputs into this study, it is wise to give a range of floorspace requirements for 2015, to allow for fluctuations in economic conditions. Therefore, our recommendations are as follows: § Wembley comparison goods floorspace: between 14,000 – 16,000 m2 net § Kilburn comparison goods floorspace: between 9,000 – 11,000 m2 net § Larger District centres: circa 8,000 m2 net (divided between the centres) § Borough-wide convenience floorspace: between 10,000 – 11,000 m2 net 7.61 It is important to realize that other Boroughs have a legitimate claim on the comparison floorspace for Kilburn, the district centres and the ‘Borough-wide’ convenience floorspace requirement. This is because of the presence of the cross-boundary centres, and is always going to be the case with such economic models. 7.62 The retail strategy in respect of how these floorspace requirements can be accommodated is described in Chapter 8.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 55
Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
8 CAPACITY & OPPORTUNITY SITES Introduction 8.1 In Section 7 we identified the retail need in the borough. In this section we identify where the need should be accommodated. 8.2 Our key conclusions for floorspace requirements in the LB Brent, including all cross- boundary centres, at 2015 are as follows: § Approximately 34,000 m2 net comparison floorspace, § Approximately 10,000-11,000 m2 net convenience floorspace 8.3 There are thus significant requirements for new floorspace, particularly for comparison goods. These floorspace requirements should be directed to the centres according to: § the retail hierarchy; § the use of the sequential approach to site selection; § the results of the healthcheck, household and shopper surveys undertaken as part of this report; § existing retail commitments, bearing in mind the very likely probability that these will soon include the Brent Cross extension; and § national guidance and development plan policies. 8.4 Taking these factors into account, we recommend that new large scale retail development should be directed to the centres as follows. Comparison Goods 8.5 For comparison goods, we recommend that future development should be directed to: § Wembley - between 14,000 – 16,000 m2 net § Kilburn - between 9,000 – 11,000 m2 net § Larger District centres - circa 8,000 m2 net (to be divided between each of the centres) Convenience Goods 8.6 For convenience goods, we recommend that the Borough-wide floorspace requirement of between 10,000 – 11,000 m2 net be divided between the centres as follow: · Wembley · Cricklewood, Kingsbury and Harlesden – as larger district centres which currently lack a large food superstore · Neasden – as a local centre in need of regeneration 8.7 It is important to note that for the centres which overlap the borough boundary – namely Kilburn, Cricklewood, Burnt Oak, Kingsbury, Kenton and Colindale - proposals may also come forward on sites which are outside the borough boundary. In these circumstances, such proposals are perfectly capable of also meeting the identified retail need. 8.8 Thus while we have identified development opportunity sites within the centres, they will not represent the only suitable or available development opportunity sites. This is particularly relevant for Cricklewood, where a large potential development opportunity site exists – located at the Galtymore / Beacon Bingo site off Cricklewood Broadway. This site is within LB Barnet, but if redeveloped could equally contribute towards meeting the identified retail need in this centre.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 57 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
8.9 Furthermore, as highlighted by our assessment of the healthcheck surveys, some of the borough’s centres lack a range of other town centre uses, and leisure uses in particular. Therefore, the development opportunity sites identified below could also usefully be considered suitable for a mix of retail and leisure uses. This would improve both the range and quality of uses, and add to the overall attraction of the centres. 8.10 The general approach to meeting the identified retail need has three strands: i) To ensure that the existing retail commitments i.e. Quintain, London Development Agency, and Wembley Central Square are completed as a priority. As such, other retail development should not be brought forward in the short term which may possibly affect the implementation of these schemes. ii) To allocate development opportunity sites to meet the identified retail need – as set out below. iii) To identify other suitable sites to be brought forward towards the end of the study period, based upon the retail hierarchy and the adoption of the sequential approach to site selection. As such the priority should be: o Wembley and Kilburn – as the Major Centres o Cricklewood, Burnt Oak, Harlesden, Willesden Green, Wembley Park, and Kingsbury – as the larger District Centres. o Neasden – as a Local Centre in need of regeneration 8.11 Local Centres, except for the identified sites in Neasden, are not really appropriate for new large scale retail development. 8.12 Having set out the broad strategy for meeting the identified retail need, we now assess where the need should be accommodated and the development potential of those opportunity sites. Development Opportunity Sites Site 1: Curtis Lane Car Park Site, Wembley Planning Policy 8.13 This site is allocated within the area identified in the adopted UDP (Ref WEM28b) as being suitable for retail development. It is within Wembley town centre and the defined secondary shopping frontage. It would make a more sensible development opportunity site if it also included the shops fronting Ealing Road. Land Uses 8.14 The site currently contains shops fronting Wembley High Road and Ealing Road, and a car park to the rear on Curtis Lane. The car park makes a useful contribution to overall provision in Wembley and needs to be retained. Suitability for Retail / Leisure. 8.15 The site is within Wembley town centre, which is the primary centre in the borough and the key location for new retail development. Wembley town centre is well-served by buses, and the redevelopment of the adjacent Wembley Central Square to provide an improved underground station will increase accessibility by public transport. When the redevelopment of Central Square is complete this site will become more commercially attractive to retail operators. However, the main difficulty will be tackling the change in levels to provide easy pedestrian access between the site and Central Square and Wembley High Road. 8.16 The site is suitable for retail / mixed use development and because of the need for comparison goods floorspace in the borough should be protected for such uses in order to improve the overall retail attraction of Wembley.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 58 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
Availability for Retail / Leisure 8.17 The site is already allocated for retail development, which indicates that the landowners support the redevelopment of the site for retail development. It appears that the site is available for retail development and will proceed once other developments occur in Wembley.
Site 2: Wembley Market Site, Wembley Planning Policy 8.18 This site is allocated within the area identified in the adopted UDP (Ref WEM28c) as being suitable for retail development. It is within Wembley town centre and the defined secondary shopping frontage. Land Uses 8.19 The site currently contains shops fronting Wembley High Road, and is used for Wembley Market. Suitability for Retail / Leisure. 8.20 The site is within Wembley town centre, which is the primary centre in the borough and the key location for new retail development. Wembley town centre is very accessible by public transport 8.21 The site is suitable for retail / mixed use development and should be protected for such uses. Availability for Retail / Leisure 8.22 The site is already allocated for retail development, which indicates that the landowners support the redevelopment of the site for this use. It appears that the site is available for retail development and is likely to proceed once other redevelopments are completed in Wembley and the centre becomes more attractive to retail operators.
Site 3: High Rd / St John’s Rd / Ecclestone Mews, Wembley Planning Policy 8.23 The site is within the defined primary shopping frontage of Wembley town centre, where retail is the preferred use. Land Uses 8.24 The site is currently occupied by retail units fronting Wembley High Road and St John’s Road which are in use, and a town centre car park to the rear at Ecclestone Mews. Suitability for Retail / Leisure 8.25 The site is within the heart of Wembley town centre, which is the primary centre in the borough and the key location for new retail development. The site is also opposite Central Square, which is being redeveloped at present. 8.26 The main bus stops for Wembley town centre are in this location, and Wembley Central station is opposite. As such the site is very conveniently located for public transport. Furthermore, the footfall surveys indicate that this location is one of the busiest in Wembley. 8.27 Therefore, the site is entirely suitable for retail / mixed use development and should be protected for such uses. If retail units of a sufficient size are provided, and the other environmental improvements take place in Wembley, this site could attract higher quality national multiple retailers back to Wembley. 8.28 The exact boundary of the development opportunity site should be determined in conjunction with the landowners.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 59 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
Availability for Retail / Leisure 8.29 The site is not allocated for retail development and we are not aware of landownership interest in redeveloping it. However, if LB Brent promoted the site for retail development by allocating it or preparing a development brief, landowners are more likely to be interested in bringing the site forward. Interest and viability is likely to increase once other redevelopments are completed in Wembley and the centre becomes more attractive to retail operators.
Site 4: Marks & Spencers Site, High Rd / St John’s Rd /Elm Rd, Wembley Planning Policy 8.30 The site is within the defined primary shopping frontage of Wembley town centre, where retail is the preferred use. 8.31 In November 2005, LB Brent approved a Planning Statement which provides informal guidance to developers on the potential re-use of the M&S store following its closure. The statement sets out a number of potential options, which refer both to the development of the existing site only or a wider development to include adjacent sites. The preferred strategy seeks to retain a single large retail unit at ground floor level, with a mix of uses on upper floors, including leisure and residential. Land Uses 8.32 The site is currently occupied by retail units fronting the High Road. The former M&S unit is vacant but the others are occupied. Wembley Job Centre is located on St John’s Road. There is a car park to the rear off Elm Road. Planning permission has been granted for residential use on the eastern part of Elm Road car park. Suitability for Retail / Leisure 8.33 The site is within the heart of Wembley town centre, which is the primary centre in the borough and the key location for new retail development. The site is also opposite Woolworths and diagonally opposite Central Square. The site is within very close proximity of the centres main bus stops, and Wembley Central station. As such the site is very conveniently located for public transport. 8.34 Therefore, the site is entirely suitable for retail / mixed use development and should be protected for such uses. The strategy set out in the recently approved planning statement to retain a single large retail unit on this site is entirely appropriate. Larger retail units are required to attract national multiple retailers. Redevelopment of the wider site could enable a number of very large retail units to be provided - with modern internal layouts which would be more attractive to national multiple retailers. 8.35 Once Central Square is complete and other environmental improvements take place in Wembley, this site could again be attractive to a larger national multiple retailer in association with other town centre uses. 8.36 The exact boundary and extent of the development opportunity site should be determined in conjunction with the landowners. Availability for Retail / Leisure 8.37 The site is not allocated for retail development and we are not aware of landownership interest in redeveloping it. The M&S unit is vacant and available for occupation. However, if the wider site is to be redeveloped, Wembley Job Centre, and Boots the Chemist and the existing retail uses would need to be relocated elsewhere in the centre. 8.38 The prominence of the site will make it attractive to developers. The planning statement prepared by LB Brent is likely to stimulate developer interest in bringing the site forward. As with the other development opportunity sites in Wembley, developer
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 60 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
interest and the overall viability of the scheme is likely to increase once other proposals and improvements take place.
Site 5: Ecclestone Place / High Rd, Wembley Planning Policy 8.39 This site is within Wembley town centre, but is not identified as a shopping frontage. The site represents a small part of the wider allocated area identified in the adopted UDP (Ref WEM28f). The exact type and nature of the development is not specified. 8.40 The purpose of the overall UDP allocation was to enable the then owner of the Chiltern Line Cutting, Railtrack, to comprehensively redevelop the entire site. This could potentially have included decking over the railway line with development above. The feasibility of this project is uncertain. In any event, the LDA have obtained consent to redevelop the south western part of the allocated site – the Wembley Triangle site at the corner of Wembley Hill Road / High Street for retail / mixed use. 8.41 Therefore, the allocated site is now unlikely to be comprehensively redeveloped, and it is appropriate to seek to identify smaller development opportunity site within the overall area. Land Uses 8.42 The site is currently occupied by a variety of office uses fronting Wembley High Road, with car parking to the rear. Suitability for Retail / Leisure 8.43 The site is within Wembley town centre but is not in a defined shopping frontage. It is not well-related to the primary shopping area of the High Road or the emerging focus of retail development at Central Square. On this basis, at best it could be considered a secondary retail area. Furthermore, there are other better located development opportunity sites within the primary shopping area which are more suitable retail locations, and should be protected as such. 8.44 However, the site is allocated for development and is adjacent to the LDA scheme and within close proximity to the Quintain scheme. Therefore, while it may not be a suitable location for retail development, it is in an ideal location for other town centre uses e.g. leisure. It could, along with the LDA scheme, provide a link between the two emerging parts of Wembley town centre – Quintain and Central Square. 8.45 The exact boundary and extent of the development opportunity site should be determined in conjunction with the landowners. 8.46 We are unaware of any developer interest in comprehensively redeveloping the wider Chiltern Line Cutting site, and in any event the cost is likely to deter any interest. However, if interest re-emerged, this site could enable significant improvements to the retail and leisure provision in Wembley, and provide a strong link between the eastern and western parts of Wembley town centre. The development of this site is more likely to remain a longer-term aspiration, but other proposals should not harm the possibility of it ever happening. Availability for Retail / Leisure 8.47 The site is allocated for development, but the type and form is not specified. We are not aware of landownership interest in redeveloping it. The existing buildings are currently occupied and would need to be relocated elsewhere. Therefore, the site is not available, and would require landowner interest and a viable scheme to bring development forward.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 61 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
Site 6: Kilburn Square Market Site, Kilburn Planning Policy 8.48 The site is allocated as a Major Opportunity Site (Ref MOS4) in the adopted UDP as being suitable for redevelopment to provide enhanced shopping facilities. It is within Kilburn town centre and the defined primary shopping frontage. LB Brent adopted a Supplementary Planning Document for the site in April 2005. Land Uses 8.49 The site is currently used for shops with residential uses above ground floor level, market stalls, and open space. Suitability for Retail / Leisure. 8.50 The site is within Kilburn town centre, a defined Major town centre and alongside Wembley is a key location for new retail development. The site is at the southern end of Kilburn centre where the majority of national multiple retailers are located. Kilburn town centre is very accessible by public transport. 8.51 The site is suitable for retail / mixed use redevelopment and should be protected for such uses. It is likely that if units of a suitable size were provided they would be attractive to national multiple retailers. Availability for Retail / Leisure 8.52 The site is already allocated for retail / mixed used redevelopment, which indicates that the landowners support the proposed uses for the site.
Site 7: Willesden Lane / Walm Lane Triangle Site, Willesden Planning Policy 8.53 The site is partly within Willesden Green town centre and its defined primary shopping frontage, where retail is the preferred use. It is also in the defined Willesden Green Conservation Area. The western part of the site is an allocated housing site (Ref HP15) – with housing above rebuilt shops. The allocation has not been implemented. The site is recognised as a key corner site in the conservation area, with potential to provide for local needs of the town centre and improve the street scene. Land Uses 8.54 The site is currently occupied by small retail units on the corner of Walm Lane and Willesden Lane, some of which are vacant. Suitability for Retail / Leisure 8.55 The site is within Willesden Green town centre and its defined primary shopping frontage. The buildings located immediately on the corner of Walm Lane and Willesden Lane are allocated for retail and housing. Therefore, this site is entirely suitable for redevelopment. However, it is likely that the allocated site could only deliver small scale retail units. A more viable development opportunity site could be provided if the site could include adjacent buildings. A larger site would enable larger retail units to be provided, which would be more attractive to national multiple retailers, thus enhancing the range and quality of shops in the centre. Our need assessment indicates that there is sufficient retail need to support an increase in convenience and comparison goods floorspace in Willesden Green. The need could be provided by redeveloping this site, which is the only identifiable development opportunity in the centre. 8.56 The exact boundary and extent of the development opportunity site should be determined in conjunction with the landowners. However, it will largely depend on the feasibility and costs involved in relocating existing businesses from the site. If this proves too costly, a smaller development opportunity site which includes only the non- residential land uses could be pursued, as an alternative.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 62 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
Availability for Retail / Leisure 8.57 The western part of the site is allocated for housing with retail on the ground floor. The allocation has not been brought forward and we are not aware of landownership interest in redeveloping the allocated site or the neighbouring site. The site is not available since existing businesses currently occupy the site. If a redevelopment scheme for a larger site were proposed, it would require the relocation of existing businesses.
Site 8: Harlesden Plaza Site, Harlesden Planning Policy 8.58 The site is within Harlesden town centre and its defined primary shopping frontage, where retail is the preferred use. The site is also adjacent to the defined Harlesden Conservation Area. However, some of the existing buildings within Harlesden Plaza and fronting Harlesden High Street and Manor Park Road are newer and more modern, but do not reflect the overall quality of the built environment within the conservation area. Land Uses 8.59 The site is currently occupied by retail units (Budgens, Poundstretcher, Blockbuster, and Burger King) and an associated car park. The existing buildings are all single storey. Suitability for Retail / Leisure 8.60 The site is within Harlesden town centre and the defined primary shopping frontage. The healthcheck and shopper surveys indicate that Harlesden is a declining centre in need of new and improved retail development, and the addition of other town centre uses. On this basis the site is entirely suitable for retail uses. 8.61 While the existing buildings are already used for retail purposes, we consider that the site should be redeveloped to provide higher density and more attractive development for the benefit of the town centre. In particular, the site should be better related to the remainder of the centre, and made more visually prominent from Harlesden High Street. 8.62 The exact boundary and extent of the development opportunity site should be determined in conjunction with the landowners. The form and density of development and the detailed mix of uses will need to be related to the overall cost and financial viability of redeveloping the site. However, the healthcheck survey certainly indicates that there is a need to attract more national multiple retailers, and leisure and other town centre uses. Harlesden currently lacks a major supermarket of sufficient quality to meet the needs of local residents. Our need assessment indicates that there is sufficient retail need to support an increase in convenience and comparison goods floorspace in Harlesden. 8.63 We consider that it should be possible to intensify development on the site, by both increasing the number of storeys and providing buildings at the site boundary which utilise the whole area. An area of public open space should be provided if the layout of the redevelopment allows. Availability for Retail / Leisure 8.64 The site is in use and is currently already occupied by retail units. As such, the site is not currently available for retail, leisure or mixed use development. We are unaware of landownership interest in redeveloping the site for a range of uses. However, this is the only identifiable site within the town centre which could be redeveloped for the range and quality of retail and other uses to halt the decline of Harlesden.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 63 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
Site 9: Neasden Town Centre Sites, Neasden 8.65 There are four potential development opportunity sites in Neasden, which were identified in Neasden Retail Study, undertaken in March 2003 by Urban Practitioners / CB Hillier Parker. These are: § Western end of Neasden Lane / North Circular Road for a community building § Birse Crescent / Neasden Lane Western Site for a hotel § Birse Crescent / Neasden Lane Eastern Site for a small foodstore § Neasden Parade – redevelopment for A1/A3 retail 8.66 The potential of each site will be assessed jointly below. Planning Policy 8.67 The sites are not specifically allocated in the adopted UDP but are all within Neasden town centre. The centre is currently performing poorly and is in need of regeneration.. The proposed uses will add to the attraction of the centre. Land Uses 8.68 The sites are currently occupied by a mix of uses, and are either vacant and underused, or are unattractive and suitable for redevelopment. Suitability for Retail / Leisure. 8.69 These sites are within Neasden town centre, which is currently defined as an Other District Centre, and it is suggested is redefined as a Local Centre. The centre is accessible by public transport – buses in particular. The sites are suitable for the proposed uses provided that they are not of a scale which would be more appropriate for a larger centre. Availability for Retail / Leisure 8.70 The sites are not currently fulfilling their potential, and are capable of contributing to the regeneration of Neasden. The sites will be within different land ownerships, and there are no current proposals to redevelop them. However, if the sites were allocated for their proposed uses they are more likely to be redeveloped in the future, and will enable LB Brent to direct development to these sites in preference to other unallocated alternative sites.
Site 10: Queens Park Station Site, Queens Park Planning Policy 8.71 The site includes Queens Park Station and land to the south within South Kilburn New Deals for Communities regeneration area. As such, the site part within Queens Park town centre and its defined primary shopping frontage, and part within the defined Major Estate Regeneration Area. LB Brent prepared a development brief for the site in July 2003. Land Uses 8.72 The site is currently occupied by Queens Park Station, a public car park, offices, and community facilities including a day care centre. Suitability for Retail / Leisure 8.73 The site is partly within Queens Park town centre and the defined primary shopping frontage. The healthcheck survey indicates that Queens Park is the smallest centre in the borough, and contains small local shops which serve the surrounding local population.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 64 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
8.74 One of the aims of the development brief for the site is to provide a stronger link between the areas to the north and south of Queens Park Station – which currently acts as a physical barrier between the areas. There are clear benefits for the area if this aim could be achieved. The extension of Queens Park town centre southwards over the railway bridge and into South Kilburn NDC would help to deliver this aim. On this basis the site is entirely suitable for additional small scale retail units and other town centre uses. The scale of any new retail units should be appropriate to the role and function Queens Park. Availability for Retail / Leisure 8.75 The site is in use and is currently occupied by a mix of uses including Queens Park Station, a public car park, offices, and community facilities including a day care centre. As such, the site is not currently available for retail, leisure or mixed use development. However, LB Brent own major parts of the site and have prepared a development brief for its redevelopment. Major proposals have recently been brought forward for the site and these are being amended following consultation. Therefore, it is anticipated that a suitable redevelopment scheme for the site will emerge in the near future.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 65
Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
9 RETAIL STRATEGY & POLICY OPTIONS Introduction 9.1 The primary purpose of this study is to provide background information to inform the forthcoming preparation of the Local Development Framework and to provide baseline information for the development of Area Action Plans and regeneration strategies for Wembley, Willesden Green and Harlesden town centres. Projections of retail need are made for 2010 and 2015. 9.2 LB Brent has undertaken household, shoppers and healthcheck surveys, which we have commented on and summarised in Sections 3 to 6. Elsewhere in this report we have modelled the likely need for additional retail floorspace in LB Brent’s town centres (Section 7) and the physical capacity of the borough’s main centres to accommodate future growth (Section 8). 9.3 Drawing the various strands of this study together, we now explore a range of planning policy options. The Council may wish to consider these as a means of progressing from the background information to mapping out the preferred future development of the borough’s main centres. These policy options are based on, and supported by, the survey and analytical work described in earlier parts of this report. 9.4 We have divided these policy options into strategic policies which, if agreed, would cover the whole borough, and centre-specific policies for § Wembley § Kilburn, Harlesden and Willesden Green § Other District Centres § Local Centres Suggested Basis for Revised Borough Wide Retail Policies SP1: The Retail Hierarchy 9.5 There are differences between the adopted Brent UDP, the London Plan, the adopted Harrow UDP, and the emerging Barnet UDP regarding the status of some centres in the borough’s retail hierarchy. The current LB Brent defined retail hierarchy is: § Major Town Centres – Wembley, and Kilburn. § Main District Centres – Burnt Oak, Cricklewood, Harlesden, Kingsbury, Willesden Green, and Ealing Road. § Other District Centres – Wembley Park, Colindale, Kensal Rise, Kenton, Neasden, Preston Road, Queens Park, and Sudbury. 9.6 The London Plan defined retail hierarchy with respect to Brent is: § Major Town Centres – Wembley, and Kilburn. § District Centres – Burnt Oak, Cricklewood, Harlesden, Kingsbury, Willesden Green, Ealing Road, Wembley Park, Colindale, Kenton, Neasden, and Preston Road. 9.7 The LB Harrow defined retail hierarchy where town centre boundaries overlap with Brent is: § District Centres – Burnt Oak, and Kingsbury. § Local Centre – Kenton. 9.8 The LB Barnet emerging retail hierarchy where town centre boundaries overlap with Brent is:
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 67 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
§ District Centres – Burnt Oak, and Cricklewood. § Local Centre - Colindale 9.9 First, we suggest that LB Brent adopts the London Plan terminology for town centres, as both LB’s Harrow and Barnet have done. Secondly, for consistency, the town centres which share boundaries with neighbouring boroughs should be defined at an identical level in the retail hierarchy. 9.10 We thus suggest that Burnt Oak, Cricklewood, and Kingsbury are defined as District Centres, and Colindale is a Local Centre. We also recommend that Wembley Park is extended to incorporate the adjacent Stadium Retail Park, and should thus also be defined as a District Centre. This is explained in more detail in the Wembley Park section below. Similarly, if Colindale is a Local Centre then all of the defined “Other” District Centres should also be at the same level in the hierarchy. 9.11 A related bench-marking study of the local retail hierarchy is that included within the draft West London SRDF consultation document. This suggests that, as a result of healthcheck assessments, Cricklewood town centre is already functioning as a Major Centre and could or should be moved up the retail hierarchy accordingly. However, we suggest that Cricklewood remains in its current position in the retail hierarchy - i.e. as a District Centre. There are a number of reasons for this which we now set out. 9.12 First, results from the household survey indicate that Cricklewood centre mostly draws its trade from the local area. Both Kilburn and Willesden Green attract more trade than Cricklewood does from residents in the south eastern part of the borough. At the same time, Wembley and Kilburn, as the current Major Centres in the borough, serve a borough-wide catchment area. 9.13 Secondly, Cricklewood has few major multiple retailers and only provides a limited range of comparison goods shopping. This situation is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future because there are no development opportunity sites to increase the amount or range of retail floorspace in the centre. In contrast, Wembley has a large amount of newly committed retail floorspace to expand and increase the range and quality of comparison goods retail for the borough. Furthermore, Brent Cross is likely to remain the main destination for comparison goods shopping for Cricklewood residents. 9.14 Thirdly, it might be considered unhelpful or undesirable to have too many designated Major Centres in one borough which effectively compete with one another for a limited pot of new retailers offering a borough-wide attraction. PPS6 considers that Major Centres should be the primary town centre in their borough – in LB Brent’s case this is Wembley (with Kilburn straddling the boundary with LB Camden). If Cricklewood were identified as a Major Centre it would have an identical status in the retail hierarchy to both Wembley and Kilburn. Wembley provides a wide range of town centre functions, is the administrative and civic centre for the borough, and we consider that in the retail strategy should continue to be the main focus for new retail development. Furthermore, the SRDF proposed strategy is to regenerate Wembley and consolidate its role as a Major Centre. This will not be achieved were an alternative and rival retail location identified within the borough. 9.15 On the basis of the above, we suggest the following retail hierarchy is adopted: § Major Town Centres – Wembley, and Kilburn. § District Centres – Burnt Oak, Cricklewood, Ealing Road, Harlesden, Wembley Park, and Willesden Green. § Local Centres – Colindale, Kenton, Kensal Rise, Neasden, Preston Road, Queens Park, and Sudbury. § Neighbourhood Centres – the 36 currently defined local centres.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 68 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
9.16 Wembley Park and Kenton both have food superstores (Asda and Sainsbury’s respectively) immediately adjacent to their town centre boundaries. If these stores were brought within the defined town centre, both Wembley Park and Kenton would meet the PPS6 definition of a district centre i.e. containing a large supermarket. However, at this stage we have not recommended that this change is made, primarily because we are uncertain of the relationship the stores have with the rest of the centre. We suspect that shoppers who visit Asda and Sainsbury’s do not undertake linked trips to other shops and facilities. Therefore, we suggest that when this retail study is updated LB Brent should undertake a survey to establish the level of linked trips associated with these stores. The results will assist LB Brent to decide whether improvements should be made to the relationship of these stores and the rest of the respective centres, and whether future amendments to the town centre boundaries will assist this issue. 9.17 Obviously, and for the sake of consistency with the development plan, LB Brent will need to recommend to the Mayor of London that the suggested Local Centres which are currently defined as District Centres in the London Plan are no longer designated as such when that Plan is reviewed. 9.18 In parallel with these suggested revisions to the retail hierarchy, we take it as read that LB Brent will continue to have policies that seek to ensure the protection and maintenance of the hierarchy – similar to existing strategic policies STR29, SH1, SH3, and SH4.
SP2: Town Centre Boundary & Shopping Frontages 9.19 The adopted UDP currently defines primary and secondary shopping frontages for the majority of centres, but town centre boundaries are not defined. We suggest that a town centre boundary should be defined around all major, district and local centres. In most cases the proposed boundary would be tightly drawn and comprise the areas currently identified as primary and secondary frontage. We consider below a revised town centre boundary for Wembley and minor amendments to the boundaries of other centres. 9.20 In our view, the primary and secondary frontage definitions are overly prescriptive for the local centres. As set out in PPS6, shopping frontages should only be defined in circumstances where there is a strong reason for adopting a different policy approach, there is an obvious distinction between areas, and the approach is necessary and desirable. We consider that the current primary and secondary boundaries, particularly in the smaller centres, often do not accurately reflect the actual range and diversity of retail and non-retail uses within the particular frontage. 9.21 Local centres by their nature are quite small, and there is no reason to concentrate retail uses within a particular part of the centre. Provided that local centres retain the types of uses and characteristics which define them, then it should not matter where the retail uses are actually located within the centre. In any event, it is generally the case that it is desirable for a range of uses to be located within local centres because they serve the needs of local people, in an easily accessible location. 9.22 We suggest that primary and secondary frontages are only defined within major and district centres, and are deleted from local centres. We will identify policy options to retain retail uses within the different centres in the hierarchy and the shopping frontages in Policy SP3 below.
SP3: Diversity of Uses 9.23 The protection of retail uses in a defined shopping centre is a legitimate objective for planning policy. LB Brent currently tackle this issue through adopted Policies SH6, SH7, SH9 and SH16. Furthermore, Policies SH10, SH13 and SH14 seek to control the
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 69 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
proportion of food and drink uses, amusement centres, and minicab offices respectively within centres. 9.24 LB Brent, in common with many other local planning authorities, attempts to retain the amount of retail uses (A1) in a centre by specifying a minimum length of frontage, or part of a centre, which should be used for such activity. Adopted Policy SH7 directs that proposals for the change of use from retail to non-retail should not increase the proportion of non-retail frontage to over 35%, and should avoid the over-concentration of non-retail uses. Other LPA’s adopt a similar approach but use different percentage figures, as necessary. 9.25 In our opinion, such percentage-based policies can be difficult to defend at a planning appeal, principally because of the frequently arbitrary nature of the percentage definition. In addition, each shopping centre in the hierarchy is different and requires, ideally, an individual response. Firstly, it is clear that for some centres, and the frontages within them, the current percentage of non-retail uses falls below the defined limit. Secondly, the healthcheck and shoppers’ surveys indicate that some centres would benefit from a greater diversity of uses. For example, Wembley would benefit from the addition of restaurants, public houses, leisure uses, and a library. A new library in Wembley was already proposed in adopted Policy WEM22. All of these uses would add to the attraction of Wembley, in particular outside normal shopping hours. In these circumstances, adopting a more flexible approach than the percentage based policy allows could encourage such developments to come forward. 9.26 We are not advocating a complete withdrawal of control of non-retail uses in town centres, but instead LB Brent should introduce more flexibility, where appropriate. In our view, and provided that each centre in the retail hierarchy retains its role, function, and character in accordance with the typologies set out in PPS6, minor changes to the proportion of retail frontage should not materially affect the main shopping function of the centre. 9.27 For local and district centres this requires the protection of the key A1 convenience uses - i.e. supermarkets, grocers, butchers, bakers etc. There are of course limitations to what can be achieved, with some changes permitted through the Use Classes Order 1987 and its amendment in 2005, and the General Permitted Development Order 1995. 9.28 For the larger district and major centres, both A1 convenience and A1 comparison retail units need to be protected to retain the role and function of the centre. Defining primary and secondary frontages in such centres will contribute to this aim. In addition, the larger shop units in these centres also need to be retained and protected for occupation by national multiple retailers, who usually seek more retail floorspace and storage than independent retailers. 9.29 On the basis of the above, LB Brent should adopt an alternative approach to non-retail uses in its defined centres. We suggest that primary and secondary frontages are defined for the defined major and district centres, with a general presumption against the loss of retail uses from the primary frontage, except in exceptional circumstances. Greater flexibility towards non-retail uses will be shown in secondary frontages. 9.30 We suggest that in general non-retail uses should only be allowed in circumstances where the proposed use § Compliments the retail function; § Retains an active shopfront; § Does not lead to the loss of a key retail use; and § Does not lead to the loss of a large retail unit.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 70 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
9.31 LB Brent should continue with the current caveats concerning the re-use of vacant units, the loss of retail premises with servicing, and A5 hot food takeaway uses, amusement arcades, and mini-cab offices. 9.32 The development of town centre strategies and Area Action Plans will allow LB Brent to develop more detailed policies applicable to each town centre, to ensure that its specific needs and the type of uses required are met. Our suggestions for each centre our set out in more detail below.
SP4: Town Centre Management Schemes and BIDS 9.33 The main purpose of town centre management schemes in Brent is to provide a strategic coordination role for investment and maintenance in order to help regenerate, sustain and develop the well-being of town centres. Key elements of this work will include developing business partnerships, promoting and marketing the town centre and gathering the evidence base for strategic decision-making. In this context Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) can be a useful delivery mechanism, but in underperforming centres they are perhaps best suited to more established partnerships where some initial on the ground improvements have already been successful. 9.34 This study highlights various issues and opportunities for the key centres in Brent which town centre management schemes could help tackle. We recommend that emerging area-based Local Development Documents should include details of town centre management initiatives based on the specific merits and analysis of the centre concerned. This approach will help link retail need and capacity with the wider town centre management function, and help target resources to deliver improvements. Suggested Centre Specific Retail Policies 9.35 Having suggested a partially revised basis for some borough-wide retail policies, we now set out guidelines to assist with a specific policy approach for each centre. In each case, these are based upon a suggested retail strategy and alterations to the centres boundaries. Where appropriate we suggest retail / mixed use allocations in the centre. Wembley WEM1: Town Centre Strategy 9.36 Wembley should continue to be promoted as the primary town centre in the borough, with key attractors, other national multiples, and comparison goods retailers directed to the centre. In terms of the sequential approach to site selection and protecting the retail hierarchy, Wembley should be the preferred destination for new retail, leisure, and other town centre development. As such, retail or leisure development at edge-of- centre locations in other centres should not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that no suitable sites are available in Wembley. 9.37 Wembley’s place at the top of the town centre hierarchy should be protected from competing development both within the borough and outside i.e. Brent Cross, White City, and other town centres in the sub-region. In addition, the London Plan, the draft West London sub-regional development framework, and the adopted UDP all promote Wembley as an opportunity area which is in need of regeneration. There are retail and leisure commitments to deliver this aim. 9.38 Therefore, LB Brent should be making representations to retail and leisure proposals within other boroughs which may affect the vitality and viability of Wembley town centre, and efforts to regenerate it. We thus suggest that the overall strategy for Wembley town centre should be: § To continue reversing decline; § To improve its position in the UK shopping index; and
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 71 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
§ To increase the amount of floorspace in the centre. 9.39 This suggested strategy has seven main strands: iv) To identify the need for additional floorspace in Wembley – set out in Section 7; v) To identify development opportunity sites in Wembley to meet the retail need - assessed in Section 8; vi) To direct the majority of additional comparison goods floorspace to Wembley - as the main centre in the borough; vii) To seek to retain market share at approx 40% (comparison) and 76% (convenience) – recognising that Brent Cross and other competing centres will continue to attract LB Brent residents; viii) To ensure that the development opportunity sites provide modern units which are of sufficient size and are suitable for national multiple retailers; ix) To increase the number of GOAD defined key attractors who can enhance the appeal of Wembley to local residents, and have a sufficiently strong brand to attract shoppers to a centre; and x) To undertake a programme of environmental improvements. 9.40 In terms of the GOAD defined key attractors in Wembley, LB Brent should seek to: · Retain existing key attractors i.e. Argos, Boots, Dixons, Superdrug, Wilkinsons, and Woolworths. · Encourage those retailers with current space requirements for Wembley (from the FOCUS database) to locate in the centre – identified in Table 4.3 above. · Encourage key attractors not present i.e. Alders, Burton, Clarks, Debenhams, Dorothy Perkins, H&M, House of Fraser, John Lewis, M&S, New Look, Next, River Island, Sainsbury, Tesco, Topman, Topshop, Virgin Megastore, WH Smith, Waitrose, and Waterstones. 9.41 Ideally, development briefs for the opportunity sites should, if possible, be prepared in conjunction with interested key attractors and developers.
WEM2: Centre Boundary 9.42 The existing shopping role of Wembley’s traditional town centre and the redevelopment of Central Square need to be protected. At the same time there is retail commitments associated with the redevelopment of Wembley Stadium, to the east of Wembley town centre. We suggest that the town centre boundary encompasses all of this area, including the retail, office, and civic functions currently within the centre, all the retail commitments, and the Stadium itself. This approach will promote a clear message that Wembley is one centre. 9.43 By suggesting that a large area is defined for the town centre, the primary and secondary shopping frontages should also extend eastwards to include retail units at Wembley Triangle. When the London Development Agency scheme is complete it should be incorporated within this newly defined centre. 9.44 At present, the Quintain scheme is viewed by LB Brent as an edge-of-centre commitment, and the planning permission restricts the amount and type of retail allowed on the site e.g. discount designer retail. However, it also includes a significant element of leisure uses, which will add to the attraction of Wembley town centre. Therefore, we suggest that once complete this development is included within the defined Wembley town centre.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 72 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
WEM3: Retail Allocations 9.45 We recommend that the following sites are allocated for retail / leisure development, depending on their status at the time of the Local Development Document. Their suitability for retail / leisure development has already been assessed in Section 8 above. The sites are within Wembley town centre, and are already allocated for development, and their re-use for retail / leisure / mixed use development would add to the range of attractions in the centre. § Curtis Lane Car Park site § Wembley Market site § High Rd / St John’s Rd / Ecclestone Mews site § Marks & Spencers Site, High Rd / St John’s Rd /Elm Rd site § Ecclestone Place / High Rd site
Kilburn KIL1: Retail Strategy 9.46 Kilburn is the prime centre for the south eastern part of the borough. It is a very long linear centre, with the southern part being where the national multiple retailers are located, and the northern part containing restaurants, cafes and leisure uses. The middle section of the centre mostly comprises local independent retailers. 9.47 We consider it important that Kilburn does not expand beyond its current limits because its vitality will be affected if the retail uses in the centre become less concentrated. In terms of the shopping frontages, we suggest that the southern section is defined as the primary frontage, with the remainder of the centre defined as secondary frontage where non-retail uses will be allowed including leisure and redevelopment to provide a mix of uses.
KIL2: Allocations 9.48 We recommend that the following site is allocated for mixed use, mostly comprising retail at ground floor and residential uses above, in accordance with the adopted development brief for the site. The proposed allocation is at the southern end of the centre, and if a unit of sufficient size is built could be attractive to a national multiple retailer. § Kilburn Square Market site
Harlesden HAR1: Retail Strategy 9.49 The current retail provision in Harlesden largely comprises local convenience shops and services. The centre mostly serves the local shopping and service needs of the surrounding Afro-Caribbean population i.e. grocers, hairdressers, and beauty salons. This character should be retained and enhanced. 9.50 Harlesden would benefit from a greater range of uses, in particular A1 comparison retailers, A3 (restaurants and cafes) and leisure uses. If possible it should try to attract more national multiple retailers, but at present very few are seeking space in the centre.
HAR2: Foodstore 9.51 As a defined District Centre, Harlesden should contain a food superstore, to comply with the strict definitions in PPS6. Overall, the centre would benefit from the addition of such a facility. However, if a large foodstore were built in the centre the main concern
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 73 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
would be the impact upon the existing small grocery stores. On this basis we suggest that the centre could accommodate a medium sized supermarket.
HAR3: Allocation 9.52 We recommend that the following site is allocated for retail / mixed use development. Its suitability for retail / mixed use development has already been assessed in Section 8 above. The site is within Harlesden town centre. While the site is currently occupied by retail uses, they have a poor relationship with the remainder of the centre. The redevelopment of the site could intensify uses on the site, and accommodate a medium sized supermarket and other non-food retail floorspace, which is necessary to enhance the role of the centre. If units of sufficient size are built they could be attractive to a better range of national multiple retailers than currently exist in the centre. § Harlesden Plaza site
HAR4: Urban Design / Streetscape 9.53 A key issue emerging from the healthcheck and visitor survey was the poor quality of the shopfronts in Harlesden and the built environment in general. Part of Harlesden town centre is a conservation area, containing brick and stone buildings which are interesting and attractive from an architectural point of view. However, the quality of the buildings and other interesting town centre features is undermined by poor quality at ground floor level. The current approach to support public realm improvements in Harlesden should continue – Policy SH33. We also suggest that an urban design / streetscape study is undertaken to identify where enhancements can be made to the buildings, and improve the environment overall.
Willesden Green WG1: Retail Strategy 9.54 Willesden Green is a fairly healthy and attractive District Centre, containing a Sainsbury superstore, and Sainsbury Local store. However, the majority of the other stores in the centre are small independent convenience retailers, and there is a limited range of comparison and national multiple retailers. On a positive note, the centre does contain a cinema and a library, both of which are additional attractions for visitors. 9.55 The centre needs more national multiple retailers. This could be achieved by intensifying activity at an existing site or redeveloping an existing building.
WG2: Centre Boundary 9.56 Willesden Green, as currently defined, extends westwards towards Willesden High Road, and more or less joins the adjacent local / neighbourhood centre. We suggest that to retain the vitality of Willesden Green, the town centre boundary is redefined to only extend as far as the library and cinema. The retail uses beyond this area are not well related to the rest of Willesden Green in either use or function. There is also a clear break in the retail uses at the police station. This suggested approach will ensure that retail development remains concentrated within the centre. The remainder of the centre should be redefined as a neighbourhood centre. 9.57 The town centre boundary should be drawn so that it includes the sites of the Sainsbury superstore, the library and the cinema. These are important facilities which attract visitors to the centre and define it as a district centre in the retail hierarchy. The primary and secondary shopping frontage should be retained as currently defined.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 74 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
WG3: Allocation 9.58 We recommend that the following site is allocated for retail / mixed use development. Its suitability for retail / mixed use development has already been assessed in Section 8 above. The site is within Willesden Green town centre. While the site is currently occupied by retail uses, they have a poor relationship with the remainder of the centre. The redevelopment of the site could intensify uses on the site, and accommodate larger retail units to enhance the role of the centre. If units of sufficient size are built they could be attractive to a better range of national multiple retailers than currently exist in the centre. § Willesden Lane / Walm Lane Triangle site Other District Centres Burnt Oak 9.59 Burnt Oak district centre does not require specific policies in addition to those already defined for the borough-wide level. The key message from the healthcheck survey is that the centre has a range of convenience and comparison goods retailers, but the overall shopping environment could be improved. Therefore, the range of uses should be protected, and public realm management measures should be introduced to make the shopping environment more pleasant. As only a small proportion of the centre is within LB Brent, any strategies or measures will need to be undertaken in conjunction with LB’s Harrow and Barnet.
Cricklewood 9.60 We have suggested above in Policy SP1 that Cricklewood remains a District Centre in the retail hierarchy. The centre mainly functions as a large district centre, and mostly contains local shops serving the immediately surrounding catchment area. We suggest that the town centre boundary is tightly drawn around the existing retail units, and the primary and secondary shopping frontages are defined in their current position. Any new strategies or measures for Cricklewood will need to be undertaken in conjunction with LB Barnet. 9.61 There is one potential large development opportunity site we have identified in Cricklewood, but this is located outside the borough and within LB Barnet. The site is located at the Galtymore / Beacon Bingo site on the northern side of Cricklewood Broadway, and could possibly extend further northwards to include B&Q’s car park. The redevelopment of this site for retail and leisure uses could enhance the range and attraction of facilities in Cricklewood, and would equally serve the needs of local LB Brent residents.
Ealing Road 9.62 Ealing Road is characterised by shops serving the local Asian community, containing grocers, jewellers, and clothes shops. The grocery shops in particular have stalls and canopies which extend onto the pavement. It is this character which is the centre’s strength, and gives it vibrancy. We do not suggest a particular policy approach for Ealing Road, but the overall strategy should be to retain and strengthen its unique character. In addition, the centre would benefit from the introduction of public realm management measures to resolve some of the cleanliness / pavement congestion issues associated with the grocery stalls. This action would make the centre more attractive to a wide range of visitors. 9.63 The current policy approach to restrict the expansion of Ealing Road centre beyond its current limits should continue – Policy SH31. We suggest this approach firstly because Ealing Road’s unique character results from the fact that its different uses are concentrated. This character would be undermined if the grocers, jewellers and clothes
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 75 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
shops serving the local Asian community were spread throughout a larger centre, and interspersed with other retail uses which have a different character. 9.64 In any event, there are no obvious opportunity sites at the edge of the centre in which to expand. Secondly, our overall strategy seeks to boost Wembley’s role as the primary centre in the borough. On this basis, new large scale retail uses should be directed to Wembley town centre, rather than a smaller and lower order centre such as Ealing Road, particularly when it is in close proximity to Wembley.
Kenton 9.65 In Policy SP1 we suggested that Kenton remains a Local Centre in the retail hierarchy. At this stage we have not recommended that the centre boundary is amended to include the adjacent Sainsbury’s store, primarily because we suspect that shoppers to this store do not undertake linked trips to other shops and facilities within the centre. Therefore, we suggest that LB Brent undertake a survey during the next retail study to establish the level of linked trips which actually take place from this store. 9.66 It would certainly be desirable, and would add to the vitality of Kenton, if the amount of linked trips associated with the Sainsbury’s store could be increased. We consider that one way of increasingly the likelihood of linked trips taking place would be for the Sainsbury’s store to have a pedestrian access point which had a better and more convenient relationship with the remainder of the centre. However, this is unlikely to happen unless Sainsbury’s decide to refurbish or redevelop their existing store. 9.67 If, in the future, LB Brent decides to include the Sainsbury’s store within Kenton town centre, it would then meet the PPS6 definition for a district centre i.e. containing a large supermarket. If this happens then LB Brent will need to alter the status of Kenton in the retail hierarchy to a District Centre. 9.68 Apart from a possible future amendment to the centre boundary, the town centre should not expand beyond its current limits, and the primary and secondary frontages should remain in their currently defined position.
Kingsbury 9.69 The healthcheck survey indicates that Kingsbury is a fairly healthy and vibrant district centre, which possesses a good mix of local shops and also contains other non-retail uses. We consider that the centre does not require specific policies in addition to those already suggested for the borough-wide level. 9.70 The site of the former Prince of Wales public house, located immediately adjacent to the defined town centre, has planning consent for residential use with retail uses at ground floor. We recommend that the town centre boundary is amended to include the resulting retail frontage when complete.
Wembley Park 9.71 We suggested in Policy SP1 that Wembley Park is moved up the retail hierarchy to become a district centre by including Stadium Retail Park, which is currently located at the edge of the centre, but adjacent to its middle section. The uses within the Retail Park (Currys, Lidl, JD Sports, Blockbuster and McDonalds) are the A1/A3 national multiple retail uses which we would expect to find in a district centre. 9.72 As with Sainsbury’s in Kenton, we suggest that Asda is not brought within Wembley Park town centre boundary. The reason for this approach is similar, in that we suspect that there are few linked trips from the Asda store to the remainder of Wembley Park, and the store is very likely to operate as a single shopping destination. As such, we consider that LB Brent should adopt a similar approach for Asda to that for Sainsbury’s in Kenton i.e. to undertake a survey to establish the extent of linked trips from the Asda store.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 76 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
9.73 The amount of linked trips which take place from Asda could be increased and encouraged in the future if the store had a better physical relationship with the rest of the centre. As with Sainsbury’s, such improvements are only likely to happen at the store if Asda decides to refurbish, extend or redevelop their existing store. 9.74 LB Brent should continue with its current approach of encouraging facilities in the southern part of Wembley Park for members of the public attending events at Wembley Stadium and other entertainment venues – Policy WEM23.
Local Centres Colindale 9.75 Colindale is a fairly small local centre, which mostly meets the local convenience needs of its surrounding population. With slip-roads outside the shops providing on- street parking, the centre also benefits from passing trade. Colindale does not require specific retail policies in addition to those already suggested for the borough-wide level.
Kensal Rise 9.76 Kensal Rise is a fairly busy local centre, which is quite attractive and mostly contains small local independent retailers. This pleasant shopping environment should be protected, but apart from this the centre does not require specific retail policies in addition to those already suggested for the borough-wide level.
Neasden 9.77 Neasden local centre can be characterised as containing service retail e.g. hairdressers, a limited range of convenience retailers, and in particular a large range of food and drink A3/A4/A5 uses. The range of bars in Neasden is a key attraction and encourages visitors to the centre, particularly in the evening. In this respect Neasden is slightly different to most of the other local centres in the borough. We suggest that this character is developed and enhanced further, subject to public realm management and enforcement controls being in place. However, Neasden does lack a small foodstore which could improve the retail offer in the centre, but this may be because of the close proximity of Tesco at Brent Park and Asda in Wembley Park. 9.78 The main problem for Neasden is that it is separated by the North Circular Road from some of its neighbouring residential areas, making pedestrian access to the centre poor and unattractive – often requiring the use of an underpass or pedestrian bridge. In terms of the visibility of the centre, Neasden generally faces inwards, turning its back on adjoining residential areas – particularly those to the south west. Despite being located adjacent to a busy road junction, Neasden does not take advantage of opportunities for passing trade. 9.79 Urban Practitioners 2003 “Neasden Retail Study” identified a number of development opportunities to improve the centre. We agree with their assessment and consider that the suggested improvements will solve a number of the problems of the centre, and its visible and physical relationship with its surroundings. As suggested by UP the following sites should be allocated for development. § Western end of Neasden Lane / North Circular Road - community building § Birse Crescent / Neasden Lane Western site – hotel § Birse Crescent / Neasden Lane Eastern site – small foodstore § Neasden Parade – redevelopment for A1/A3 retail
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 77 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
Preston Road 9.80 Preston Road is a fairly busy local centre. It contains a good mix of local convenience stores including a Somerfield, butchers, bakers, and grocers, and small service and comparison retailers. This diversity of uses in the centre should be protected because in general it will meet the top-up needs of the surrounding population. Preston Road does not require any centre specific policies, and the centre boundaries should remain unchanged.
Queens Park 9.81 Queens Park is a fairly small and attractive local centre. The centre mostly contains local convenience shops, A3/A4 uses, and estate agents. There are some upmarket independent retailers including a florist, a women’s clothes shop, and a pizza restaurant, plus Starbucks and Threshers. The centre also contains a library, which will encourage visitors to the centre. The centre possibly lacks a small local foodstore, but the small size of unit in the centre will make it difficult to provide, without knocking a number of units together. The attractive, independent, and upmarket character of the centre should be protected. 9.82 The following development opportunity site should be allocated in Queens Park for retail units of an appropriate scale and other town centre uses. The town centre boundary will need to be amended to reflect this change in the future. § Queens Park Station Site
Sudbury 9.83 Sudbury is a small local centre which mostly meets the top-up shopping needs of its surrounding population or those passing through the centre. It contains a wide range of uses including small independent grocers, A3/A4 restaurants and bars, a number of A5 takeaways, and A2 uses – accountants, solicitors, and estate agents. There is also two vehicle sales centres. 9.84 The centre does not contain a major retail attraction, and would benefit if one were provided. We suggest that if the opportunity arises in the future, LB Brent should seek the redevelopment or intensification of the motor vehicle sales centre sites, for retail / mixed use development, possibly including a small foodstore. Sudbury requires no other centre specific policies. Need for Updated Household Survey 9.85 Our need assessment has been based on the LB Brent household survey 2003, which has been adequate in order to assess the shopping patterns in the LB Brent and to calculate the capacity for comparison and convenience goods. However, we recommend a further survey is undertaken in say two to three years time which can update the findings of this study. We consider this survey should be a telephone survey undertaken by a recognized household survey company which includes the following: § A catchment area which goes beyond the borough boundary – if only marginally in some locations. § The division of this catchment area into broad zones which reflects the main centres within this catchment area. § The household survey questions should identify every major food store in the borough and all major food stores within five kilometers from the edge of the borough boundary. This list should be included.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 78 Brent Retail Need and Capacity Study Final Report
§ The household survey questions should ask five separate questions on comparison goods which fit with the recognized MapInfo definitions of the types of comparison goods expenditure. § Ensure a response rate of at least 0.4 % of the population in each survey zone, as recommended by household survey companies. For LB Brent this equates to a survey with approximately 1,000 responses in total.
Roger Tym & Partners February 2006 79
APPENDIX 1
NATIONAL RETAIL TRENDS
The Context 1. To put the Study in context in terms of the retail industry, we outline below some of the more relevant trends that are important considerations in the preparation of strategic retail studies such as this. We source the data to which we refer from business monitors and economic forecasters such as Verdict and Experian Business Strategies (EBS), and concentrate on trends as they relate to high street retailing, which is a general term used to refer to retailing in the traditional town centres. Retail sales growth and consumer expenditure1 2. Total retail spend in the UK (that is on the high street, in retail parks, in supermarkets and in other locations) rose by 5%/annum (current prices) over the decade to 2002, but at the slightly lower rate of 4.5% for high street retailing. In 2002 total retail spend in the UK stood at £240.8 billion, of which half was spent on the high street. High street sales rose by 3.6% between 2001/02, which again was below the overall UK rate of 4.2% (with the retail parks leading the way on growth). The lower rate of growth on the high street is at least partly attributable to the slower rate of growth in the principle sectors that underpin the high street - clothing and footwear, compared to the much faster rate of growth in sectors such as DIY and electricals that are the main stay of out-of-town retailing. 3. In the early to mid-1990s sales on the high street grew by 3.1%/annum (at constant prices). However, in the period since the growth rate has accelerated to 7%/annum. Consumer expenditure growth forecasts 2 4. Economic forecasters produce forecasts of future retail growth rates for comparison and convenience goods that are based on past performance and future economic outlook. There are a number of expenditure data providers in the market place, and we use Mapinfo. Mapinfo’s latest (September 2005) expenditure growth forecasts for the 2004-2016 period are 4.3% in respect of comparison goods and 0.9%/annum for convenience goods. Some of the growth in consumer expenditure will be fuelled by consumer debt (as is currently the case), but there is no sign of a weakening of consumer confidence and no reason to believe that the pattern of generally steady, but sometimes spectacular expenditure growth that has taken place for over 30 years will not continue. Retail store numbers and floorspace 3 5. In 2002 the total number of retail stores in the UK was 272,000 (this includes high street, out-of-centre and neighbourhood facilities), which is a 14% reduction on numbers a decade earlier. Over the same period high street stores experienced a marginally lower closure rate of 11%. However, the high street closure rate has slowed considerably in the last five years to just 4.2%. The reason for the reduction is likely to be a combination of high street retailers adjusting their price positioning to compete with the out-of-town retailers, and the tightening of government retail planning policy, which over the past few years has been much more effective at reducing the flow of new out-of-centre retailing. 6. Whilst store numbers have declined generally, the volume of retail floorspace in the UK has risen as retailers move into larger units and maximise the amount of trading space in their existing units. Table 1.1 below compares the government’s retail floorspace statistics for England and Wales in 2000 with those for 2003. The table shows that there are over 100 million square metres gross of retail floorspace in
1 All figures sourced from Verdict Report “Verdict on the High Street” 2003 2 All figures sourced from Table 2, MapInfo Information Brief 05/02, September 2005 3 All figures sourced from Verdict Report “Verdict on the High Street” 2003
England and Wales, and that the provision rose by 6% in the three year period to 2003, which is significant growth. The biggest proportional growth was in the A1 and A3 classes, which in terms of the total retail growth was partially offset by a reduction in the sui generis category. The table demonstrates that the amount of retail floorspace has increased over time, buoyed no doubt by the growth in retail expenditure. Table 1 Total Retail Floorspace in England & Wales 2000 and 2003 (000s sqm gross) A1 A2 A3 Other All Retail 2000 83,469 6,220 6,719 8,687 105,095 2003 90,883 6,457 7,462 7,051 111,853 Net Difference (sqm) +7,414 +237 +743 -1,636 +6,758 Net Difference (%) 9 4 11 -19 6 Source : ODPM Commercial and Industrial Floorspace Statistics 7. Unfortunately there are no comparable statistics for any dates prior to 2000 to assess longer term trends. However, we can speculate that the trend for year-on- year increases in the amount of retail floorspace is not just a phenomenon of the past three or four years. 8. The trend for more and bigger space requirements is most evident in the fashion- wear clothing sector where retailer space requirements have expanded significantly over the past few years. The fashion-wear sector is very competitive especially with the introduction of a number of international operators into the UK market in recent years such as Mango, Zara and H&M. Retailers seek space where they can display their full range of goods, because shoppers demand this, and vote with their feet if their regular high street store lacks the range available in the flagship stores in the centres such as Bluewater. This is obviously not good for the retailer or the high street. Operators such as Next and Gap now routinely seek units with sales area of 1,000 sqm plus. 9. In 2002 the total retail sales area in the UK stood at 51.5 million sqm, up 10% on a decade earlier. The high street accounts for well over half of the total at 29.6 million sqm, remaining virtually unchanged over the decade. The main increase in floorspace has been in out-of-town stores where floorspace almost doubled between the early 1990s and 2002 to a total of 14.0 million sqm. However, the outlook for floorspace growth is for significant increases in high street locations with developments such as Birmingham’s Bullring adding significant new modern space in central locations. A number of major new town centre retail developments are at various stages of the planning process right across the UK, but especially in London where schemes such as Park Place in Croydon and at the Elephant and Castle in Southwark are set to provide major additions to both the quantum and quality of shopping floorspace in the Capital. Sales densities 4 10. The term ‘sales density’ refers to centre/store turnover expressed as a proportion of sales area and is presented as a monetary value per square metre figure. The higher the sales density the more efficient the floorspace is operating. Nominally high sales densities are an indication that stores are getting congested and additional floorspace is required. However, there are vast differences between sales densities of different categories of traders. Electrical retailers for example have much higher sales densities that say book retailers, because their price to volume of goods ratio is much higher for items such as camcorders. Retail planners assessing retail need at the borough level seldom get into levels of sales density detail at the retail class level, rather they work at the aggregate level of comparison
4 All figures sourced from Verdict Report “Verdict on the High Street” 2003
and convenience goods. However, even at the aggregate level there are a number of factors that mean the relationship between rising sales densities and the need for additional floorspace is not simple and straightforward, and we briefly discuss these below. 11. Over the past five years the average sales density for all high street retailers in the UK has risen by 5%/annum (at current prices). The retailers that have experienced the highest growth are generally in the home entertainment and electrical sectors such as HMV and Dixons. This rate of growth is all the more impressive because the last five years have been a period of price deflation, whereby year-on-year prices have actually reduced. This has been largely the result of technology products, such as DVDs or computer equipment, becoming cheaper over time as they become mass market, and also due to price competition in the market place driving prices down. 12. A significant factor contributing to sales density growth is what is commonly referred to as ‘trading up’, which is where consumers purchase an item from the more expensive end of the range rather than purchasing the standard product. An example of this activity is where the consumer replaces a standard computer monitor in favour of a more expensive flat LCD screen monitor. The upshot is the consumer spends more on the item and the store requires no additional stocking space (and indeed less space in this example), and therefore sales density rises with no impact on floorspace requirements. This phenomenon holds true for many products. In addition to stores selling higher value goods other factors that contribute to sales density growth are - management efficiencies and changes in occupancy resulting in the introduction of retailers with higher turnover (such as a change from furniture to electricals). 13. However, in parallel with this ever-continuing drive upwards of sales density there is an ever increasing range of goods available for purchase that require evermore room to stock. This is most clearly demonstrated by the unprecedented growth in the number of mobile phone retailers in the space of just a few years, along with electrical and home entertainment where new technology continues to expand the range of products available to purchase. 14. Thus, whilst sales densities on the high street are rising by around 5%/annum (at current prices) stores are able to absorb much of this growth within the existing floorspace, and it does not all translate to an additional floorspace requirement. A linked point mentioned earlier that is worth making again here, is that the trend for clothing retailers to seek to stock their full ranges does not necessarily lead to a requirement for additional floorspace. 15. The upshot of this continual growth in sales densities is a need for the growth to be factored into retail need assessments so as not to over-state the amount of expenditure available for new floorspace. Over the past twenty years or so retail planners have used a sales density growth figure of 1.5%/annum for comparison goods and 0.5%/annum for convenience goods based on advice provided by URPI in the early 1980s. However, recent research undertaken separately by the Valuation Office, Verdict and Experian suggests that real growth in turnover efficiencies have in fact been higher than previously thought, and that sales density growth of between 2.0% and 3.5%/annum for comparison goods retailing are more realistic. We adopt 2.25%/annum for comparison goods in this study, and we adopt the traditional 0.75%/annum sales density growth rate for convenience goods. The figures are applied to both the existing floorspace and the potential new floorspace.
Retail rental growth 5 16. In common with rental growth rates across the whole of the property sector, retail rental growth has fallen from the high rates in the late 1990s as retailers shy away from taking space in anticipation of weakening consumer confidence in what is seen as an unsettled economic climate. Rental growth in 2003 for high street shops averaged around just 1.0%, which is low in comparison to the very healthy 3.5% growth in the out-of-centre retail warehouse sector. The retail warehouse figure reflects the added premium on such space resulting from the difficulties in providing more of this type of provision in the context of current national planning policy guidance. 17. Demand from retailers seeking space reduced during 2003. However, demand remains strong for the better space (the larger units in prime locations) in the better centres. However, it is the backdrop of the uncertain economic times that is failing to drive up rents at a time when shop vacancy rates are at an all time low, with only 5% of the current UK retail stock being vacant. 18. The longer term prospects for rental growth on the high street look more favourable with high occupancy rates, continued consumer spending growth and retailers (even those such as Matalan and Asda (in the guise of the George format) that are nominally out-of-town players), being directed to take space in-town by government policy. We consider that the prospect of future retail growth is what has encouraged the plethora of retail schemes to come forward in recent times in centres up and down the length of the UK. The threat to the high street of e-retailing 6 19. Retail sales in 2003 via the Internet totalled £4 billion, which is equivalent to the turnover of Safeway, and gives the sector a 1.6% market share of all UK retail sales. UK internet sales have soared in recent years, with April 2003’s online sales alone accounting for nearly £1.2 billion (this figure includes expenditure on items such as holidays, travel and cars that are not retail sales, and are not therefore included in the retail sales statistics). 20. Yet, despite previous predictions by many commentators to the contrary, e-retailing has failed to sound the death-knell for retailers on the high street. Indeed it is the high street retailers themselves who are the primary participants in e-retailing (the so called bricks and clicks operators, as opposed to new non-property based entities). Bricks and clicks operators such as the supermarket operators will continue to require conventional floorspace because they manage the sourcing of goods ordered on-line by ‘picking’ the goods from existing stores rather than from distribution warehouses. 21. Recent forecasts have predicted the growth of e-retailing to accommodate up to 20% of comparison expenditure by 2020. Whilst this may not be the case, we consider that there will be an increase in the proportion of comparison expenditure devoted to e-retailing. Therefore we have allowed for 12% deduction in 2015, which is an increase from 6% in 2005 and takes into account numerous different economic forecasts.
5 Source : All figures sourced from Verdict Report “Verdict on the High Street” 2003 6 Source : Verdict Report “Verdict on the Internet” 2003 and EGi
APPENDIX 2
TECHNICAL NOTE ON RETAIL CAPACITY AND ECONOMIC TABLES
Introduction
1 The main steps in the quantitative capacity assessments for both comparison (non- food) retailing and convenience (food) retailing for the LB Brent are as follows: i) Forecast the growth of expenditure from 2003 to 2005, 2005 to 2010 and 2010 to 2015 taking account of population change and the real growth, over and above inflation, in per capita spending levels, and allowing for a deduction for special forms of trading (SFT). Then use these forecasts to calculate ‘LB Brent expenditure’, that is the money that is generated by the residents within the LB Brent. ii) Use the household survey data (undertaken in 2003) to establish market shares, which assist in understanding the spending patterns of residents in the LB Brent. Then use these market shares to calculate the ‘retained expenditure’, this is the money spent by LB Brent residents on comparison and convenience goods in the Borough’s centres and stores. This money is then projected forward to 2005, 2010 and 2015. iii) Estimate the proportion of the comparison and convenience expenditure that is spent in centres and stores inside the LB Brent by population from beyond the Borough boundary, which calculates ‘inflow’. Then add this to the ‘retained expenditure’ to calculate ‘aggregate turnover’ within LB Brent. This ‘inflow’ remains constant for all the forecast years. iv) Calculate the ‘turnover performance’ of the centres and stores within the LB Brent using typical turnovers per m2 to understand whether the Borough’s centres and stores are under-performing or over-performing. Then forecast this to 2005, 2010 and 2015, allowing for the growth in turnover efficiency (turnover per m2 sales area) needed to maintain the vitality and viability of existing retailers. v) For 2003 and each of the forecast years, calculate the difference between the ‘aggregate turnover’ in LB Brent and the ‘turnover performance’ of the stores and centres LB Brent to give a difference, which is effectively the quantitative retail capacity of LB Brent. vi) Allow for the turnover requirements from major commitments to new retail floorspace to be deducted from the difference between the ‘aggregate turnover’ in LB Brent and the ‘turnover performance’ of the stores and centres LB Brent. vii) Convert the resulting residual expenditure (that is ‘aggregate turnover’ less ‘turnover performance’, less the identified claims from commitments) to a potential sales floorspace capacity. 2 We have carefully scrutinised the LB Brent household survey results to inform our capacity study. We have divided the results into four zones, and weighted the results to provide a robust set of market shares for both comparison and convenience goods. The methodology we adopt is set out in more detail later in this note. We have included a map of the study zones we have used and our analysis of the household survey results at Appendix 3. 3 Two key sets of forecasts have been made, and these can be found in the two sets of tables at Appendix 4 (Tables 1-10) for comparison goods, and Appendix 5 (Tables 1-10) for convenience goods. Each of these two sets of forecasts of expenditure growth to 2010 and 2015 (for both goods types) are then assessed against a single scenario, which assumes a constant market shares. 4 In the remainder of this methodology note, we summarise each stage or step in the forecasts, cross referring to the relevant tables where appropriate. All monetary values are expressed in 2001 prices.
Spending pattern in 2003
5 In order to establish a pattern of spending in 2003, we used the Council’s own household survey on shopping habits, undertaken in December 2003 and January 2004. This survey was distributed through LB Brent’s Borough wide magazine to 98,000 households within the Borough, with a further 2,000 placed in the Council’s One-Stop-Shops. The survey gained a response of 675 respondents. We concentrate our analysis on the Q1 (a-c), Q2 and Q3 of the household survey. The responses to these questions assist us in understanding the shopping patterns of LB Brent residents. 6 We divided the Borough into four broad survey zones, and the details of these zones can be found in the Study Zones Plan (found at Appendix 3). Then we manually divided these responses into each of the zones, on the basis of the post code supplied when the survey was returned. The purpose of this task is to understand the shopping patterns within the Borough in more detail and to allow for the different levels of expenditure in the different parts of the Borough. 91 respondents did not supply a postcode; therefore to ensure the results are robust, we excluded these results from the assessment. This left a total of 584 respondents, which are divided across the four separate zones. The below Table 2.1 demonstrates the spread of the respondents and the percentage response rate: Table 2.1 Household survey population and respondents Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Population 70,607 58,377 77,900 56,530 Number of respondents 140 134 170 140 % response 0.20 0.23 0.22 0.25
7 We are aware that the representation level is between 0.20% and 0.25% of the population in each zone. More normally, it is accepted that 0.40% presents statistical reliability. Given this survey falls below this level, we have made allowances for potential anomalies in our weighting of the household survey results, as explained below. 8 The data from the household survey provides the shopping patterns to inform our capacity exercise. Comparison sector 9 The household survey undertaken by LB Brent asked households in the Borough which centre or store where they had spent most money on comparison purchases. This question was asked for three categories of comparison spending as follows: clothes and shoes shopping; electrical and music shopping; furniture, carpets and hardware goods. 10 The responses to these questions were allocated to specific town centers, stores and retail parks. Where the stores identified by the respondent formed part of a wider retail park, we incorporated the response into the market share for that retail park. This enables us to provide a composite market share for each of the shopping locations. The exception to this rule is the Ikea store at Brent Park, which is included as a stand alone store in the survey results. This is due to the size of the store and the regional shopping role it plays. 11 People spend different proportions of their expenditure on different comparison goods. Therefore, having assessed a market share distribution for each of the three
types of comparison purchases, we produce an overall composite comparison sector market share spending pattern on the basis of the following weighting: 62 per cent for clothes and shoes shopping;1 14 per cent for electrical and music shopping;2 14 per cent for furniture, carpets and hardware goods3 10 per cent of spending is distributed to the various centres on the basis of professional judgment, on the basis that responses to the survey questions were unlikely to reflect the total comparison spending of each household. 12 The weighting has been based on local expenditure patterns for the LB Brent as supplied by MapInfo. The questions asked in the LB Brent Household Survey (2003) do not fit exactly with comparison goods type as identified by MapInfo. Accordingly, we have estimated which MapInfo categories the LB Brent household questionnaire answers would fit into. This has been derived through a careful consideration of the proportion of expenditure traditionally apportioned to these goods and the results of other similar retail studies. 13 The composite comparison sector results are expressed in market shares in 2003, which is when the survey was undertaken. The tables which explain the process adopted in order to calculate the market shares are included at Appendix 3. Convenience sector 14 Similar principles apply to the convenience sector, except that the weighting to achieve the composite market shares is simpler, as follows: 70 per cent, for the named main food and groceries spending location; 30 per cent, for the named secondary food and groceries spending location. 15 The composite convenience sector results, as with the comparison goods, are from 2003. The tables which explain the process adopted in order to calculate the market shares are also included at Appendix 5. 16 From analysing the LB Brent household survey, we note that the convenience shopping locations identified include only named town centres or out-of-centre stores. This has meant the larger convenience supermarkets which are within a town centre are not allocated a specific market share, rather are included within the global market share for that town centre. To overcome this issue, we make allowances in our analysis of the shopping patterns as set out below. Forecasting growth in population
17 In order to project the retail capacity tables forward, the changes in population growth within the study area must to be established. The population for the four zones within the LB Brent has been identified through the use of Census data from 2001. This population must be projected forward to 2003, 2005, 2010 and 2015, and we have identified three methods for doing this, which are: Using the percentage change in population between 1991 Census data and the 2001 Census data and projecting this forward. Using Office of National Statistics (ONS) sub national population projections4. Using Greater London Authority (GLA) population projections.
1 This includes the MapInfo definition of ‘clothing and footwear’ and ‘specialist goods’ 2 This includes the MapInfo definition of ‘audio-visual equipment and other durables’ 3 This includes the MapInfo definition of ‘furniture, floor coverings and household textiles’ and ‘DIY and decorators’ supplies’ 4 www.statistics.gov.uk
18 We consider the first of these options unreliable because it will not take into account changes in circumstances, particularly in respect of migration and social trends within the LB Brent. The second of these options is the ONS sub national population projections, which currently project the population the LB Brent to decrease. We understand the LB Brent is in dispute with ONS over the accuracy of this data. Accordingly, we have not used this method of projecting the population. 19 The third option is the GLA 2005 Round Interim Demographic Projections, which were published in September 2005. These are the most up-to-date population projections and take into account a series of assumptions including the 2005 London Housing Capacity Study. Accordingly, we have these population projections for the LB Brent, given they provide the most up-to-date and robust data. The details of the population projections can be found at Table 1 of Appendix 4 and 5. Forecasting growth in expenditure
20 The retail capacity model requires the expenditure per capita to be projected forward for each of the forecast years. The per capita expenditure data for each of the two sets of forecasts – comparison goods base and convenience goods base – was supplied by MapInfo for each of the four zones. This data is from 2001 in 2001 prices. It was rolled forward to the 2003 base year position, and to the 2005, 2010 and 2015 forecast years on the basis of growth rates as set out in the MapInfo Information Brief 05/02 (September 2005). The growth rates used are as follows: comparison goods base: 9.6% real growth per annum for 2002 8.7% real growth per annum for 2003 9.3% real growth per annum for 2004 4.3% projected growth per annum for 2004-2015 convenience goods base: 1.9% real growth per annum for 2002 0.6% real growth per annum for 2003 1.6% real growth per annum for 2004 0.9% projected growth per annum for 2004-2015 21 It should be noted that the latest MapInfo local expenditure information is not yet available. Therefore we have used the latest available information from 2001. However, we are also using the latest MapInfo growth rates (published in September 2005), which have taken into account some alterations to the National Accounts. Therefore when the updated local expenditure data is published by MapInfo, it is likely the base expenditure data we have used will be altered slightly. We do not anticipate this will significantly alter the bottom line in terms on retail capacity, but it may mean it will need to be adjusted up or down slightly. 22 The resultant per capita spending levels for each of the two forecast scenarios can be found at Table 2 of both Appendix 4 and 5. 23 In order to ensure the expenditure forecasts are robust, we have deducted a proportion of this expenditure to allow for Special Forms of Trading (SFT), which is essentially the proportion expenditure which is spent elsewhere (i.e. not in shops), traditionally either online or through mail order. The percentage deductions we have used are as follows: comparison goods base: 6.0% for 2003 6.0% for 2005 10.0% for 2010 12.0% for 2015 convenience goods base: 0.9% for 2003 1.0% for 2005 1.1% for 2010
1.2% for 2015 24 The deductions for SFT are estimates based on a variety of recent published economic forecasts. However, this is a particularly sensitive and controversial topic, and therefore to ensure we are transparent and robust, we have incorporated recent published trends to form an informed estimate as detailed above. 25 The projected per capita spending levels (including the deduction for SFT) are then applied to the population forecasts for each of the four zones to calculate ‘LB Brent expenditure’ in each of the forecast years. The overall expenditure pots for both comparison and convenience goods can be found in Table 3 of both Appendix 4 and 5. Market shares 2003
26 The market shares calculated within the LB Household Survey exercise are applied to the ‘LB Brent expenditure’ to calculate the spending pattern within the LB Brent in 2003 (the year the survey was undertaken). The market shares for both comparison and convenience goods are reproduced at Table 4 of both Appendix 4 and 5. 27 The market shares are applied to the ‘LB Brent expenditure’ to produce a detailed spending pattern for the LB Brent. The results for the monetary spending patterns are set out in Table 5 in both Appendix 4 and 5 (comparison and convenience goods). 28 It is fully appreciated that some of the centres identified in the household survey straddle the LB Brent boundary and lie partly within LB Harrow, LB Barnet and LB Camden. For the purpose of this report we have assumed all such centres are treated as centres within LB Brent. It is obvious that shoppers shop in the whole of a centre and pay no regard to borough boundaries. The results of the LB Brent survey provide a detailed picture of how expenditure by borough residents is spent across all centres, whether entirely or partially within the borough boundary. For cross- boundary centres we have made realistic assumptions, as explained below, as to expenditure derived from residents in adjoining boroughs. 29 We discuss the spending patterns for comparison and convenience goods bases below. Comparison goods 30 Table 5 of Appendix 4 (comparison goods) reveals that £377.2m of the overall goods based comparison expenditure of the residents of the LB Brent falls within stores and centres within the Borough. The remainder of the money is spent outside the Borough. This result confirms an overall retention rate of 41.1%. 31 In order to calculate the ‘aggregate turnover’ within LB Brent, we have estimated the proportion of expenditure for each centre (or store) which is generated within the LB Brent. We can then calculate ‘inflow’ for each centre and (store), which is expenditure from beyond the LB Brent borough boundary, and flows into the Borough. RTP estimate this ‘inflow’ through a detailed and careful consideration of the geography of each centre together with its role within the shopping hierarchy. 32 For example a local centre within the centre of the LB Brent is unlikely to generate a proportion of expenditure from beyond the Borough boundary; however a centre on the edge of the Borough such as Kenton might generate some 50% of its turnover from beyond the borough boundary. In respect of individual stores we also consider their location, together with their floorspace to estimate ‘inflow’. 33 Traditionally, inflow is not used in the calculation of retail capacity. However a calculation of this ‘inflow’ is necessary with this study because the catchment area of the study is restricted to the Borough boundary (due to the 2003 household
survey). Also London shopping patterns are typically dynamic due to excellent transport links and commuting patterns. This means LB Brent residents can easily travel to different parts of the city to undertake their shopping. 34 The calculation of the ‘inflow’ means it is possible to calculate the ‘aggregate turnover’ within the LB Brent in 2003, which is ‘retained expenditure’ plus ‘inflow’. In 2003 the ‘aggregate turnover’ for LB Brent is £693.9m. Convenience goods 35 Table 5 of Appendix 5 reveals that £388.0m of the aggregate goods based convenience expenditure of the residents of the LB Brent is spent in centres/stores located within the LB Brent. This result confirms an overall retention rate of 76.4%. 36 A calculation of ‘inflow’ is also adopted in respect of the convenience goods shopping pattern in order to provide a robust ‘aggregate turnover’ figure. The approach adopted is identical to that of the comparison goods exercise as detailed above. 37 We calculate the ‘aggregate turnover’ for comparison goods within LB Brent to be £557.1m. Turnover performance of centres & stores within LB Brent
38 In order to understand the relative performance of the centres and stores within the LB Brent, we calculate the turnover performance in 2003 of these centres and stores. We undertake this exercise separately for comparison and convenience goods and the results can be found at Table 6 in both Appendix 4 and 5. Comparison goods 39 For comparison goods, we establish the gross floorspace for each centre using a variety of sources as follows: Experian GOAD; LB Brent surveys; Store Point database from ORC Services (for the supermarkets); Other retail studies; RTP estimates. 40 We then apply a gross to net ratio of 65:35 to calculate the net comparison floorspace for each centre or store. We note that three supermarkets are showing as having a market share for comparison goods; these stores are Asda (Wembley Park), Asda (Colindale) and Tesco (Brent Park). To calculate the net comparison floorspace of these stores, we have applied the food/non-food ratio as identified for these operators as identified in Verdict Grocery Retailers 2005. This publication provides the average proportion of floorspace in a supermarket devoted to non-food items. We have assumed these stores have no restrictions on the amount of floorspace they can devote to non-food goods, and accord to the company average. 41 The floorspace of five centres has been calculated through a combination of the LB Brent town centre survey (2005) and our own survey work. The LB Brent town centre survey measured the width of each unit within these centres, and RTP estimated the depth of each unit through visits to the centres. This gives an effective ‘net’ floorspace, and accordingly we have treated this floorspace as net within our calculations. 42 It should be noted that the floorspace cited is the floorspace for the entire centre, rather than just the LB Brent side of the centre (where this occurs).
43 We have allowed for a 2,000 m2 (gross) in the “Other” category, which accounts for other stores within the Borough boundary. These might be either stand alone stores outside designated centres, or stores within the Local Centres which have not been individually identified in the household survey. 44 Once the net floorspace for each centre and store is established, we apply an indicative turnover per m2 (floorspace density) to that floorspace. The floorspace density we use for each centre and store is an RTP estimate which considers the role of each centre and the type of shops. The floorspace density we have used for comparison goods floorspace is set out in the below table: Table 2.2 Benchmark turnover per m2 for comparison goods floorspace Centre function Benchmark turnover per m2 (£) Major 5,000 Retail Park 4,000 Main District 4,000 Other District 3,800 All other 3,600
45 The resultant number provides us with a typical turnover of all the centres and stores within the LB Brent. The comparison turnover of all LB Brent centres (including cross-boundary centres in full) and stores in 2003 was £566.3m and compared to the aggregate comparison turnover within the LB Brent of £693.9m, this leaves a difference of £127.6m. Convenience goods 46 For convenience goods, a similar approach is undertaken to establish the floorspace within the Borough, and a net floorspace figure for each store and centre is established. 47 We have sourced floorspace through Experian GOAD, Store Point, and out own surveys. The Store Point data for foodstores is provided as gross sales area, which excludes storage areas but includes checkouts, circulation space, and toilet facilities. Accordingly, to provide a true net sales floorspace for the foodstores, we have applied a gross to net ratio of 85:15. In respect of the Experian GOAD data we have applied a gross to net ratio of 65:35 to obtain a net sales floorspace, and as explained above in paragraph 41 the data we have obtained through our own surveys is considered to be as net sales floorspace. 48 In respect of the floorspace density for named traders we have used Retail Rankings floorspace densities in 2001 prices. For the remainder of convenience floorspace in the centres we have used a RTP estimate of typical floorspace densities for convenience outlets based on the size and role of the centres. This is set out in the below table: Table 2.3 Benchmark turnover per m2 for convenience goods floorspace Centre function Benchmark turnover per m2 (£) Major 6,000 Main District 5,000 Other District 4,500 All other 4,000
49 However, in respect of the above approach, there are two anomalies. The first anomaly concerns those centres which include supermarkets that have not been
included separately within in the market share analysis (due to the LB Brent household survey including such stores within the global market share for that centre). Therefore to ensure we have used a realistic floorspace density for these centres, we have combined the published 2005 Retail Rankings floorspace densities (in 2001 prices) for the named food stores in the centres, and combined this with the RTP estimates (as detailed in Table 2.3 above) for the remainder of the floorspace to calculate a composite floorspace density. 50 The second anomaly concerns the Safeway store in Honeypot Lane. At the time the survey was undertaken the store was still trading as a Safeway, however we understand this store is now a Morrisons store. To ensure the consistency in this study we have used the floorspace density for a Safeway store. 51 We have allowed for a 1,000 m2 in the “Other Local Shops” category, which accounts for other stores within the Borough boundary. These might be either stand alone stores outside designated centres, or stores within the Local Centres which have not been individually identified in the household survey. 52 The LB Brent centres and stores convenience turnover performance in 2003 was £516.0m and compared to the aggregate convenience expenditure within the LB Brent of £557.1m, this leaves a difference of £41.1m. Assessment of capacity
Spending patterns in 2005, 2010 & 2015 53 In order to calculate the capacity, if any, for additional retail floorspace in LB Brent over the study period, we have projected the 2003 spending patterns to 2005, 2010 and 2015 in order to calculate the capacity at those dates. These calculations are based on changes in population and expenditure as detailed in Tables 1 and 2 (Appendix 4 and 5). We have retained constant market shares throughout the study period and assumed the inflow to remain the same. The spending patterns for the forecast years can be found in Tables 7, 8 and 9 (Appendix 4 and 5) which provide the data for comparison and convenience goods base. 54 Once we have established the ‘aggregate turnover’ in each of the forecast years, we then deduct the following: The turnover of existing floorspace of the centre and stores in the LB Brent, plus the growth in turnover efficiency (turnover per m2 sales area) needed to maintain the vitality and viability of existing retailers. The turnover requirements of the major retail commitments which exist both within and outside the Borough boundary. 55 Our detailed analysis of each category of goods is set out below. Comparison sector 56 For comparison goods we establish the ‘aggregate turnover’ for 2005, 2010 and 2015. We then allow for a real growth in the turnover efficiency (turnover per unit sales area) of existing retailers of 2.25 per cent per annum. This means the turnover of the LB Brent centres and stores is grown to 2005, 2010 and 2015. 57 Next we make an allowance for the comparison commitments located within the LB Brent. These comprise: Land adjoining National Stadium, Wembley (‘Wembley Quintain’). The gross comparison floorspace element of this scheme is 32,400 m2. We assume that this floorspace will be open and trading by 2010 and therefore has a claim on the capacity for this year.
LDA Scheme, Wembley (‘Wembley LDA’). The gross comparison element of this scheme is 3,476 m2. We assume this floorspace will be open and trading by 2010. Wembley Central Square, Wembley Town Centre (‘Wembley Central Square’). The gross comparison floorspace of this scheme is 7,759 m2. We understand that building work will commence shortly on this scheme and therefore we assume this floorspace will be open and trading by 2010. Extension to Ikea store, Brent Park (‘Ikea extension’). The gross comparison floorspace of this scheme is 1,608 m2. We understand construction work on this extension will be commencing shortly, and therefore we assume this floorspace will be open and trading by 2010. 58 We estimate the total turnover of these commitments within the LB Brent using a RTP turnover per m2 estimate allowing for the type of unit proposed and its location. For the three main commitments, we have used a likely turnover per m2 of £6,000. We consider this is appropriate given the timescale of when the floorspace will be open and the prominent location of the proposals in Wembley town centre and adjacent to the National Stadium. We consider this floorspace is likely to trade particularly successfully. For the Ikea store, we have used the current published turnover for Ikea from Retail Rankings (2005). Whilst traditionally we would not use such a high turnover for a store extension, we understand the store trades very successfully, and therefore we consider this is appropriate. 59 We are aware that the Wembley Quintain scheme proposes some 14,200 m2 of designer outlets, and the planning permission for the scheme restricts the use of these units to such outlets by means of condition. Therefore, the reality of this element of the floorspace is that it will act as a regional shopping destination and will draw much of it’s expenditure from outside the LB Brent. However, the methodology of this capacity assessment relies on inflow to justify the capacity for the LB Brent. Therefore the entire turnover of this floorspace must be deducted from the aggregate turnover within the LB Brent to avoid effectively double counting. 60 We then make allowances for development commitments (planning permissions) which are located outside the Borough boundary, but will nevertheless be expected to draw some trade for LB Brent residents. The main commitment outside the LB Brent which needs to be considered is: White City Centre5. The gross comparison floorspace of is 78,000 m2. We understand the estimated commencement of the initial phase of this development is 2006 and we have assumed that this floorspace will be open and trading by 2010. 61 We also understand that Brent Cross shopping centre is likely to be expanded, and a planning application for its extension is imminent. The likely gross comparison floorspace of the Brent Cross extension will be 55,000 m2. This scheme does not yet benefit from planning permission. Therefore, we have produced a two sets of summary tables (Table 10a and 10b at Appendix 4), which gives the situation with and without Brent Cross. In our assessment of the capacity position in Section 7 of the main report, we investigate this situation in more detail. 62 In respect of the commitments outside the LB Brent, we first assess their overall turnover, based on a typical floorspace density and then we estimate the proportion of their overall turnover which will be drawn from LB Brent residents. This gives us a resultant claim on expenditure.
5 The floorspace is taken from the West London draft Sub Regional Framework for West London
63 We understand that some of these commitments will be open and trading by 2010, with the remainder being open and trading by 2015. Accordingly our assessment deducts the relevant turnover generated from these commitments from the residual expenditure at 2010 and 2015 where appropriate, and provides a resultant spare capacity. In 2015 it is logical to expect that new floorspace which opened before 2010 will still be trading, so we apply an increase in floorspace efficiency of 2.25% per annum as we do with the existing floorspace. 64 We can now identify the spare comparison capacity for each of the forecast years, which for 2005 is £212.4m, 2010 it is £133.2m and 2015 it is £289.3m. This process can be found at the bottom of tables 7, 8 and 9 at Appendix 4. Convenience sector 65 The same principles apply to the convenience sector capacity analysis, and in the first instance we project the ‘aggregate turnover’ to 2005, 2010 and 2015. So far as the claims on expenditure are concerned, the main difference for the convenience sector compared to the comparison sector is that we make a reduced allowance for the growth in turnover efficiency of existing retailers of 0.75 per cent per annum, which takes into account the lower overall projected growth per capita expenditure on convenience goods, compared to the comparison goods sector. 66 The convenience sector commitments within the LB Brent are as follows: Land adjoining National Stadium, Wembley (‘Wembley Quintain’). The gross convenience floorspace element of this scheme is 2,000 m2. We assume all of this floorspace will be trading before 2010 and therefore has a claim on the capacity for this year. LDA Scheme, Wembley (‘Wembley LDA’). The gross comparison element of this scheme is 600 m2. We assume this floorspace will be open and trading by 2010. Wembley Central Square, Wembley Town Centre (‘Wembley Central Square’). The gross comparison floorspace of this scheme is 2,891 m2. We understand that building work will commence shortly on this scheme and therefore we assume this floorspace will be open and trading by 2010. 67 These are identical to the comparison commitments, because each scheme includes a modest convenience element. We have used a likely turnover per m2 of £10,000. 68 We understand all these commitments will be open and trading by 2010, and accordingly our assessment deducts this turnover from the spare capacity at 2010, and provides a resultant spare capacity. In 2015 it is logical to expect that this new floorspace will still be trading, so we apply an increase in floorspace efficiency of 0.75% per annum as we do with the existing floorspace. 69 We can now identify the spare convenience capacity for each of the forecast years, which for 2005 is £56.5m, 2010 it is £40.3m and 2015 it is £74.2m. This process can be found at the bottom of tables 7, 8 and 9 at Appendix 5. Converting residual expenditure into floorspace requirements
70 Table 10 from Appendix 4 and 5 draw together the findings for the comparison and convenience expenditure scenarios and converts the residual expenditure surpluses/deficits into theoretical floorspace requirements/over-supply. For each of the scenarios (comparison and convenience) one forecast has been produced – using the goods base. This forecast is included at each year. 71 In order to convert this surplus expenditure into floorspace capacity we have adopted the following sales density assumptions for 2003:
Comparison goods - £5,300 per square metre retail floorspace6; Convenience goods - £9,030 per square metre retail floorspace7. 72 We have then grown this sales density assumption by 2.25% and 0.75% per year for comparison and convenience sectors respectfully. 73 For the comparison sector we have two sets of floorspace requirements, one assuming the Brent Cross extension does not go ahead, and one assuming the extension does go ahead. The net floorspace requirement in 2003 and 2005 is 24,077 m2 and 38,333 m2 respectfully. This floorspace requirement is the same for both sets of forecasts, but is largely absorbed by the major retail commitments in the pipeline. In 2010 and (excluding any deduction for the Brent Cross extension), this net requirement reduces to 21,508 m2 in 2010 and 41,791 m2 in 2015 as the various commitments are completed and begin trading. However, if the Brent Cross extension proceeds the net requirement is 14,004 m2 in 2010 and 34,287 m2 in 2015. 74 For the convenience sector, the net floorspace requirement in 2003 and 2005 is 4,553 m2 and 6,160 m2 respectfully. However, this need is absorbed by the major retail commitments in the pipeline. In 2010, this net requirement reduces to 4,232 m2 in 2010 and 7,516 m2 in 2015 as the various commitments are completed and begin trading. 75 It should be carefully noted that the above identified need includes all cross- boundary centres in full. Therefore some on these floorspace requirements could legitimately be accommodated outside the LB Brent. We have discussed where this floorspace should be directed to in more detail in Chapter 7.
6 The comparison sales densities applied reflect the wide range of values which may be exhibited within the comparison sectors and by individual retail units operated by specific operators. 7The convenience sales densities applied are the average of the top five convenience retailers in the UK (less petrol sales) in 2001 prices.
APPENDIX 3
HOUSEHOLD SURVEY RESULTS
Comparison goods household survey tables
BRENT HOUSEHOLD SURVEY 2003
RTP Analysis of Results Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 (no.) (%) (no.) (%) (no.) (%) (no.) (%) CLOTHES AND SHOES MARKET SHARES
Zone 1 Olympic Retail Park (Wembley) 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Wembley Park Retail Park (Wembley) 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Alperton Retail Park 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Wembley Town Centre 25 17.9 8 6.0 5 2.9 17 12.1 Ealing Road Town Centre 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Other in Zone 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Zone 2 Asda (Wembley Park) 6 4.3 7 5.2 1 0.6 2 1.4 Asda (Colindale) 0 0.0 4 3.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Burnt Oak Town Centre 0 0.0 5 3.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 Kenton Town Centre 0 0.0 2 1.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 Preston Road Town Centre 2 1.4 2 1.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 Colindale Town Centre 0 0.0 2 1.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 Kingsbury Town Centre 0 0.0 4 3.0 1 0.6 0 0.0 Other in Zone 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Zone 3 Cricklewood Town Centre 0 0.0 1 0.7 5 2.9 0 0.0 Willesden Town Centre 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.2 0 0.0 Kilburn Town Centre 1 0.7 2 1.5 32 18.8 9 6.4 Other in Zone 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Zone 4 Tesco (Brent Park) 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Ikea (Brent Park) 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Neasden Town Centre 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.6 1 0.7 Harlesden Town Centre 0 0.0 1 0.7 2 1.2 12 8.6 Kensal Rise Town Centre 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.7 Other in Zone 4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Total Zones 1-4 34 24.3 38 28.4 49 28.8 42 30.0
Outside Catchment Area Tesco (Brent Cross) 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Asda (Park Royal) 4 2.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.4 Sainsburys (Ladbroke Grove) 1 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Staples Corner Retail Park 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Central London 11 7.9 8 6.0 41 24.1 28 20.0 Brent Cross 30 21.4 34 25.4 55 32.4 42 30.0 Watford Town Centre 1 0.7 3 2.2 2 1.2 1 0.7 Ealing Broadway Town Centre 4 2.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 3.6 Finchley Road Town Centre 1 0.7 0 0.0 3 1.8 0 0.0 Harrow Town Centre 40 28.6 39 29.1 3 1.8 7 5.0 Internet/Mail Order/Catalogue 9 6.4 8 6.0 9 5.3 8 5.7 Others outside catchment area 5 3.6 4 3.0 8 4.7 5 3.6
Total Outside Zones 1-4 106 75.7 96 71.6 121 71.2 98 70.0
Grand Total 140 100.0 134.0 100.0 170 100.0 140 100.0
Total Number of Respondents 584 Comparison goods household survey tables
BRENT HOUSEHOLD SURVEY 2003
RTP Analysis of Results Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 (no.) (%) (no.) (%) (no.) (%) (no.) (%) ELECTRICAL & MUSIC MARKET SHARE
Zone 1 Olympic Retail Park (Wembley) 5 3.6 5 3.7 3 1.8 2 1.4 Wembley Park Retail Park (Wembley) 12 8.6 11 8.2 2 1.2 7 5.0 Alperton Retail Park 17 12.1 2 1.5 2 1.2 0 0.0 Wembley Town Centre 18 12.9 13 9.7 0 0.0 9 6.4 Ealing Road Town Centre 2 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.7 Other Zone 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Zone 2 Asda (Wembley Park) 9 6.4 8 6.0 6 3.5 2 1.4 Asda (Colindale) 0 0.0 9 6.7 1 0.6 0 0.0 Burnt Oak Town Centre 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Kenton Town Centre 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 Preston Road Town Centre 0 0.0 3 2.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 Colindale Town Centre 0 0.0 3 2.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 Kingsbury Town Centre 0 0.0 5 3.7 1 0.6 0 0.0 Other in Zone 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Zone 3 Cricklewood Town Centre 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.2 0 0.0 Willesden Town Centre 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 1.8 0 0.0 Kilburn Town Centre 0 0.0 0 0.0 35 20.6 7 5.0 Other in Zone 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Zone 4 Tesco (Brent Park) 1 0.7 0 0.0 2 1.2 6 4.3 Ikea (Brent Park) 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Neasden Town Centre 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.6 0 0.0 Harlesden Town Centre 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 6.4 Kensal Rise Town Centre 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Other in Zone 4 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.6 0 0.0
Total Zones 1-4 64 45.7 60 44.8 59 34.7 43 30.7
Outside Catchment Area Tesco (Brent Cross) 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.6 3 2.1 Asda (Park Royal) 3 2.1 0 0.0 4 2.4 4 2.9 Sainsburys (Ladbroke Grove) 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Staples Corner Retail Park 1 0.7 1 0.7 5 2.9 1 0.7 Central London 8 5.7 2 1.5 26 15.3 26 18.6 Brent Cross 28 20.0 26 19.4 47 27.6 33 23.6 Watford Town Centre 0 0.0 6 4.5 2 1.2 0 0.0 Ealing Broadway Town Centre 1 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.4 Finchley Road Town Centre 0 0.0 1 0.7 1 0.6 0 0.0 Harrow Town Centre 24 17.1 19 14.2 2 1.2 2 1.4 Internet/Mail Order/Catalogue 7 5.0 13 9.7 16 9.4 17 12.1 Others outside catchment area 4 2.9 6 4.5 7 4.1 9 6.4
Total Outside Zones 1-4 76 54.3 74 55.2 111 65.3 97 69.3
Grand Total 140 100.0 134 100.0 170 100.0 140 100.0 Comparison goods household survey tables
BRENT HOUSEHOLD SURVEY 2003
RTP Analysis of Results Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 (no.) (%) (no.) (%) (no.) (%) (no.) (%) FURNITURE/CARPETS/HARDWARE MARKET SHARE
Zone 1 Olympic Retail Park (Wembley) 36 25.7 12 9.0 7 4.1 8 5.7 Wembley Park Retail Park (Wembley) 1 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Alperton Retail Park 4 2.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.7 Wembley Town Centre 15 10.7 6 4.5 2 1.2 8 5.7 Ealing Road Town Centre 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Other in Zone 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Zone 2 Asda (Wembley Park) 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Asda (Colindale) 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Burnt Oak Town Centre 0 0.0 4 3.0 1 0.6 0 0.0 Kenton Town Centre 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 Preston Road Town Centre 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Colindale Town Centre 1 0.7 13 9.7 1 0.6 3 2.1 Kingsbury Town Centre 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 Other in Zone 2 1 0.7 1 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0
Zone 3 Cricklewood Town Centre 0 0.0 4 3.0 11 6.5 0 0.0 Willesden Town Centre 1 0.7 0 0.0 7 4.1 0 0.0 Kilburn Town Centre 0 0.0 0 0.0 13 7.6 10 7.1 Other in Zone 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.6 0 0.0
Zone 4 Tesco (Brent Park) 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Ikea (Brent Park) 30 21.4 30 22.4 42 24.7 45 32.1 Neasden Town Centre 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.6 0 0.0 Harlesden Town Centre 1 0.7 2 1.5 3 1.8 13 9.3 Kensal Rise Town Centre 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Other in Zone 4 0 0.0 4 3.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Total Zones 1-4 90 64.3 78 58.2 89 52.4 88 62.9
Outside Catchment Area Tesco (Brent Cross) 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Asda (Park Royal) 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Sainsburys (Ladbroke Grove) 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Staples Corner Retail Park 0 0.0 1 0.7 1 0.6 1 0.7 Central London 5 3.6 2 1.5 21 12.4 11 7.9 Brent Cross 20 14.3 22 16.4 35 20.6 13 9.3 Watford Town Centre 1 0.7 6 4.5 1 0.6 1 0.7 Ealing Broadway Town Centre 3 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Finchley Road Town Centre 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 1.8 0 0.0 Harrow Town Centre 9 6.4 8 6.0 2 1.2 2 1.4 Internet/Mail Order/Catalogue 5 3.6 9 6.7 10 5.9 10 7.1 Others outside catchment area 7 5.0 8 6.0 8 4.7 14 10.0
Total Outside Zones 1-4 50 35.7 56 41.8 81 47.6 52 37.1
Grand Total 140 100.0 134 100.0 170 100.0 140 100.0 Comparison goods household survey tables
BRENT HOUSEHOLD SURVEY 2003
RTP Analysis of Results Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 (no.) (%) (no.) (%) (no.) (%) (no.) (%) CLOTHES AND SHOES MARKET SHARES (Weighted at 62%) 0.62 Zone 1 Olympic Retail Park (Wembley) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wembley Park Retail Park (Wembley) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Alperton Retail Park 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wembley Town Centre 11.0 3.7 1.8 7.5 Ealing Road Town Centre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other in Zone 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Zone 2 Asda (Wembley Park) 2.6 3.2 0.4 0.9 Asda (Colindale) 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 Burnt Oak Town Centre 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 Kenton Town Centre 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 Preston Road Town Centre 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 Colindale Town Centre 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 Kingsbury Town Centre 0.0 1.8 0.4 0.0 Other in Zone 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Zone 3 Cricklewood Town Centre 0.0 0.5 1.8 0.0 Willesden Town Centre 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 Kilburn Town Centre 0.4 0.9 11.6 4.0 Other in Zone 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Zone 4 Tesco (Brent Park) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ikea (Brent Park) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Neasden Town Centre 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 Harlesden Town Centre 0.0 0.5 0.7 5.3 Kensal Rise Town Centre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 Other in Zone 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Zones 1-4 15.0 17.5 17.8 18.5
Outside Catchment Area Tesco (Brent Cross) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Asda (Park Royal) 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.9 Sainsburys (Ladbroke Grove) 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Staples Corner Retail Park 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Central London 4.9 3.7 14.9 12.4 Brent Cross 13.2 15.7 20.0 18.5 Watford Town Centre 0.4 1.4 0.7 0.4 Ealing Broadway Town Centre 1.8 0.0 0.0 2.2 Finchley Road Town Centre 0.4 0.0 1.1 0.0 Harrow Town Centre 17.7 18.0 1.1 3.1 Internet/Mail Order/Catalogue 4.0 3.7 3.3 3.5 Others outside catchment area 2.2 1.8 2.9 2.2
Total Outside Zones 1-4 46.8 44.3 44.0 43.3
Grand Total 61.8 61.8 61.8 61.8 Comparison goods household survey tables
BRENT HOUSEHOLD SURVEY 2003
RTP Analysis of Results Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 (no.) (%) (no.) (%) (no.) (%) (no.) (%) ELECTRICAL & MUSIC MARKET SHARE (Weighted at 14%) 0.14 Zone 1 Olympic Retail Park (Wembley) 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 Wembley Park Retail Park (Wembley) 1.2 1.1 0.2 0.7 Alperton Retail Park 1.7 0.2 0.2 0.0 Wembley Town Centre 1.8 1.3 0.0 0.9 Ealing Road Town Centre 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 Other in Zone 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Zone 2 Asda (Wembley Park) 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.2 Asda (Colindale) 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.0 Burnt Oak Town Centre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kenton Town Centre 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Preston Road Town Centre 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 Colindale Town Centre 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 Kingsbury Town Centre 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 Other in Zone 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Zone 3 Cricklewood Town Centre 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 Willesden Town Centre 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 Kilburn Town Centre 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.7 Other in Zone 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Zone 4 Tesco (Brent Park) 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.6 Ikea (Brent Park) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Neasden Town Centre 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Harlesden Town Centre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 Kensal Rise Town Centre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other in Zone 4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Total Zones 1-4 6.4 6.2 4.8 4.3
Outside Catchment Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tesco (Brent Cross) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 Asda (Park Royal) 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.4 Sainsburys (Ladbroke Grove) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Staples Corner Retail Park 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 Central London 0.8 0.2 2.1 2.6 Brent Cross 2.8 2.7 3.8 3.3 Watford Town Centre 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.0 Ealing Broadway Town Centre 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 Finchley Road Town Centre 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Harrow Town Centre 2.4 2.0 0.2 0.2 Internet/Mail Order/Catalogue 0.7 1.3 1.3 1.7 Others outside catchment area 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.9
Total Outside Zones 1-4 7.5 7.7 9.1 9.6
Grand Total 13.9 13.9 13.9 13.9 Comparison goods household survey tables
BRENT HOUSEHOLD SURVEY 2003
RTP Analysis of Results Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 (no.) (%) (no.) (%) (no.) (%) (no.) (%) FURNITURE/CARPETS/HARDWARE MARKET SHARE (Weighted at 14%) 0.14 Zone 1 Olympic Retail Park (Wembley) 3.7 1.3 0.6 0.8 Wembley Park Retail Park (Wembley) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Alperton Retail Park 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 Wembley Town Centre 1.5 0.6 0.2 0.8 Ealing Road Town Centre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other in Zone 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Zone 2 Asda (Wembley Park) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Asda (Colindale) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Burnt Oak Town Centre 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 Kenton Town Centre 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Preston Road Town Centre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Colindale Town Centre 0.1 1.4 0.1 0.3 Kingsbury Town Centre 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Other in Zone 2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0
Zone 3 Cricklewood Town Centre 0.0 0.4 0.9 0.0 Willesden Town Centre 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 Kilburn Town Centre 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.0 Other in Zone 3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Zone 4 Tesco (Brent Park) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ikea (Brent Park) 3.1 3.2 3.5 4.6 Neasden Town Centre 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Harlesden Town Centre 0.1 0.2 0.3 1.3 Kensal Rise Town Centre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other in Zone 4 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0
Total Zones 1-4 9.2 8.3 7.5 9.0
Outside Catchment Area Tesco (Brent Cross) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Asda (Park Royal) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sainsburys (Ladbroke Grove) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Staples Corner Retail Park 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 Central London 0.5 0.2 1.8 1.1 Brent Cross 2.0 2.3 2.9 1.3 Watford Town Centre 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.1 Ealing Broadway Town Centre 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Finchley Road Town Centre 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 Harrow Town Centre 0.9 0.9 0.2 0.2 Internet/Mail Order/Catalogue 0.5 1.0 0.8 1.0 Others outside catchment area 0.7 0.9 0.7 1.4
Total Outside Zones 1-4 5.1 6.0 6.8 5.3
Grand Total 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 Comparison goods household survey tables
BRENT HOUSEHOLD SURVEY 2003
RTP Analysis of Results Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 (no.) (%) (no.) (%) (no.) (%) (no.) (%) COMPOSITE COMPARISON MARKET SHARES
Zone 1 Olympic Retail Park (Wembley) 6.2 1.8 0.8 1.0 Wembley Park Retail Park (Wembley) 1.8 1.1 0.2 0.7 Alperton Retail Park 2.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 Wembley Town Centre 14.4 5.7 2.0 9.2 Ealing Road Town Centre 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 Other in Zone 1 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0
Zone 2 Asda (Wembley Park) 3.5 4.1 0.9 1.1 Asda (Colindale) 0.0 2.8 0.1 0.0 Burnt Oak Town Centre 0.0 6.2 0.1 0.0 Kenton Town Centre 1.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 Preston Road Town Centre 1.9 1.2 0.0 0.0 Colindale Town Centre 0.1 2.6 0.1 0.3 Kingsbury Town Centre 1.0 4.0 0.4 0.0 Other in Zone 2 0.1 1.6 0.0 0.0
Zone 3 Cricklewood Town Centre 0.0 0.9 8.9 0.0 Willesden Town Centre 0.1 0.0 3.6 3.0 Kilburn Town Centre 0.4 0.9 15.6 5.7 Other in Zone 3 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0
Zone 4 Tesco (Brent Park) 0.1 0.5 0.2 2.6 Ikea (Brent Park) 3.1 3.2 3.5 4.6 Neasden Town Centre 0.0 0.5 1.5 0.9 Harlesden Town Centre 0.1 0.7 1.0 11.0 Kensal Rise Town Centre 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.4 Other in Zone 4 0.0 0.4 0.1 1.0
Total Zones 1-4 40.6 42.1 40.1 41.8
Outside Catchment Area Tesco (Brent Cross) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 Asda (Park Royal) 2.1 0.0 0.3 1.3 Sainsburys (Ladbroke Grove) 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Staples Corner Retail Park 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.2 Central London 6.2 4.1 18.8 16.1 Brent Cross 18.1 20.7 26.8 23.1 Watford Town Centre 0.5 2.6 1.0 0.5 Ealing Broadway Town Centre 2.2 0.0 0.0 2.4 Finchley Road Town Centre 0.4 0.1 1.4 0.0 Harrow Town Centre 21.0 20.8 1.4 3.5 Internet/Mail Order/Catalogue 5.2 6.0 5.4 6.2 Others outside catchment area 3.3 3.3 4.2 4.5
Total Outside Zones 1-4 59.4 57.9 59.9 58.2
Grand Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Notes: 10 per cent of spending has been distributed to the various centres on the basis of professional judgment, on the ground that responses to the survey questions were unlikely to reflect the total comparison spending of each household Convenience goods household survey tables
BRENT HOUSEHOLD SURVEY 2003
RTP Analysis of Results Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 (no.) (%) (no.) (%) (no.) (%) (no.) (%) MAIN FOOD SHOP MARKET SHARES
Zone 1 Sainsburys (Alperton) 23 16.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.7 Lidl (Wembley Park) 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 2.9 Wembley Town Centre 11 7.9 4 3.0 0 0.0 5 3.6 Ealing Road Town Centre 3 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Sudbury Town Centre 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Other Local Shops in Zone 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Zone 2 Safeway (Honeypot Lane) 0 0.0 6 4.5 1 0.6 0 0.0 Asda (Wembley Park) 51 36.4 39 29.1 18 10.6 12 8.6 Asda (Colindale) 2 1.4 22 16.4 3 1.8 0 0.0 Lidl (Blackbird Hill) 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.6 2 1.4 Burnt Oak Town Centre 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 Kenton Town Centre 10 7.1 28 20.9 1 0.6 0 0.0 Preston Road Town Centre 2 1.4 4 3.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Colindale Town Centre 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Kingsbury Town Centre 0 0.0 6 4.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 Other Local Shops in Zone 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Zone 3 Cricklewood Town Centre 0 0.0 0 0.0 11 6.5 0 0.0 Willesden Town Centre 0 0.0 0 0.0 25 14.7 3 2.1 Kilburn Town Centre 0 0.0 0 0.0 33 19.4 2 1.4 Queens Park Town Centre 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Other Local Shops in Zone 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Zone 4 Tesco (Brent Park) 16 11.4 1 0.7 22 12.9 25 17.9 Neasden Town Centre 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.6 0 0.0 Harlesden Town Centre 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 20 14.3 Church End Town Centre 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Kensal Rise Town Centre 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Other Local Shops in Zone 4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Total Zones 1-4 118 84.3 111 82.8 116 68.2 74 52.9
Outside Catchment Area Tesco (Brent Cross) 0 0.0 0 0.0 7 4.1 2 1.4 Sainsburys (Colindale) 0 0.0 11 8.2 2 1.2 0 0.0 Tesco (Western Avenue/Perivale) 4 2.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Asda (Park Royal) 9 6.4 0 0.0 5 2.9 23 16.4 Sainsburys (Ladbroke Grove) 0 0.0 0 0.0 16 9.4 30 21.4 Brent Cross 2 1.4 2 1.5 7 4.1 3 2.1 Finchley Road Town Centre 1 0.7 0 0.0 13 7.6 1 0.7 Harrow Town Centre 3 2.1 3 2.2 0 0.0 1 0.7 Perivale Town Centre 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Edgware Town Centre 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Internet 0 0.0 1 0.7 1 0.6 0 0.0 Others outside catchment area 3 2.1 6 4.5 3 1.8 6 4.3
Total Outside Zones 1-4 22 15.7 23 17.2 54 31.8 66 47.1
Grand Total 140 100 134 100 170 100 140 100
Total Number of Respondents 584 Convenience goods household survey tables
BRENT HOUSEHOLD SURVEY 2003
RTP Analysis of Results Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 (no.) (%) (no.) (%) (no.) (%) (no.) (%) TOP-UP FOOD SHOP MARKET SHARES
Zone 1 Sainsburys (Alperton) 4 3.6 1 0.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 Lidl (Wembley Park) 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.8 Wembley Town Centre 46 41.8 6 5.5 1 0.7 8 6.5 Ealing Road Town Centre 10 9.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.6 Sudbury Town Centre 8 7.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Other Local Shops in Zone 1 2 1.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Zone 2 Safeway (Honeypot Lane) 0 0.0 2 1.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 Asda (Wembley Park) 11 10.0 15 13.6 2 1.4 2 1.6 Asda (Colindale) 0 0.0 7 6.4 0 0.0 1 0.8 Lidl (Blackbird Hill) 0 0.0 1 0.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 Burnt Oak Town Centre 1 0.9 4 3.6 1 0.7 0 0.0 Kenton Town Centre 3 2.7 14 12.7 1 0.7 0 0.0 Preston Road Town Centre 10 9.1 18 16.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 Colindale Town Centre 0 0.0 1 0.9 0 0.0 1 0.8 Kingsbury Town Centre 1 0.9 26 23.6 0 0.0 1 0.8 Other Local Shops in Zone 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Zone 3 Cricklewood Town Centre 0 0.0 0 0.0 16 10.9 0 0.0 Willesden Town Centre 0 0.0 0 0.0 40 27.2 4 3.3 Kilburn Town Centre 0 0.0 0 0.0 39 26.5 1 0.8 Queens Park Town Centre 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 5.4 0 0.0 Other Local Shops in Zone 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 6.1 0 0.0
Zone 4 Tesco (Brent Park) 3 2.7 1 0.9 3 2.0 12 9.8 Neasden Town Centre 0 0.0 0 0.0 10 6.8 3 2.4 Harlesden Town Centre 1 0.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 49 39.8 Church End Town Centre 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.8 Kensal Rise Town Centre 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.7 7 5.7 Other Local Shops in Zone 4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 3.3
Total Zones 1-4 100 90.9 96 87.3 131 89.1 97 78.9
Outside Catchment Area Tesco (Brent Cross) 0 0.0 1 0.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 Sainsburys (Colindale) 0 0.0 3 2.7 1 0.7 0 0.0 Tesco (Western Avenue/Perivale) 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Asda (Park Royal) 2 1.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.4 Sainsburys (Ladbroke Grove) 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.4 Brent Cross 0 0.0 1 0.9 5 3.4 1 0.8 Finchley Road Town Centre 0 0.0 1 0.9 3 2.0 1 0.8 Harrow Town Centre 5 4.5 2 1.8 0 0.0 1 0.8 Perivale Town Centre 1 0.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Edgware Town Centre 0 0.0 4 3.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 Internet 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Others outside catchment area 2 1.8 2 1.8 7 4.8 17 13.8
Total Outside Zones 1-4 10 9.1 14 12.7 16 10.9 26 21.1
Grand Total 110 100 110 100 147 100 123 100
No response 30 24 23 17
Total Number of Respondents 140 134 170 140 Notes: • Market shares for top-up food shopping only incorporate the respondents that gave a specific answer that question Convenience goods household survey tables
BRENT HOUSEHOLD SURVEY 2003
RTP Analysis of Results Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 (no.) (%) (no.) (%) (no.) (%) (no.) (%) MAIN FOOD SHOP MARKET SHARES (Weighted at 70%) 0.7 Zone 1 Sainsburys (Alperton) 11.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 Lidl (Wembley Park) 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Wembley Town Centre 5.5 2.1 0.0 2.5 Ealing Road Town Centre 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sudbury Town Centre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other Local Shops in Zone 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Zone 2 Safeway (Honeypot Lane) 0.0 3.1 0.4 0.0 Asda (Wembley Park) 25.5 20.4 7.4 6.0 Asda (Colindale) 1.0 11.5 1.2 0.0 Lidl (Blackbird Hill) 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.0 Burnt Oak Town Centre 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 Kenton Town Centre 5.0 14.6 0.4 0.0 Preston Road Town Centre 1.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 Colindale Town Centre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kingsbury Town Centre 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 Other Local Shops in Zone 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Zone 3 Cricklewood Town Centre 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 Willesden Town Centre 0.0 0.0 10.3 1.5 Kilburn Town Centre 0.0 0.0 13.6 1.0 Queens Park Town Centre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other Local Shops in Zone 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Zone 4 Tesco (Brent Park) 8.0 0.5 9.1 12.5 Neasden Town Centre 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 Harlesden Town Centre 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 Church End Town Centre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kensal Rise Town Centre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other Local Shops in Zone 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Zones 1-4 59.0 58.0 47.8 37.0
Outside Catchment Area Tesco (Brent Cross) 0.0 0.0 2.9 1.0 Sainsburys (Colindale) 0.0 5.7 0.8 0.0 Tesco (Western Avenue/Perivale) 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Asda (Park Royal) 4.5 0.0 2.1 11.5 Sainsburys (Ladbroke Grove) 0.0 0.0 6.6 15.0 Brent Cross 1.0 1.0 2.9 1.5 Finchley Road Town Centre 0.5 0.0 5.4 0.5 Harrow Town Centre 1.5 1.6 0.0 0.5 Perivale Town Centre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Edgware Town Centre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Internet 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.0 Others outside catchment area 1.5 3.1 1.2 3.0
Total Outside Zones 1-4 11.0 12.0 22.2 33.0
Grand Total 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 Convenience goods household survey tables
BRENT HOUSEHOLD SURVEY 2003
RTP Analysis of Results Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 (no.) (%) (no.) (%) (no.) (%) (no.) (%) TOP-UP FOOD SHOP MARKET SHARES (Weighted at 30%) 0.3 Zone 1 Sainsburys (Alperton) 1.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 Lidl (Wembley Park) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Wembley Town Centre 12.5 1.6 0.2 2.0 Ealing Road Town Centre 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.5 Sudbury Town Centre 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other Local Shops in Zone 1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
Zone 2 Safeway (Honeypot Lane) 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 Asda (Wembley Park) 3.0 4.1 0.4 0.5 Asda (Colindale) 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.2 Lidl (Blackbird Hill) 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 Burnt Oak Town Centre 0.3 1.1 0.2 0.0 Kenton Town Centre 0.8 3.8 0.2 0.0 Preston Road Town Centre 2.7 4.9 0.0 0.0 Colindale Town Centre 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 Kingsbury Town Centre 0.3 7.1 0.0 0.2 Other Local Shops in Zone 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Zone 3 Cricklewood Town Centre 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 Willesden Town Centre 0.0 0.0 8.2 1.0 Kilburn Town Centre 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.2 Queens Park Town Centre 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 Other Local Shops in Zone 3 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0
Zone 4 Tesco (Brent Park) 0.8 0.3 0.6 2.9 Neasden Town Centre 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.7 Harlesden Town Centre 0.3 0.0 0.0 12.0 Church End Town Centre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Kensal Rise Town Centre 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.7 Other Local Shops in Zone 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0
Total Zones 1-4 27.3 26.2 26.7 23.7
Outside Catchment Area Tesco (Brent Cross) 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 Sainsburys (Colindale) 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.0 Tesco (Western Avenue/Perivale) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Asda (Park Royal) 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.7 Sainsburys (Ladbroke Grove) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 Brent Cross 0.0 0.3 1.0 0.2 Finchley Road Town Centre 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.2 Harrow Town Centre 1.4 0.5 0.0 0.2 Perivale Town Centre 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Edgware Town Centre 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 Internet 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Others outside catchment area 0.5 0.5 1.4 4.1
Total Outside Zones 1-4 2.7 3.8 3.3 6.3
Grand Total 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Convenience goods household survey tables
BRENT HOUSEHOLD SURVEY 2003
RTP Analysis of Results Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 (no.) (%) (no.) (%) (no.) (%) (no.) (%) COMPOSITE CONVENIENCE MARKET SHARES
Zone 1 Sainsburys (Alperton) 12.6 0.3 0.0 0.5 Lidl (Wembley Park) 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 Wembley Town Centre 18.0 3.7 0.2 4.5 Ealing Road Town Centre 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 Sudbury Town Centre 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other Local Shops in Zone 1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
Zone 2 Safeway (Honeypot Lane) 0.0 3.7 0.4 0.0 Asda (Wembley Park) 28.5 24.5 7.8 6.5 Asda (Colindale) 1.0 13.4 1.2 0.2 Lidl (Blackbird Hill) 0.0 0.3 0.4 1.0 Burnt Oak Town Centre 0.3 1.6 0.2 0.0 Kenton Town Centre 5.8 18.4 0.6 0.0 Preston Road Town Centre 3.7 7.0 0.0 0.0 Colindale Town Centre 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 Kingsbury Town Centre 0.3 10.2 0.0 0.2 Other Local Shops in Zone 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Zone 3 Cricklewood Town Centre 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.0 Willesden Town Centre 0.0 0.0 18.5 2.5 Kilburn Town Centre 0.0 0.0 21.5 1.2 Queens Park Town Centre 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 Other Local Shops in Zone 3 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0
Zone 4 Tesco (Brent Park) 8.8 0.8 9.7 15.4 Neasden Town Centre 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.7 Harlesden Town Centre 0.3 0.0 0.0 22.0 Church End Town Centre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Kensal Rise Town Centre 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.7 Other Local Shops in Zone 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0
Total Zones 1-4 86.3 84.2 74.5 60.7
Outside Catchment Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tesco (Brent Cross) 0.0 0.3 2.9 1.0 Sainsburys (Colindale) 0.0 6.6 1.0 0.0 Tesco (Western Avenue/Perivale) 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Asda (Park Royal) 5.0 0.0 2.1 12.2 Sainsburys (Ladbroke Grove) 0.0 0.0 6.6 15.7 Brent Cross 1.0 1.3 3.9 1.7 Finchley Road Town Centre 0.5 0.3 6.0 0.7 Harrow Town Centre 2.9 2.1 0.0 0.7 Perivale Town Centre 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Edgware Town Centre 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 Internet 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.0 Others outside catchment area 2.0 3.7 2.7 7.1
Total Outside Zones 1-4 13.7 15.8 25.5 39.3
Grand Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
APPENDIX 4
COMPARISON NEED TABULATIONS
Comparison goods economic tables
Table 1: Population Change, 2003-2015
LB Brent Population Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Total 2001 72,270 59,752 79,735 57,862 269,620 2003 72,740 60,140 80,253 58,238 271,371 2005 73,975 61,162 81,616 59,226 275,979 2010 77,963 64,459 86,016 62,419 290,856 2015 81,253 67,179 89,646 65,054 303,132
Notes: 1. 2001 Census Data used for base population in 2001 amended through ONS Final 2001 mid-year estimates (published in 2004) 2. Population projections to 2015 based on GLA 2005 Round Interim Demongraphic Projections (issued in September 2005) Comparison goods economic tables
Table 2: Comparison Expenditure by Zone (£ per capita)
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Average Source 2001 2,976 2,976 3,290 2,785 3,007 Note 1 2003 3,545 3,545 3,920 3,318 3,582 Note 2 2005 4,042 4,042 4,468 3,782 4,084 Note 3 2010 4,989 4,989 5,515 4,669 5,040 " 2015 6,158 6,158 6,807 5,763 6,221 "
Notes: 1. MapInfo TargetPro Report (2001 base year in 2001 Prices) 2. MapInfo Information Brief 05/02, Table 1 (September 2005): 9.6% real growth for 2002 and 8.7% real growth for 2003 3. MapInfo Information Brief 05/02, Table 1 & 2 (September 2005): 9.3% real growth for 2004 and 4.3% projected growth for 2005. 4. MapInfo Information Brief 05/02, Table 2 (September 2005): 4.3% per annum projected growth 2005- 2015 Comparison goods economic tables
Table 3: LB Brent Comparison Expenditure by Zone
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Total
LB Brent Expenditure 2003
Population 2003 72,740 60,140 80,253 58,238 271,371 Expenditure p/c 2003 (£) 3545 3545 3920 3318 Sub Total Expenditure (£M) 257.9 213.2 314.6 193.2 978.9
Deduction for Special Forms of Trading (%) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Total LB Brent Expenditure (£M) 242.4 200.4 295.7 181.6 920.2
LB Brent Expenditure 2005
Population 2005 73,975 61,162 81,616 59,226 274,665 Expenditure p/c 2005 (£) 4042 4042 4468 3782 Sub Total Expenditure (£M) 299.0 247.2 364.7 224.0 1134.9
Deduction for Special Forms of Trading (%) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Total LB Brent Expenditure (£M) 281.1 232.4 342.8 210.6 1066.8
LB Brent Expenditure 2010
Population 2010 77,963 64,459 86,016 62,419 286,396 Expenditure p/c 2010 (£) 4989 4989 5515 4669 Sub Total Expenditure (£M) 388.9 321.6 474.4 291.4 1476.3
Deduction for Special Forms of Trading (%) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Total LB Brent Expenditure (£M) 350.0 289.4 427.0 262.3 1328.7
LB Brent Expenditure 2015
Population 2015 81,253 67,179 89,646 65,054 298,629 Expenditure p/c 2015 (£) 6158 6158 6807 5763 Sub Total Expenditure (£M) 500.3 413.7 610.3 374.9 1899.1
Deduction for Special Forms of Trading (%) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Total LB Brent Expenditure (£M) 440.3 364.0 537.0 329.9 1671.2
Notes: We have allowed for a deductions for Special Forms of Trading (SFT) at the base year and each of the forecast years. These allowances are RTP estimates, which are based on a variety of recently published economic forecasts. Comparison goods economic tables
Table 4: Market Shares, 2003 (%)
Zone 1 (%) Zone 2 (%) Zone 3 (%) Zone 4 (%) Average (%) Zone 1 Olympic Retail Park (Wembley) 6.2 1.8 0.8 1.0 2.5 Wembley Park Retail Park (Wembley) 1.8 1.1 0.2 0.7 0.9 Alperton Retail Park 2.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.6 Wembley Town Centre 14.4 5.7 2.0 9.2 7.8 Ealing Road Town Centre 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.9 Other in Zone 1 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.4
Zone 2 Asda (Wembley Park) 3.5 4.1 0.9 1.1 2.4 Asda (Colindale) 0.0 2.8 0.1 0.0 0.7 Burnt Oak Town Centre 0.0 6.2 0.1 0.0 1.6 Kenton Town Centre 1.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.9 Preston Road Town Centre 1.9 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 Colindale Town Centre 0.1 2.6 0.1 0.3 0.8 Kingsbury Town Centre 1.0 4.0 0.4 0.0 1.4 Other in Zone 2 0.1 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.4
Zone 3 Cricklewood Town Centre 0.0 0.9 8.9 0.0 2.4 Willesden Town Centre 0.1 0.0 3.6 3.0 1.7 Kilburn Town Centre 0.4 0.9 15.6 5.7 5.7 Other in Zone 3 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.3
Zone 4 Tesco (Brent Park) 0.1 0.5 0.2 2.6 0.8 Ikea (Brent Park) 3.1 3.2 3.5 4.6 3.6 Neasden Town Centre 0.0 0.5 1.5 0.9 0.7 Harlesden Town Centre 0.1 0.7 1.0 11.0 3.2 Kensal Rise Town Centre 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.2 Other in Zone 4 0.0 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4
Total Zones 1-4 40.6 42.1 40.1 41.8 41.1
Outside Catchment Area Tesco (Brent Cross) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 Asda (Park Royal) 2.1 0.0 0.3 1.3 0.9 Sainsburys (Ladbroke Grove) 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Staples Corner Retail Park 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.3 Central London 6.2 4.1 18.8 16.1 11.3 Brent Cross 18.1 20.7 26.8 23.1 22.2 Watford Town Centre 0.5 2.6 1.0 0.5 1.2 Ealing Broadway Town Centre 2.2 0.0 0.0 2.4 1.1 Finchley Road Town Centre 0.4 0.1 1.4 0.0 0.5 Harrow Town Centre 21.0 20.8 1.4 3.5 11.7 Internet/Mail Order/Catalogue 5.2 6.0 5.4 6.2 5.7 Others outside catchment area 3.3 3.3 4.2 4.5 3.8
Total Outside Zones 1-4 59.4 57.9 59.9 58.2 58.9
Grand Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Notes: • These are composite market shares derived from the LB Brent Household Survey 2003. RTP have apportioned 10% of the market share to centres which appear to be underperforming due to anomalies within the household survey. This distribution of this market share is based on planning judgement. • An average market share for each centre/store has been calculated in order to provide an indication of how each centre store is performing within the whole of the LB Brent Comparison goods economic tables
Table 5: Spending Pattern 2003 (£m)
Spend from within % of spend from LB Spend from beyond Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Borough (£m) Brent (see notes) Borough (£m) GRAND TOTAL (£m) Zone 1 Olympic Retail Park (Wembley) 15.0 3.6 2.5 1.8 22.9 80 5.7 28.6 Wembley Park Retail Park (Wembley) 4.3 2.3 0.5 1.3 8.4 80 2.1 10.5 Alperton Retail Park 5.1 0.4 0.5 0.2 6.2 50 6.2 12.3 Wembley Town Centre 34.8 11.4 5.9 16.7 68.8 80 17.2 86.0 Ealing Road Town Centre 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 9.1 90 1.0 10.2 Other in Zone 1 2.4 1.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 100 0.0 3.4
Zone 2 Asda (Wembley Park) 8.6 8.1 2.5 2.0 21.2 90 2.4 23.6 Asda (Colindale) 0.0 5.6 0.2 0.0 5.8 50 5.8 11.6 Burnt Oak Town Centre 0.0 12.5 0.2 0.0 12.7 35 23.7 36.4 Kenton Town Centre 2.4 5.3 0.0 0.0 7.7 50 7.7 15.4 Preston Road Town Centre 4.6 2.5 0.0 0.0 7.0 90 0.8 7.8 Colindale Town Centre 0.2 5.3 0.2 0.6 6.3 50 6.3 12.6 Kingsbury Town Centre 2.4 8.0 1.3 0.0 11.7 75 3.9 15.6 Other in Zone 2 0.2 3.2 0.0 0.0 3.5 100 0.0 3.5
Zone 3 Cricklewood Town Centre 0.0 1.8 26.3 0.0 28.1 50 28.1 56.2 Willesden Town Centre 0.2 0.0 10.5 5.4 16.2 80 4.1 20.3 Kilburn Town Centre 1.1 1.8 46.1 10.3 59.3 50 59.3 118.7 Other in Zone 3 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 3.2 100 0.0 3.2
Zone 4 Tesco (Brent Park) 0.2 1.0 0.5 4.7 6.4 75 2.1 8.6 Ikea (Brent Park) 7.4 6.4 10.4 8.3 32.6 20 130.6 163.2 Neasden Town Centre 0.0 1.0 4.5 1.7 7.2 80 1.8 9.0 Harlesden Town Centre 0.2 1.4 2.9 20.0 24.5 80 6.1 30.6 Kensal Rise Town Centre 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.8 1.8 50 1.8 3.6 Other in Zone 4 0.0 0.9 0.2 1.8 2.9 100 0.0 2.9
Total Zones 1-4 98.3 84.3 118.6 75.9 377.2 316.7 693.9
Outside Catchment Area Tesco (Brent Cross) 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.8 Asda (Park Royal) 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.3 8.3 Sainsburys (Ladbroke Grove) 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 Staples Corner Retail Park 0.2 0.4 1.5 0.4 2.5 Central London 14.9 8.2 55.6 29.2 107.9 Brent Cross 43.8 41.5 79.2 42.0 206.6 Watford Town Centre 1.3 5.3 2.9 1.0 10.5 Ealing Broadway Town Centre 5.3 0.0 0.0 4.4 9.6 Finchley Road Town Centre 1.1 0.2 4.2 0.0 5.5 Harrow Town Centre 50.8 41.7 4.2 6.3 103.1 Internet/Mail Order/Catalogue 12.6 12.0 16.0 11.3 51.9 Others outside catchment area 8.0 6.7 12.3 8.2 35.2
Total Outside Zones 1-4 144.1 116.1 177.0 105.7 543.0
Grand Total 242.4 200.4 295.7 181.6 920.2
Notes: • 'Inflow' has been estimated by RTP using a careful consideration of the geography of each centre and the likely expenditure it will attract from beyond the LB Brent boundary. (Please note that for the purposes of this study, the centres on the edge of the Borough are assumed to be entirely within the LB Brent) Comparison goods economic tables
Table 6: Turnover Performance of Centres/Stores, 2003 (Comparison floorspace only)
Net floorspace Gross (sq.m) (see Floorspace Turnover/sq.m note 1 ) (sq.m) (£) (see note 3 ) Turnover (£m) Floorspace Source Zone 1 Olympic Retail Park (Wembley) 8,379 12,890 4,000 33.5 Experian GOAD Wembley Park Retail Park (Wembley) 1,948 2,997 4,000 7.8 Focus Database Alperton Retail Park 3,900 - 4,000 15.6 RTP/LBB Survey Wembley Town Centre 12,912 19,865 5,000 64.6 Experian GOAD Ealing Road Town Centre 2,570 - 4,000 10.3 RTP/LBB Survey Other in Zone 1 1,300 2,000 3,600 4.7 RTP Estimate (see note 4)
Zone 2 Asda (Wembley Park) 2,617 8,798 10,362 27.1 Store Point Database from ORC Services (2004) Asda (Colindale) 2,369 7,963 10,362 24.5 Store Point Database from ORC Services (2004) Burnt Oak Town Centre 8,554 13,160 4,000 34.2 Experian GOAD Kenton Town Centre 3,042 4,680 3,800 11.6 Experian GOAD Preston Road Town Centre 1,489 2,290 3,800 5.7 Experian GOAD Colindale Town Centre 1,534 2,360 3,800 5.8 Experian GOAD Kingsbury Town Centre 5,544 - 4,000 22.2 RTP/LBB Survey Other in Zone 2 1,300 2,000 3,600 4.7 RTP Estimate (see note 4)
Zone 3 Cricklewood Town Centre 16,084 24,745 4,000 64.3 Experian GOAD Willesden Town Centre 4,345 6,685 4,000 17.4 Experian GOAD Kilburn Town Centre 13,969 21,490 5,000 69.8 Experian GOAD Other in Zone 3 1,300 2,000 3,600 4.7 RTP Estimate (see note 4)
Zone 4 Tesco (Brent Park) 1,878 8,836 10,355 19.4 Store Point Database from ORC Services (2004) Ikea (Brent Park) 17,923 27,574 3,719 66.7 RPS Retail Study (for Ikea) (October 2003) Neasden Town Centre 1,768 2,720 3,800 6.7 Experian GOAD Harlesden Town Centre 8,294 12,760 4,000 33.2 Experian GOAD Kensal Rise Town Centre 1,881 - 3,800 7.1 RTP/LBB Survey Other in Zone 4 1,300 2,000 3,600 4.7 RTP Estimate (see note 4)
Total Turnover (£m) 566.3
SUMMARY
A. Aggregate turnover 2003 (£m) 693.9
B. Turnover performance 2003 (£m) 566.3
C. Residual expenditure (£m) 127.6
Notes: 1.Gross to net ratio for town centres and retail parks assumed to be 65:35. For the supermarkets gross to net ration is assumed to be 85:15 due to the floorspace data provided by Storepoint being "gross sales area" and therefore excludes any storage areas. The comparison/convenience split for the supermarkets is based on Verict (2005) average splits. 2. Turnover per sq.m has been estimated by RTP based on the centre’s position within the retail hierarchy together with a careful consideration of its function or Retail Rankings 2005 (in 2001 prices) for the Superstores and Ikea. 3. Where the floor space has been provided by RTP/LBB Survey, the floor space provided is net. 4. We have allowed for a 2,000 sq. m gross floor space within the “Other” categories to allow for stores in centres which have not been identified in the household survey and standalone stores. Comparison goods economic tables
Table 7: Spending Pattern 2005 (£m) (Constant market shares)
Spend from within % of spend from LB Spend from beyond Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Borough (£m) Brent Borough (£m) GRAND TOTAL (£m) Zone 1 Olympic Retail Park (Wembley) 17.4 4.2 2.9 2.1 26.5 80 6.6 33.2 Wembley Park Retail Park (Wembley) 5.0 2.7 0.6 1.5 9.7 80 2.4 12.1 Alperton Retail Park 5.9 0.5 0.6 0.2 7.1 50 7.1 14.3 Wembley Town Centre 40.3 13.2 6.8 19.4 79.8 80 19.9 99.7 Ealing Road Town Centre 10.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 10.6 90 1.2 11.8 Other in Zone 1 2.8 1.2 0.0 0.0 4.0 100 0.0 4.0
Zone 2 Asda (Wembley Park) 10.0 9.4 2.9 2.3 24.6 90 2.7 27.3 Asda (Colindale) 0.0 6.5 0.3 0.0 6.7 50 6.7 13.5 Burnt Oak Town Centre 0.0 14.5 0.3 0.0 14.8 35 27.4 42.2 Kenton Town Centre 2.8 6.1 0.0 0.0 8.9 50 8.9 17.9 Preston Road Town Centre 5.3 2.9 0.0 0.0 8.2 90 0.9 9.1 Colindale Town Centre 0.3 6.1 0.3 0.6 7.3 50 7.3 14.6 Kingsbury Town Centre 2.8 9.2 1.5 0.0 13.6 75 4.5 18.1 Other in Zone 2 0.3 3.7 0.0 0.0 4.0 100 0.0 4.0
Zone 3 Cricklewood Town Centre 0.0 2.1 30.5 0.0 32.6 50 32.6 65.2 Willesden Town Centre 0.3 0.0 12.2 6.3 18.8 80 4.7 23.5 Kilburn Town Centre 1.2 2.1 53.4 12.0 68.8 50 68.8 137.6 Other in Zone 3 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 3.7 100 0.0 3.7
Zone 4 Tesco (Brent Park) 0.3 1.2 0.6 5.5 7.5 75 2.5 10.0 Ikea (Brent Park) 8.6 7.4 12.1 9.7 37.8 20 151.4 189.2 Neasden Town Centre 0.0 1.2 5.2 2.0 8.4 80 2.1 10.5 Harlesden Town Centre 0.3 1.6 3.4 23.2 28.4 80 7.1 35.5 Kensal Rise Town Centre 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.9 2.1 50 2.1 4.2 Other in Zone 4 0.0 1.0 0.3 2.1 3.4 100 0.0 3.4
Total Zones 1-4 114.0 97.8 137.5 88.0 437.3 367.1 804.5
Outside Catchment Area Tesco (Brent Cross) 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 Asda (Park Royal) 5.8 0.0 1.1 2.7 9.6 Sainsburys (Ladbroke Grove) 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 Staples Corner Retail Park 0.3 0.5 1.7 0.4 2.9 Central London 17.3 9.6 64.4 33.8 125.1 Brent Cross 50.8 48.2 91.8 48.7 239.5 Watford Town Centre 1.5 6.1 3.3 1.1 12.2 Ealing Broadway Town Centre 6.1 0.0 0.0 5.1 11.2 Finchley Road Town Centre 1.2 0.2 4.9 0.0 6.4 Harrow Town Centre 58.9 48.4 4.9 7.4 119.5 Internet/Mail Order/Catalogue 14.6 13.9 18.6 13.1 60.2 Others outside catchment area 9.3 7.7 14.2 9.5 40.8
Total Outside Zones 1-4 167.1 134.6 205.3 122.6 629.5
Grand Total 281.1 232.4 342.8 210.6 1066.8
SUMMARY
A. Aggregate turnover 2005 (£m) (see note 1) 804.5
B. Turnover performance 2005 (£m) (see note 2) 592.0
C. Residual expenditure (£m) 212.4
Notes: 1. LB Brent expenditure has been forecasted to increase from 2003 onwards (see Table 3 for details) 2. The turnover of the stores/centres within the LB Brent will grow year on year, and therefore we have allowed for a 2.25% per annum increase in the turnover of the existing floor space from 2003 (source: Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note 2.2) Comparison goods economic tables
Table 8a: Spending Pattern 2010 (£m) (Constant market shares)
Spend from within % of spend from LB Spend from beyond Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Borough (£m) Brent Borough (£m) GRAND TOTAL (£m) Zone 1 Olympic Retail Park (Wembley) 21.6 5.2 3.6 2.7 33.0 80 8.3 41.3 Wembley Park Retail Park (Wembley) 6.3 3.3 0.7 1.8 12.1 80 3.0 15.1 Alperton Retail Park 7.3 0.6 0.7 0.3 8.9 50 8.9 17.8 Wembley Town Centre 50.2 16.4 8.5 24.2 99.3 80 24.8 124.2 Ealing Road Town Centre 12.9 0.0 0.0 0.3 13.2 90 1.5 14.7 Other in Zone 1 3.5 1.4 0.0 0.0 4.9 100 0.0 4.9
Zone 2 Asda (Wembley Park) 12.4 11.7 3.6 2.8 30.6 90 3.4 34.0 Asda (Colindale) 0.0 8.0 0.3 0.0 8.4 50 8.4 16.8 Burnt Oak Town Centre 0.0 18.0 0.4 0.0 18.4 35 34.2 52.6 Kenton Town Centre 3.5 7.6 0.0 0.0 11.1 50 11.1 22.2 Preston Road Town Centre 6.6 3.6 0.0 0.0 10.2 90 1.1 11.3 Colindale Town Centre 0.4 7.6 0.4 0.8 9.1 50 9.1 18.2 Kingsbury Town Centre 3.5 11.5 1.9 0.0 16.9 75 5.6 22.5 Other in Zone 2 0.4 4.7 0.0 0.0 5.0 100 0.0 5.0
Zone 3 Cricklewood Town Centre 0.0 2.6 38.0 0.0 40.6 50 40.6 81.2 Willesden Town Centre 0.4 0.0 15.2 7.9 23.4 80 5.9 29.3 Kilburn Town Centre 1.5 2.7 66.6 14.9 85.7 50 85.7 171.4 Other in Zone 3 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 4.6 100 0.0 4.6
Zone 4 Tesco (Brent Park) 0.3 1.4 0.7 6.8 9.3 75 3.1 12.4 Ikea (Brent Park) 10.7 9.3 15.1 12.1 47.1 20 188.5 235.7 Neasden Town Centre 0.0 1.4 6.5 2.5 10.4 80 2.6 13.1 Harlesden Town Centre 0.4 2.0 4.2 28.9 35.4 80 8.8 44.2 Kensal Rise Town Centre 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.2 2.6 50 2.6 5.2 Other in Zone 4 0.0 1.2 0.3 2.6 4.2 100 0.0 4.2
Total Zones 1-4 142.0 121.8 171.3 109.6 544.7 457.3 1001.9
Outside Catchment Area Tesco (Brent Cross) 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.8 1.1 Asda (Park Royal) 7.2 0.0 1.4 3.4 12.0 Sainsburys (Ladbroke Grove) 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 Staples Corner Retail Park 0.3 0.6 2.1 0.5 3.6 Central London 21.6 11.9 80.3 42.1 155.9 Brent Cross 63.2 60.0 114.3 60.7 298.3 Watford Town Centre 1.9 7.7 4.2 1.4 15.1 Ealing Broadway Town Centre 7.6 0.0 0.0 6.3 13.9 Finchley Road Town Centre 1.5 0.3 6.1 0.0 7.9 Harrow Town Centre 73.4 60.2 6.1 9.2 148.8 Internet/Mail Order/Catalogue 18.1 17.4 23.1 16.4 75.0 Others outside catchment area 11.6 9.6 17.7 11.9 50.8
Total Outside Zones 1-4 208.1 167.6 255.6 152.6 784.0
Grand Total 350.0 289.4 427.0 262.3 1328.7
SUMMARY
A. Aggregate turnover 2010 (£m) (see note 1) 1001.9
B. Turnover performance 2010 (£m) (see note 2) 661.7
C.Residual expenditure (£m) 340.2
D. Less commitments (£m) (see note 3) 207.0
E. Spare capacity (£m) 133.2
Notes: 1. LB Brent expenditure has been forecasted to increase from 2003 onwards (see Table 3 for details) 2. The turnover of the stores/centres within the LB Brent will grow year on year, and therefore we have allowed for a 2.25% per annum increase in the turnover of the existing floorspace from 2003 (source: Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note 2.2) 3. We have allowed for the turnover of hard commitments (schemes with planning permission), and details of these schemes can be found at Table 8b Comparison goods economic tables
Table 8b: Hard commitments to additional comparison retail floorspace to 2010
Gross Net Est floorspace Gross to floorspace turnover % turnover from Net turnover from (sq.m) Net ratio (sq. m) /sq.m (£m) Gross turnover (£m) LBB LBB (£m) A. Key commitments inside LB Brent
(a) Wembley Quintain 32,400 65:35 21,060 6,000 126.4 60.0 75.8 (b) Wembley LDA 3,476 65:35 2,259 6,000 13.6 85.0 11.5 (c) Wembley Central Square 7,759 65:35 5,043 6,000 30.3 85.0 25.7 (d) Ikea, Brent Park 1,608 65:35 1,045 3,719 3.9 20.0 0.8 TOTAL 174.1 113.1 (for information only) B. Key commitments outside LB Brent
(d) White City 78,000 65:35 50,700 6,500 329.6 10.0 33.0 (e) Brent Cross extension 55,000 65:35 35,750 6,500 232.4 20.0 46.5 (not included in assessment) TOTAL 33.0
Notes: 1. Floorspace of key commitments inside the LB Brent has been supplied by LB Brent. 2. All floorspace is assumed to be open and trading by 2010. 3. We are aware of a soft commitment to extend Brent Cross shopping centre, however as this has yet to obtain planning permission, we have not included this within our model. Comparison goods economic tables
Table 9: Spending Pattern 2015 (£m) (Constant market shares)
Spend from within % of spend from LB Spend from beyond Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Borough (£m) Brent Borough (£m) GRAND TOTAL (£m) Zone 1 Olympic Retail Park (Wembley) 27.2 6.5 4.5 3.4 41.6 80 10.4 52.0 Wembley Park Retail Park (Wembley) 7.9 4.2 0.9 2.3 15.2 80 3.8 19.0 Alperton Retail Park 9.2 0.8 0.9 0.3 11.2 50 11.2 22.4 Wembley Town Centre 63.2 20.7 10.7 30.4 124.9 80 31.2 156.2 Ealing Road Town Centre 16.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 16.6 90 1.8 18.5 Other in Zone 3 4.4 1.8 0.0 0.0 6.2 100 0.0 6.2
Zone 2 Asda (Wembley Park) 15.6 14.8 4.6 3.6 38.5 90 4.3 42.8 Asda (Colindale) 0.0 10.1 0.4 0.0 10.6 50 10.6 21.1 Burnt Oak Town Centre 0.0 22.7 0.5 0.0 23.1 35 43.0 66.1 Kenton Town Centre 4.4 9.6 0.0 0.0 14.0 50 14.0 28.0 Preston Road Town Centre 8.3 4.5 0.0 0.0 12.8 90 1.4 14.2 Colindale Town Centre 0.4 9.5 0.5 1.0 11.5 50 11.5 22.9 Kingsbury Town Centre 4.4 14.5 2.4 0.0 21.2 75 7.1 28.3 Other in Zone 2 0.4 5.8 0.0 0.0 6.3 100 0.0 6.3
Zone 3 Cricklewood Town Centre 0.0 3.2 47.8 0.0 51.1 50 51.1 102.1 Willesden Town Centre 0.4 0.0 19.1 9.9 29.5 80 7.4 36.8 Kilburn Town Centre 1.9 3.4 83.7 18.8 107.8 50 107.8 215.6 Other in Zone 3 0.0 0.0 5.8 0.0 5.8 100 0.0 5.8
Zone 4 Tesco (Brent Park) 0.4 1.8 0.9 8.6 11.7 75 3.9 15.6 Ikea (Brent Park) 13.5 11.7 19.0 15.2 59.3 20 237.1 296.4 Neasden Town Centre 0.0 1.8 8.2 3.1 13.1 80 3.3 16.4 Harlesden Town Centre 0.4 2.5 5.3 36.3 44.5 80 11.1 55.6 Kensal Rise Town Centre 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.5 3.3 50 3.3 6.6 Other in Zone 4 0.0 1.6 0.4 3.3 5.3 100 0.0 5.3
Total Zones 1-4 178.6 153.2 215.5 137.9 685.1 575.2 1260.2
Outside Catchment Area Tesco (Brent Cross) 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.0 1.4 Asda (Park Royal) 9.1 0.0 1.8 4.2 15.1 Sainsburys (Ladbroke Grove) 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 Staples Corner Retail Park 0.4 0.8 2.6 0.7 4.5 Central London 27.1 15.0 100.9 53.0 196.0 Brent Cross 79.5 75.4 143.8 76.4 375.2 Watford Town Centre 2.4 9.6 5.2 1.8 19.1 Ealing Broadway Town Centre 9.6 0.0 0.0 7.9 17.5 Finchley Road Town Centre 1.9 0.4 7.7 0.0 10.0 Harrow Town Centre 92.3 75.8 7.6 11.5 187.2 Internet/Mail Order/Catalogue 22.8 21.8 29.1 20.6 94.3 Others outside catchment area 14.6 12.1 22.3 14.9 64.0
Total Outside Zones 1-4 261.7 210.9 321.6 192.0 986.2
Grand Total 440.3 364.0 537.0 329.9 1671.2
SUMMARY
A. Aggregate turnover 2015 (£m) (see note 1) 1260.2
B. Turnover performance 2015 (£m) (see note 2) 739.6
C. Residual expenditure (£m) 520.7
D. Less commitments (£m) (see note 3) 231.4
E. Spare capacity (£m) 289.3
Notes: 1. LB Brent expenditure has been forecasted to increase from 2003 onwards (see Table 3 for details) 2. The turnover of the stores/centres within the LB Brent will grow year on year, and therefore we have allowed for a 2.25% per annum increase in the turnover of the existing floor space from 2003 (source: Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note 2.2) 3. Commitments from 2010 year with projected floor space efficiency of 2.25% Comparison goods economic tables
Table 10a: Borough-wide Comparison Summary (excluding Brent Cross extension)
2003 2005 2010 2015
A. Aggregate turnover (£m) 693.9 804.5 1001.9 1260.2
B. Turnover performance (£m) 566.3 592.0 661.7 739.6
C. Residual expenditure (£m) 127.6 212.4 340.2 520.7
D. Less commitments (£m) 0.0 0.0 207.0 231.4
E. Spare capacity (£m) 127.6 212.4 133.2 289.3
F. Assumed sales density (£/sq.m) 5,300 5,541 6,193 6,922
G. Net floorspace capacity (sq. m) (see note 1) 24,077 38,333 21,508 41,791
H. Gross floorspace capacity (sq. m) (see note 2) 32,503 51,749 29,036 56,418
Notes: 1. Net floorspace capacity has been calculated by using an assumed turnover per sq. m of £5,300 in 2003, which grown by 2.25% per annum to the forecast years. 2. Gross floorspace capacity has been calculated by using a 65:35 gross to net ratio
Table 10b: Borough-wide Comparison Summary (including Brent Cross extension)
2003 2005 2010 2015
A. Spare capacity (excluding Brent Cross (£m) 127.6 212.4 133.2 289.3
B. Brent Cross extension claim on expenditure 0 0 46.5 51.9
C. Spare capacity (including Brent Cross) (£m) 127.6 212.4 86.7 237.3
C. Assumed sales density (£/sq.m) 5,300 5,541 6,193 6,922
D. Net floorspace capacity (sq. m) (see note 1) 24,077 38,333 14,004 34,287
E. Gross floorspace capacity (sq. m) (see note 2) 32,503 51,749 18,905 46,288
Notes: 1. Net floorspace capacity has been calculated by using an assumed turnover per sq. m of £5,300 in 2003, which grown by 2.25% per annum to the forecast years. 2. Gross floorspace capacity has been calculated by using a 65:35 gross to net ratio
APPENDIX 5
CONVENIENCE NEED TABULATIONS
Convenience economic tables
Table 1: Population Change, 2003-2015
LB Brent Population Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Total 2001 72,270 59,752 79,735 57,862 269,620 2003 72,740 60,140 80,253 58,238 271,371 2005 73,975 61,162 81,616 59,226 275,979 2010 77,963 64,459 86,016 62,419 290,856 2015 81,253 67,179 89,646 65,054 303,132
Notes: 1. 2001 Census Data used for base population in 2001 amended through ONS Final 2001 mid-year estimates (published in 2004) 2. Population projections to 2015 based on GLA 2005 Round Interim Demongraphic Projections (issued in September 2005) Convenience goods economic tables
Table 2: Convenience Expenditure by Zone (£ per capita)
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Average Source 2001 1,812 1,794 1,952 1,718 1,819 see note 1 2003 1,858 1,839 2,001 1,761 1,865 see note 2 2005 1,904 1,885 2,051 1,805 1,912 see note 3 2010 1,991 1,972 2,145 1,888 1,999 see note 4 2015 2,083 2,062 2,244 1,975 2,091 "
Notes: 1. MapInfo TargetPro Report (2001 base year in 2001 Prices) 2. MapInfo Information Brief 05/02, Table 1 (September 2005): 1.9% real growth for 2002 and 0.6% real growth for 2003 3. MapInfo Information Brief 05/02, Table 1 & 2 (September 2005): 1.6% real growth for 2004 and 0.9 projected growth for 2005. 4. MapInfo Information Brief 05/02, Table 2 (September 2005): 0.9% per annum projected growth 2004- 2015 Convenience goods economic tables
Table 3: LB Brent Convenience Expenditure by Zone
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Total LB Brent Expenditure 2003
Population 2003 72,740 60,140 80,253 58,238 271,371 Expenditure p/c 2003 (£) 1858 1839 2001 1761 Sub Total Expenditure (£M) 135.1 110.6 160.6 102.6 508.9
Deduction for Special Forms of Trading (%) 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
Total LB Brent Expenditure (£M) 133.9 109.6 159.1 101.6 504.3
LB Brent Expenditure 2005
Population 2005 73,975 61,162 81,616 59,226 275,979 Expenditure p/c 2005 (£) 1904 1885 2051 1805 Sub Total Expenditure (£M) 140.9 115.3 167.4 106.9 530.5
Deduction for Special Forms of Trading (%) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Total LB Brent Expenditure (£M) 139.5 114.2 165.7 105.9 525.2
LB Brent Expenditure 2010
Population 2010 77,963 64,459 86,016 62,419 290,856 Expenditure p/c 2010 (£) 1991 1972 2145 1888 Sub Total Expenditure (£M) 155.3 127.1 184.5 117.9 584.7
Deduction for Special Forms of Trading (%) 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
Total LB Brent Expenditure (£M) 153.6 125.7 182.5 116.6 578.3
LB Brent Expenditure 2015
Population 2015 81,253 67,179 89,646 65,054 303,132 Expenditure p/c 2015 (£) 2083 2062 2244 1975 Sub Total Expenditure (£M) 169.2 138.5 201.1 128.5 637.3
Deduction for Special Forms of Trading (%) 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
Total LB Brent Expenditure (£M) 167.2 136.9 198.7 126.9 629.7
Notes: Traditionally, special forms of trading account for a very small proportion of convenience expenditure, and therefore we have allowed for a small proportion of SFT to be deducted from the convenience expenditure within the LB Brent. Convenience goods economic tables
Table 4: Market Shares, 2003 (%)
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Average (%) Zone 1 Sainsburys (Alperton) 12.6 0.3 0.0 0.5 3.3 Lidl (Wembley Park) 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.6 Wembley Town Centre 18.0 3.7 0.2 4.5 6.6 Ealing Road Town Centre 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.2 Sudbury Town Centre 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 Other Local Shops in Zone 1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
Zone 2 Safeway (Honeypot Lane) 0.0 3.7 0.4 0.0 1.0 Asda (Wembley Park) 28.5 24.5 7.8 6.5 16.8 Asda (Colindale) 1.0 13.4 1.2 0.2 4.0 Lidl (Blackbird Hill) 0.0 0.3 0.4 1.0 0.4 Burnt Oak Town Centre 0.3 1.6 0.2 0.0 0.5 Kenton Town Centre 5.8 18.4 0.6 0.0 6.2 Preston Road Town Centre 3.7 7.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 Colindale Town Centre 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.1 Kingsbury Town Centre 0.3 10.2 0.0 0.2 2.7 Other Local Shops in Zone 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Zone 3 Cricklewood Town Centre 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.0 1.9 Willesden Town Centre 0.0 0.0 18.5 2.5 5.2 Kilburn Town Centre 0.0 0.0 21.5 1.2 5.7 Queens Park Town Centre 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.4 Other Local Shops in Zone 3 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.5
Zone 4 Tesco (Brent Park) 8.8 0.8 9.7 15.4 8.7 Neasden Town Centre 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.7 0.8 Harlesden Town Centre 0.3 0.0 0.0 22.0 5.6 Church End Town Centre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 Kensal Rise Town Centre 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.7 0.5 Other Local Shops in Zone 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2
Total Zones 1-4 86.3 84.2 74.5 60.7 76.4
Outside Catchment Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tesco (Brent Cross) 0.0 0.3 2.9 1.0 1.0 Sainsburys (Colindale) 0.0 6.6 1.0 0.0 1.9 Tesco (Western Avenue/Perivale) 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 Asda (Park Royal) 5.0 0.0 2.1 12.2 4.8 Sainsburys (Ladbroke Grove) 0.0 0.0 6.6 15.7 5.6 Brent Cross 1.0 1.3 3.9 1.7 2.0 Finchley Road Town Centre 0.5 0.3 6.0 0.7 1.9 Harrow Town Centre 2.9 2.1 0.0 0.7 1.4 Perivale Town Centre 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Edgware Town Centre 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 Internet 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.2 Others outside catchment area 2.0 3.7 2.7 7.1 3.9
Total Outside Zones 1-4 13.7 15.8 25.5 39.3 23.6
Grand Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Notes: • These are composite market shares derived from the LB Brent Household Survey 2003 based on weighting apportioned to a main food shop and top-up food shopping. • An average market share for each centre/store has been calculated in order to provide an indication of how each centre store is performing within the whole of the LB Brent. Convenience goods economic tables
Table 5: Spending Pattern 2003 (£m)
Spend from within % of spend from LB Spend from beyond Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Borough (£m) Brent (see notes) Borough (£m) GRAND TOTAL (£m) Zone 1 Sainsburys (Alperton) 16.9 0.3 0.0 0.5 17.7 50 17.7 35.3 Lidl (Wembley Park) 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 2.3 95 0.1 2.4 Wembley Town Centre 24.2 4.1 0.3 4.5 33.1 90 3.7 36.8 Ealing Road Town Centre 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.5 6.2 90 0.7 6.8 Sudbury Town Centre 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 90 0.3 3.2 Other Local Shops in Zone 1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 100 0.0 0.7
Zone 2 Safeway (Honeypot Lane) 0.0 4.0 0.7 0.0 4.7 20 18.8 23.4 Asda (Wembley Park) 38.2 26.8 12.4 6.6 84.0 95 4.4 88.4 Asda (Colindale) 1.3 14.7 2.0 0.2 18.2 40 27.4 45.6 Lidl (Blackbird Hill) 0.0 0.3 0.7 1.0 2.0 95 0.1 2.1 Burnt Oak Town Centre 0.4 1.8 0.3 0.0 2.5 30 5.7 8.2 Kenton Town Centre 7.8 20.2 1.0 0.0 29.0 50 29.0 58.0 Preston Road Town Centre 5.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 12.7 90 1.4 14.1 Colindale Town Centre 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.5 30 1.3 1.8 Kingsbury Town Centre 0.4 11.2 0.0 0.2 11.8 90 1.3 13.1 Other Local Shops in Zone 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 0.0
Zone 3 Cricklewood Town Centre 0.0 0.0 12.4 0.0 12.4 50 12.4 24.8 Willesden Town Centre 0.0 0.0 29.4 2.5 31.9 90 3.5 35.4 Kilburn Town Centre 0.0 0.0 34.3 1.3 35.6 50 35.6 71.1 Queens Park Town Centre 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 2.6 70 1.1 3.7 Other Local Shops in Zone 3 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 2.9 100 0.0 2.9
Zone 4 Tesco (Brent Park) 11.8 0.9 15.4 15.7 43.7 95 2.3 46.1 Neasden Town Centre 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.7 4.6 95 0.2 4.9 Harlesden Town Centre 0.4 0.0 0.0 22.3 22.7 95 1.2 23.9 Church End Town Centre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 95 0.0 0.3 Kensal Rise Town Centre 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.7 2.1 70 0.9 2.9 Other Local Shops in Zone 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 100 0.0 1.0
Total Zones 1-4 115.5 92.3 118.6 61.7 388.0 169.1 557.1
Outside Catchment Area Tesco (Brent Cross) 0.0 0.3 4.6 1.0 5.9 Sainsburys (Colindale) 0.0 7.2 1.6 0.0 8.8 Tesco (Western Avenue/Perivale) 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 Asda (Park Royal) 6.8 0.0 3.3 12.4 22.5 Sainsburys (Ladbroke Grove) 0.0 0.0 10.5 16.0 26.5 Brent Cross 1.3 1.4 6.2 1.8 10.8 Finchley Road Town Centre 0.7 0.3 9.5 0.8 11.2 Harrow Town Centre 3.8 2.3 0.0 0.8 6.9 Perivale Town Centre 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 Edgware Town Centre 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.2 Internet 0.0 0.6 0.7 0.0 1.2 Others outside catchment area 2.7 4.0 4.2 7.3 18.3
Total Outside Zones 1-4 18.4 17.4 40.6 40.0 116.3
Grand Total 133.9 109.6 159.1 101.6 504.3
Notes: • “Inflow” has been estimated by RTP using a careful consideration of the geography of each centre and the likely expenditure it will attract from beyond the LB Brent boundary. (Please note that for the purposes of this study, the centres on the edge of the Borough are assumed to be entirely within the LB Brent) Convenience goods economic tables
Table 6: Turnover Performance of Centres/Stores, 2003 (Convenience floorspace only)
Net floorspace Gross (sq.m) (see floorspace Turnover/sq.m note 1) (sq.m) (£) (see note 2 ) Turnover (£m) Floorspace source Zone 1 Sainsburys (Alperton) 5,129 6,034 8,421 43.2 Store Point Database from ORC Services (2004) Lidl (Wembley Park) 390 459 3,984 1.6 Store Point Database from ORC Services (2004) Wembley Town Centre 3,318 5,105 6,085 20.2 Experian GOAD Ealing Road Town Centre 2,135 - 5,000 10.7 LBB/RTP Survey Sudbury Town Centre 598 - 4,500 2.7 LBB/RTP Survey Other Local Shops in Zone 1 650 1,000 4,000 2.6 RTP Estimate
Zone 2 Safeway (Honeypot Lane) 4,349 5,116 6,214 27.0 Store Point Database from ORC Services (2004) Asda (Wembley Park) 4,861 8,798 10,362 50.4 Store Point Database from ORC Services (2004) Asda (Colindale) 4,400 7,963 10,362 45.6 Store Point Database from ORC Services (2004) Lidl (Blackbird Hill) 390 459 3,984 1.6 Store Point Database from ORC Services (2004) Burnt Oak Town Centre 4,336 6,670 6,012 26.1 Experian GOAD Kenton Town Centre 4,732 7,280 7,548 35.7 Experian GOAD Preston Road Town Centre 1,391 2,140 4,770 6.6 Experian GOAD Colindale Town Centre 1,138 1,750 4,500 5.1 Experian GOAD Kingsbury Town Centre 3,562 5,480 4,715 16.8 Experian GOAD Other Local Shops in Zone 2 650 1,000 4,000 2.6 RTP Estimate
Zone 3 Cricklewood Town Centre 4,654 7,160 4,863 22.6 Experian GOAD Willesden Town Centre 4,706 7,240 5,228 24.6 Experian GOAD Kilburn Town Centre 6,702 10,310 7,334 49.1 Experian GOAD Queens Park Town Centre 496 - 4,500 2.2 LBB/RTP Survey Other Local Shops in Zone 3 650 1,000 4,000 2.6 RTP Estimate
Zone 4 Tesco (Brent Park) 5,633 8,836 10,355 58.3 Store Point Database from ORC Services (2004) Neasden Town Centre 1,817 2,795 4,500 8.2 Experian GOAD Harlesden Town Centre 6,143 9,450 4,740 29.1 Experian GOAD Church End Town Centre 923 - 4,000 3.7 LBB/RTP Survey Kensal Rise Town Centre 978 - 4,500 4.4 LBB/RTP Survey Other Local Shops in Zone 4 650 1,000 4,000 2.6 RTP Estimate
Total Turnover (£m) 503.3
SUMMARY
A. Aggregate turnover 2003 (£m) 557.1
B. Turnover performance 2003 (£m) 503.3
C. Residual expenditure (£m) 53.8
Notes: 1. Gross to net ratio for town centres and retail parks assumed to be 65:35. For the supermarkets gross to net ratio is assumed to be 85:15 due to the floorspace data provided by Storepoint being "gross sales area" and therefore excludes any storage areas. The comparison/convenience split for the supermarkets (those stores where the household survey idendified comparison expenditure) is based on Verict (2005) average splits. 2. Turnover per sq.m for the identified food stores and supermarkets is provided by Retail Rankings 2005 (in 2001 prices), less the proportion of sales from petrol. For the individual centres, we have produced a composite turnover per sq m, which combines the Retail Rankings turnover for the identified convenience stores, with an RTP estimated turnover per sq.m for the remainder of the floorspace. 3. We have allowed for a 1,000 sq.m gross floorspace within the “Other” categories to allow for shops in centres which have not been identified in the household survey and for other standalone stores. Convenience goods economic tables
Table 6b: Turnover of convenience floor space in LB Brent town centres
Gross floorspace (sq.m) Net floorspace (sq.m) Turnover per sq.m (£) Turnover (£m) Floorspace source Wembley Town Centre Iceland - Central Square 580 377 4,599 1.7 Experian GOAD Kwik Save - Central Square 540 351 3,486 1.2 Experian GOAD M&S Foodhall - High Road 645 419 10,035 4.2 Experian GOAD Other 3,340 2,171 6,000 13.0 Experian GOAD Total 5,105 3,318 6,085 20.2 Ealing Road Town Centre VB & Sons Supermarket - Ealing Road - 860 5,000 4.3 RTP/LBB Survey Other - 1,275 5,000 6.4 RTP/LBB Survey Total - 2,135 5,000 10.7 Sudbury Town Centre Other - 598 4,500 2.7 RTP/LBB Survey Total - 598 4,500 2.7 Burnt Oak Town Centre Tesco - Burnt Oak Broadway 1,330 865 10,355 9.0 Experian GOAD Iceland - Burnt Oak Broadway 930 605 4,599 2.8 Experian GOAD Other 4,410 2,867 5,000 14.3 Experian GOAD Total 6,670 4,336 6,012 26.1 Kenton Town Centre Sainsbury's - Nash Way 5,660 3,679 8,421 31.0 Experian GOAD Pick & Save - Kenton Rd 1,190 774 4,500 3.5 Experian GOAD Other 430 280 4,500 1.3 Experian GOAD Total 7,280 4,732 7,548 35.7 Preston Road Town Centre Somerfield - Preston Road 520 338 5,613 1.9 Experian GOAD Other 1,620 1,053 4,500 4.7 Experian GOAD Total 2,140 1,391 4,770 6.6 Experian GOAD Colindale Town Centre Other 1,750 1,138 4,500 5.1 Experian GOAD Total 1,750 1,138 4,500 5.1 Kingsbury Town Centre Iceland - Honeypot Lane 550 358 4,599 1.6 Experian GOAD Aldi - Kingsbury Rd 1,380 897 4,029 3.6 Experian GOAD VB - Kenton Rd 590 384 5,000 1.9 Experian GOAD Other 2,960 1,924 5,000 9.6 Experian GOAD Total 5,480 3,562 4,715 16.8 Cricklewood Town Centre Iceland - Cricklewood Broadway 1,140 741 4,599 3.4 Experian GOAD Somerfield - Cricklewood Lane 850 553 5,613 3.1 Experian GOAD Lidl - Edgware Road 1,030 670 3,984 2.7 Experian GOAD Other 4,140 2,691 5,000 13.5 Experian GOAD Total 7,160 4,654 4,863 22.6 Willesden Town Centre Somerfield - High Road 2,690 1,749 5,613 9.8 Experian GOAD Other 4,550 2,958 5,000 14.8 Experian GOAD Total 7,240 4,706 5,228 24.6 Kilburn Town Centre Morrison - Kilburn High Rd 1,160 754 10,399 7.8 Experian GOAD Food & Wine - Kilburn High Rd 560 364 6,000 2.2 Experian GOAD M&S Foodhall - Kilburn High Rd 1,010 657 10,035 6.6 Experian GOAD Sainsbury's - Kilburn High Rd 1,890 1,229 8,421 10.3 Experian GOAD Other 5,690 3,699 6,000 22.2 Experian GOAD Total 10,310 6,702 7,334 49.1 Queens Park Town Centre Other - 496 4,500 2.2 RTP/LBB Survey Total - 496 4,500 2.2 Neasden Town Centre Other 2,795 1,817 4,500 8.2 Experian GOAD Total 2,795 1,817 4,500 8.2 Harlesden Town Centre Budgens - Tavistock Road 1,150 748 3,251 2.4 Experian GOAD Iceland - High Street 1,110 722 4,599 3.3 Experian GOAD International Supermarket - High Street 920 598 5,000 3.0 Experian GOAD Other 6,270 4,076 5,000 20.4 Experian GOAD Total 9,450 6,143 4,740 29.1 Church End Town Centre Other - 923 4,000 3.7 RTP/LBB Survey Total - 923 4,000 3.7 Kensal Rise Town Centre Other - 978 4,500 4.4 RTP/LBB Survey Total - 978 4,500 4.4
Notes: 1. All food stores/supermarkets over 500 sq.m gross are identified individually. 2. The floorspace has been provided by Experian GOAD as gross unless where stated, we have applied a 65:35 gross to net ratio to obtain the net floorspace. 3. Where the floorspace has been provided by RTP/LBB Survey, the floorspace provided is net. 4. Turnover per sq.m is for Retail Rankings 2005 (in 2001 prices) where published, for other stores and floorspace, a professional judgement has been used to gauge an estimated average turnover per sq m . 5. The turnovers of the different stores has been combined to provide a composite turnover per sq.m for all the floorspace in each centre. Convenience goods economic tables
Table 7: Spending Patterns 2005 by centre & store (£m) (Constant market shares)
Spend from within % of spend from LB Spend from beyond Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Borough (£m) Brent Borough (£m) GRAND TOTAL (£m) Zone 1 Sainsburys (Alperton) 17.6 0.3 0.0 0.5 18.4 50 18.4 36.8 Lidl (Wembley Park) 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 2.4 95 0.1 2.5 Wembley Town Centre 25.2 4.3 0.3 4.7 34.5 90 3.8 38.3 Ealing Road Town Centre 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.5 6.4 90 0.7 7.1 Sudbury Town Centre 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 90 0.3 3.4 Other Local Shops in Zone 1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 100 0.0 0.8
Zone 2 Safeway (Honeypot Lane) 0.0 4.2 0.7 0.0 4.9 20 19.5 24.4 Asda (Wembley Park) 39.7 27.9 13.0 6.9 87.5 95 4.6 92.1 Asda (Colindale) 1.4 15.3 2.0 0.3 19.0 40 28.5 47.5 Lidl (Blackbird Hill) 0.0 0.3 0.7 1.1 2.1 95 0.1 2.2 Burnt Oak Town Centre 0.4 1.8 0.3 0.0 2.6 30 6.0 8.5 Kenton Town Centre 8.1 21.1 1.0 0.0 30.2 50 30.2 60.4 Preston Road Town Centre 5.2 8.0 0.0 0.0 13.2 90 1.5 14.7 Colindale Town Centre 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.6 30 1.3 1.9 Kingsbury Town Centre 0.4 11.7 0.0 0.3 12.3 90 1.4 13.7 Other Local Shops in Zone 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 0.0
Zone 3 Cricklewood Town Centre 0.0 0.0 12.9 0.0 12.9 50 12.9 25.8 Willesden Town Centre 0.0 0.0 30.6 2.6 33.2 90 3.7 36.9 Kilburn Town Centre 0.0 0.0 35.7 1.3 37.0 50 37.0 74.1 Queens Park Town Centre 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 2.7 70 1.2 3.9 Other Local Shops in Zone 3 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 100 0.0 3.0
Zone 4 Tesco (Brent Park) 12.3 0.9 16.0 16.3 45.6 95 2.4 48.0 Neasden Town Centre 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.8 4.8 95 0.3 5.1 Harlesden Town Centre 0.4 0.0 0.0 23.2 23.6 95 1.2 24.9 Church End Town Centre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 95 0.0 0.3 Kensal Rise Town Centre 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.8 2.1 70 0.9 3.1 Other Local Shops in Zone 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 100 0.0 1.0
Total Zones 1-4 120.3 96.1 123.5 64.2 404.1 176.1 580.2
Outside Catchment Area Tesco (Brent Cross) 0.0 0.3 4.8 1.1 6.1 Sainsburys (Colindale) 0.0 7.5 1.7 0.0 9.2 Tesco (Western Avenue/Perivale) 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 Asda (Park Royal) 7.0 0.0 3.4 12.9 23.4 Sainsburys (Ladbroke Grove) 0.0 0.0 10.9 16.7 27.6 Brent Cross 1.4 1.5 6.5 1.8 11.2 Finchley Road Town Centre 0.7 0.3 9.9 0.8 11.7 Harrow Town Centre 4.0 2.4 0.0 0.8 7.2 Perivale Town Centre 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 Edgware Town Centre 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.2 Internet 0.0 0.6 0.7 0.0 1.3 Others outside catchment area 2.9 4.2 4.4 7.6 19.0
Total Outside Zones 1-4 19.1 18.1 42.3 41.6 121.1
Grand Total 139.5 114.2 165.7 105.9 525.2
SUMMARY
A. Aggregate turnover 2005 (£m) (see note 1) 580.2
B. Turnover performance 2005 (£m) (see note 2) 510.9
C. Residual expenditure (£m) 69.3
Notes: 1. LB Brent expenditure has been forecasted to increase from 2003 onwards (see Table 3 for details) 2. The turnover of the stores/centres within the LB Brent will grow year on year, and therefore we have allowed for a 0.75% per annum increase in the turnover of the existing floor space from 2003 (source: Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note 2.2) Convenience goods economic tables
Table 8: Spending Patterns 2010 by Centre & Store (£m) (Constant market shares)
Spend from within % of spend from LB Spend from beyond Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Borough (£m) Brent Borough (£m) GRAND TOTAL (£m) Zone 1 Sainsburys (Alperton) 19.3 0.3 0.0 0.6 20.3 50 20.3 40.5 Lidl (Wembley Park) 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 2.6 95 0.1 2.8 Wembley Town Centre 27.7 4.7 0.4 5.2 38.0 90 4.2 42.2 Ealing Road Town Centre 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 7.1 90 0.8 7.8 Sudbury Town Centre 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 90 0.4 3.7 Other Local Shops in Zone 1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 100 0.0 0.8
Zone 2 Safeway (Honeypot Lane) 0.0 4.6 0.8 0.0 5.4 20 21.5 26.9 Asda (Wembley Park) 43.8 30.7 14.3 7.6 96.3 95 5.1 101.4 Asda (Colindale) 1.5 16.8 2.3 0.3 20.9 40 31.4 52.3 Lidl (Blackbird Hill) 0.0 0.3 0.8 1.2 2.3 95 0.1 2.4 Burnt Oak Town Centre 0.4 2.0 0.4 0.0 2.8 30 6.6 9.4 Kenton Town Centre 8.9 23.2 1.1 0.0 33.2 50 33.2 66.5 Preston Road Town Centre 5.7 8.8 0.0 0.0 14.5 90 1.6 16.1 Colindale Town Centre 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.6 30 1.5 2.1 Kingsbury Town Centre 0.4 12.9 0.0 0.3 13.6 90 1.5 15.1 Other Local Shops in Zone 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 0.0
Zone 3 Cricklewood Town Centre 0.0 0.0 14.2 0.0 14.2 50 14.2 28.5 Willesden Town Centre 0.0 0.0 33.7 2.9 36.6 90 4.1 40.6 Kilburn Town Centre 0.0 0.0 39.3 1.4 40.8 50 40.8 81.5 Queens Park Town Centre 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 70 1.3 4.3 Other Local Shops in Zone 3 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 3.4 100 0.0 3.4
Zone 4 Tesco (Brent Park) 13.5 1.0 17.6 18.0 50.2 95 2.6 52.8 Neasden Town Centre 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.9 5.3 95 0.3 5.6 Harlesden Town Centre 0.4 0.0 0.0 25.6 26.0 95 1.4 27.4 Church End Town Centre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 95 0.0 0.3 Kensal Rise Town Centre 0.0 0.0 0.4 2.0 2.4 70 1.0 3.4 Other Local Shops in Zone 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.1 100 0.0 1.1
Total Zones 1-4 132.5 105.8 136.0 70.7 444.9 193.9 638.8
Outside Catchment Area Tesco (Brent Cross) 0.0 0.3 5.3 1.2 6.8 Sainsburys (Colindale) 0.0 8.3 1.9 0.0 10.1 Tesco (Western Avenue/Perivale) 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 Asda (Park Royal) 7.7 0.0 3.8 14.3 25.8 Sainsburys (Ladbroke Grove) 0.0 0.0 12.0 18.3 30.4 Brent Cross 1.5 1.7 7.1 2.0 12.3 Finchley Road Town Centre 0.8 0.3 10.9 0.9 12.9 Harrow Town Centre 4.4 2.7 0.0 0.9 7.9 Perivale Town Centre 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 Edgware Town Centre 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.4 Internet 0.0 0.7 0.8 0.0 1.4 Others outside catchment area 3.1 4.6 4.9 8.3 21.0
Total Outside Zones 1-4 21.1 19.9 46.5 45.9 133.4
Grand Total 153.6 125.7 182.5 116.6 578.3
SUMMARY
A. Aggregate turnover 2010 (£m) (see note 1) 638.8
B. Turnover performance 2010 (£m) (see note 2) 530.3
C. Residual expenditure (£m) 108.5
D. Less commitments (£m) (see note 3) 35.7
E. Spare capacity (£m) 72.8
Notes: 1. LB Brent expenditure has been forecasted to increase from 2003 onwards (see Table 3 for details) 2. The turnover of the stores/centres within the LB Brent will grow year on year, and therefore we have allowed for a 0.75% per annum increase in the turnover of the existing floor space from 2003 (source: Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note 2.2) 3. We have allowed for the turnover of hard commitments (schemes with planning permission), and details of these schemes can be found at Table 8b Convenience goods economic tables
Table 8b: Hard commitments to additional convenience retail floor space
Gross floor Net floor Est space Gross to space (sq. turnover Net turnover from (sq.m) Net ratio m) /sq.m (£m) Gross turnover (£m) % turnover from LBB LBB (£m)
(a) Wembley Quintain 2,000 65:35 1,300 10,000 13.0 95.0 12.4 (b) Wembley LDA 600 65:35 390 10,000 3.9 95.0 3.7 (c) Wembley Central Square 2,891 65:35 1,879 10,000 18.8 95.0 17.9 TOTAL 35.7 33.9 (for information only)
Notes: 1. Floor space of key commitments inside the LB Brent has been supplied by LB Brent. 2. All floor space is assumed to be open and trading by 2010. Convenience goods economic tables
Table 9: Spending Patterns 2015 by centre & store (£m) (Constant market shares)
Spend from within % of spend from LB Spend from beyond Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Borough (£m) Brent Borough (£m) GRAND TOTAL (£m) Zone 1 Sainsburys (Alperton) 21.1 0.4 0.0 0.6 22.1 50 22.1 44.1 Lidl (Wembley Park) 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 2.8 95 0.1 3.0 Wembley Town Centre 30.2 5.1 0.4 5.6 41.3 90 4.6 45.9 Ealing Road Town Centre 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 7.7 90 0.9 8.5 Sudbury Town Centre 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 90 0.4 4.1 Other Local Shops in Zone 1 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 100 0.0 0.9
Zone 2 Safeway (Honeypot Lane) 0.0 5.0 0.8 0.0 5.9 20 23.4 29.3 Asda (Wembley Park) 47.7 33.5 15.5 8.2 104.9 95 5.5 110.4 Asda (Colindale) 1.7 18.3 2.5 0.3 22.8 40 34.2 56.9 Lidl (Blackbird Hill) 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.3 2.5 95 0.1 2.6 Burnt Oak Town Centre 0.5 2.2 0.4 0.0 3.1 30 7.2 10.2 Kenton Town Centre 9.7 25.2 1.2 0.0 36.2 50 36.2 72.4 Preston Road Town Centre 6.2 9.6 0.0 0.0 15.8 90 1.8 17.6 Colindale Town Centre 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.7 30 1.6 2.3 Kingsbury Town Centre 0.5 14.0 0.0 0.3 14.8 90 1.6 16.4 Other Local Shops in Zone 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 0.0
Zone 3 Cricklewood Town Centre 0.0 0.0 15.5 0.0 15.5 50 15.5 31.0 Willesden Town Centre 0.0 0.0 36.7 3.1 39.8 90 4.4 44.2 Kilburn Town Centre 0.0 0.0 42.8 1.6 44.4 50 44.4 88.8 Queens Park Town Centre 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 3.2 70 1.4 4.6 Other Local Shops in Zone 3 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 3.6 100 0.0 3.6
Zone 4 Tesco (Brent Park) 14.7 1.1 19.2 19.6 54.6 95 2.9 57.5 Neasden Town Centre 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.9 5.8 95 0.3 6.1 Harlesden Town Centre 0.5 0.0 0.0 27.9 28.3 95 1.5 29.8 Church End Town Centre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 95 0.0 0.3 Kensal Rise Town Centre 0.0 0.0 0.4 2.2 2.6 70 1.1 3.7 Other Local Shops in Zone 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.2 100 0.0 1.2
Total Zones 1-4 144.2 115.2 148.0 77.0 484.5 211.1 695.6
Outside Catchment Area Tesco (Brent Cross) 0.0 0.4 5.7 1.3 7.4 Sainsburys (Colindale) 0.0 9.0 2.0 0.0 11.0 Tesco (Western Avenue/Perivale) 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 Asda (Park Royal) 8.4 0.0 4.1 15.5 28.1 Sainsburys (Ladbroke Grove) 0.0 0.0 13.1 20.0 33.1 Brent Cross 1.7 1.8 7.8 2.2 13.4 Finchley Road Town Centre 0.8 0.4 11.9 0.9 14.0 Harrow Town Centre 4.8 2.9 0.0 0.9 8.6 Perivale Town Centre 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 Edgware Town Centre 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 Internet 0.0 0.7 0.8 0.0 1.5 Others outside catchment area 3.4 5.0 5.3 9.1 22.8
Total Outside Zones 1-4 23.0 21.7 50.7 49.9 145.2
Grand Total 167.2 136.9 198.7 126.9 629.7
SUMMARY
A. Aggregate expenditure 2015 (£m) (see note 1) 695.6
B. Turnover performance 2015 (£m) (see note 2) 550.5
C. Residual expenditure (£m) 145.1
D. Less commitments (£m) (see note 3) 37.1
E. Spare capacity (£m) 108.0
Notes: 1. LB Brent expenditure has been forecasted to increase from 2003 onwards (see Table 3 for details) 2. The turnover of the stores/centres within the LB Brent will grow year on year, and therefore we have allowed for a 0.75% per annum increase in the turnover of the existing floor space from 2003 (source: Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note 2.2) 3. Commitments from 2010 year with projected floor space efficiency of 0.75% Convenience goods economic tables
Table 10: Convenience Summary
2003 2005 2010 2015
A. Aggregate turnover (£m) 557.1 580.2 638.8 695.6
B. Turnover performance (£m) 503.3 510.9 530.3 550.5
C. Residual expenditure (£m) 53.8 69.3 108.5 145.1
D. Less commitments (£m) 0.0 0.0 35.7 37.1
E. Spare capacity (£m) 53.8 69.3 72.8 108.0
F. Assumed sales density (£/sq.m) 9,030 9,166 9,515 9,877
F. Net floorspace capacity (sq. m) (see note 1) 5,955 7,562 7,654 10,939
G. Gross floorspace capacity (sq. m) (see note 2) 8,040 10,209 10,333 14,767
Notes: 1. Net floorspace capacity has been calculated by using an average turnover of the top five convenience retailers in the UK (less petrol sales) in 2001 prices. This has then been grown by 0.75% per annum. 2. Gross floorspace capacity has been calculated by using a 65:35 gross to net ratio