Middlesbrough Retail Study
Middlesbrough Council
Final Report
August 2016
WYG Planning Quay West at MediaCityUK Trafford Wharf Road Trafford Park Manchester M17 1HH
creative minds safe hands www.wyg.com
Middlesbrough Retail Study
Document Control
Project: Middlesbrough Retail Study
Client: Middlesbrough Council
Job Number: A092552
File Origin:
WYG Planning and Environment creative minds safe hands
Middlesbrough Retail Study
Contents Page
1.0 Introduction ...... 4 2.0 Current and Emerging Retail Trends ...... 7 3.0 Planning Policy Context ...... 7 4.0 Original Market Research ...... 31 5.0 Health Check Assessments...... 59 6.0 Population and Expenditure ...... 59 7.0 Retail Capacity in Middlesbrough ...... 91 8.0 Future Retail Strategy and Recommendations ...... 115
Appendix 1: Map of Study Area and Zones Appendix 2: Household Survey Results Appendix 3: Town and District Centre Health Check Assessments Appendix 4: Local and Neighbourhood Centre Health Check Assessments Appendix 5: Spatial Distribution Plan Appendix 6: Quantitative Capacity Assessment (Experian Population Figures) Appendix 7: Quantitative Capacity Assessment (Population Growth Scenario) Appendix 8: Existing Foodstores Plan Appendix 9: Walking Catchment Accessibility Plans
WYG Planning and Environment creative minds safe hands
1.0 Introduction
Instruction
1.01 WYG Planning (hereafter referred to as ‘WYG’) was commissioned by Middlesbrough Council (‘the Council’) in January 2016 to undertake a Retail Study covering the Borough of Middlesbrough and the surrounding hinterlands.
1.02 The most recent comprehensive Middlesbrough Retail Study was prepared in 2005 to support the Middlesbrough LDF Core Strategy and the Regeneration DPD. In addition, a joint study with the neighbouring authority Stockton was prepared in 2008 and a further update was undertaken in 2013. It is important to note however, that the most up-to-date household survey was undertaken in June and July of 2007, and therefore the latest empirical evidence is now considerably out of date. The 2013 Update Study utilised the 2007 household survey results. All of the studies were prepared for the Council by WYG and/or NLP. We understand that NLP is also underway with producing a new Retail Study for Stockton Council, which also uses new household survey results. The two Councils will therefore ensure that the overall findings and recommendations are discussed and shared.
1.03 The brief provided to WYG in relation to this Retail Study, set out the aims of the study as follows:
• To provide guidance on retail policies to be included within the Local Plan;
• To provide guidance on the retail hierarchy of centres and the order of centres within the hierarchy;
• To identify any quantitative and qualitative need for new retail development;
• To provide guidance on potential locations for any retail development, and the scale of such development;
• To identify potential benefits of any retail development; and
• To provide guidance on the potential to amend the town centre and retail sector boundaries.
1.04 A key purpose of this Study is to provide an assessment of retail needs and capacity in the Middlesbrough Local Plan period to 2031, through the identification of existing shopping patterns and a review of the current performance of the defined centres in the administrative area.
4
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
1.05 As such, the Study provides recommendations in respect to the Council’s future strategy for the Middlesbrough town centre, the two District Centres, 11 medium-scale Local Centres, 10 small-scale Local Centres and 6 Neighbourhood Centres, to help safeguard their future vitality and viability, and it will assist in bringing forward the redevelopment of key town centre sites.
1.06 The Study will act as the evidence base to assist in the formulation of future development plan policy, in particular the Middlesbrough Local Plan which is intended to replace the existing LDF Core Strategy (2007) and Regeneration DPD (2008). The Study also provides baseline information to assist in the determination of planning applications for retail development.
1.07 The Study draws upon new empirical research, with NEMS Market Research Limited (NEMS) undertaking telephone surveys of 1,600 households within the defined Study Area in February 2016. The Study Area for the household survey comprises 11 zones which are based on postcode sectors grouped to reflect areas which are likely to exhibit similar patterns of shopping behaviour. The Study draws upon the most recent Experian Micromarketer G3 population and expenditure data (published October 2015) in order to establish the up-to-date position with regard to both convenience and comparison goods capacity.
1.08 Furthermore, the Study provides an assessment of retail patterns and trends, and any changes which have taken place to these patterns since the previous household survey was undertaken in 2007. The Study considers the role of the each of the defined centres within Middlesbrough and the influence of out of centre development and other retail destinations outside the administrative area.
1.09 Further to the assessment of shopping patterns, the vitality and viability of centres, population and expenditure, and retail capacity, the Study then concludes by advising on an appropriate future retail strategy for Middlesbrough.
Structure of Report
1.10 Our report is structured as follows:
Section 2 provides a context for the Retail Study by providing an analysis of key retail trends; Section 3 considers the up-to-date position in respect of relevant national retail and town centre planning policy; Section 4 sets out a review of the survey research and considers changes in shopping behaviour that have occurred since the undertaking of the previous Middlesbrough Retail Study (2005),
5
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Joint Middlesbrough and Stockton Study (2008) and the Middlesbrough Retail Study Update (2013); Section 5 sets out an overview of the vitality and viability of the defined centres; Section 6 identifies current and future population and expenditure levels within the Study Area; Section 7 provides our assessment of the quantitative and qualitative need for further convenience and comparison goods retail floorspace over the assessment period; and Section 8 sets out our recommendations in respect of Middlesbrough’s future retail strategy.
6
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
2.0 Current and Emerging Retail Trends
Introduction
2.01 The retail property landscape across the UK has evolved significantly over the past 50 years, from post-war redevelopment in town centres, through to the emergence of retail warehouse parks and out-of-town regional shopping malls. For most of this period, the retail sector has experienced considerable expenditure growth, which has been attributed to a number of factors, including greater disposable income, availability of credit, new technology and a general overall increase in our standard of living. However, recent economic conditions have had a clear impact on expenditure and convenience goods spending per capita has actually reduced in recent years. The way in which goods are purchased has also altered due to the increased popularity of ‘e-tailing’, which now claims more than one in every ten pounds spent in the UK.
Current Retail Picture
2.02 Colliers 1 provides information regarding recent retail trends, together with forecasts for the future of retailing in the UK. The findings confirm that there are increasing signs of growth in the retail sector in London and other key regional centres where there have been uplifts in prime rents. However, outside leading centres, as a result of changes in shopping habits, including strong online competition, consumers and retailers have become increasingly selective about their locations, resulting in diverging rental performance dependent on a centre’s position within the settlement hierarchy. As a result, mid-sized sub-regional centres outside London continue to struggle. Colliers advise that there is an oversupply of floorspace in many UK High Streets as a result of changing shopping habits and continued caution among retailers. Colliers report that falling footfall in shopping centres is likely to present a challenge in the coming years, but consider that with proactive management and a renewed focus on food, drink and leisure, that shopping centres can capitalise on the benefits of their ‘all under one roof’ offer. In terms of the market outlook, Colliers advise that economic growth is expected to continue to gain momentum and with household spending back at pre-recession levels and interest rates unlikely to rise in the short term, the favourable environment for retail sales growth should be maintained.
1 ‘National Retail Barometer: Autumn 2015’, Colliers
7
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
2.03 It is evident that the UK unemployment rate is currently falling (recorded as being 5.1% between October and December 2015, compared to 5.7% between October and December 2014) 2 and that average pay for employees in Great Britain increased 1.9% between October to December 2015 compared to the same period 12 months earlier 3.
2.04 Recent economic conditions have resulted in significant structural changes to the high street, whereby the pressure on retailers to remain solvent has meant that many are being increasing cautious with their investment decisions. In particular, retailers are rationalising their physical store portfolios by reducing their number of stores, abandoning their representation in weaker centres and concentrating on acquiring sites in city centres and major regional shopping centres, such as Bradford, Doncaster, Harrogate, Hull, Leeds, Sheffield, York and Meadowhall Shopping Centre. The Grimsey Review identified that the national vacancy rate at 2013 equated to over 22,000 empty shops across the top 650 town centres. The Centre for Retail Research 4 estimates that overall store numbers will fall by 61,930 between 2012 and 2018, with the main impact being upon non-food stores. The report also estimates that 316,000 people will become unemployed, permanently or temporarily, as a result of these store closures.
2.05 To address this, many retailers have sought to re-negotiate their lease terms with landlords in order to enable them to switch from quarterly rents to monthly agreements, with several high street firms (including Monsoon and New Look) trying to ease the cash flow burden of paying rent three months in advance. In June 2016, BHS (with 163 shops and employing 11,000 staff) became the latest high- profile casualty on the high street.
2.06 Some retailers are finding it increasingly difficult to justify being represented in every town in the UK and in less profitable markets. As a consequence, demand has reduced considerably for ‘poorer quality premises’ in secondary locations and in many smaller towns, with a commensurate drop in value (and often rent). Large cities and towns are likely to suffer less compared to smaller centres, given that they provide an enhanced choice for customers and offer the greater retail and leisure ‘experience’ that consumers increasingly desire.
2.07 In summary, there has been a marked polarisation and divergence in retailer spending, characterised by diminishing demand for secondary premises in smaller peripheral centres and strong competition for well located and appropriately configured floorspace in key centres. It is evident that whilst
2 ‘Labour Market Statistics, February 2016 Release’, ONS, February 2016 3 Labour Market Statistics, February 2016 Release’, ONS, February 2016 4 ‘Retail Futures 2018’, Centre for Retail Research, May 2013
8
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Central London, regional city centres and regional shopping malls are relatively stable, a significant number of small and medium sized towns which serve a localised catchment may need to implement innovative ideas in order to compete for expenditure and reduce trade leakage.
2.08 Colliers 5 notes that the strong economic outperformance observed since mid-2013 is giving way to a mid-cycle slow down. Colliers report that although the retail market will adjust to individual retailer failures, the long-term impact of a ‘Brexit’ is harder to evaluate at the current point in time. In terms of prime rents, Colliers note that 2016 is characterised by stability rather than growth, with 78% of the locations monitored by Colliers having no change in Prime Zone A rents. Colliers also report consumer purchasing power is expected to be buoyed by low inflation, low interest rates and the ‘wealth effect’ of the rise in house prices. Colliers advise that although prospects in the retail sector as a whole are good, with improved spending and more confidence among retailers, business rates could be seriously damaging to the sector. A delay in reviewing business rates has also been identified by both the Portas 6 and Grimsey 7 Reviews as a key factor affecting the success of many operators.
2.09 Given current spending patterns and the wider uncertain economic climate, it is unsurprising that Experian, which monitors and forecasts retail consumer expenditure in the UK, has in recent years identified significant changes when reviewing its forecast growth rates for both convenience and comparison goods expenditure over the short term. Experian’s 8 forecast annual per capita convenience goods growth rate is -0.2% at 2015, +0.1% at 2016 and +0.3% at 2017. By way of contrast, Experian 9 forecast in 2010 that per capita convenience goods growth would equate to +0.8% per annum across these same three reporting years.
2.10 However, Experian’s forecast annual per capita comparison goods growth rates have been significantly more positive in recent years and are similar to those recorded prior to the recession. Experian identifies per capita growth of +5.3% at 2015, +3.2% at 2016 and +2.9% at 2017.
2.11 Despite difficulties in recent years across the comparison goods sector, certain types of retail have continued to perform well. The market for recreational goods has, on the whole, performed strongly in recent years, with healthy growth attributed to supermarket sales together with the growing popularity of online shopping, which continues to see an increase in sales year-on-year. However, the manner in which such purchases are made has changed considerably, with the increasing popularity of
5 ‘Midsummer Retail Report 2016: Building the New Machine, Colliers, 2016 6 ‘The Portas Review’, December 2009 7 ‘The Grimsey Review – An Alternative Future for the High Street’, September 2013 8 Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note 13 (Figure 1a), October 2015 9 Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note 8.1 (Figure 1), August 2010
9
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
the internet to purchase books and music having a notable impact on the composition of town centres, with such stores being less prevalent on the high street. Other businesses have experienced growth in the last two years, with the Grimsey Review 10 reporting a 12% increase (equating to an additional 1,100 stores) in ‘value-related retailing’ outlets, including second-hand, discount and charity shops. The Grimsey Review also makes reference to the expansion of pawnbrokers, pay-day lenders and betting shops which have collectively experienced a 17% growth in the number of such outlets since 2009.
2.12 The referendum in June 2016 on the UK’s membership of the European Union resulted in a majority vote to leave the EU. The terms of withdrawal are to be negotiated with the Commission within two years of formal notification by the UK Government. A number of commentators have forecast uncertainty during this time that will have negative impacts on consumer confidence and expenditure, and investor decisions being put on hold.
Trends in Comparison Goods Retailing
2.13 Whilst it is not anticipated that growth in retail spending over the next ten years will mirror that achieved after the turn of the millennium, there is expected to be some growth in comparison goods expenditure in coming years. However, there is an increasing focus from retailers on achieving more efficient use of their floorspace, particularly given the recent poor performance of certain national multiples, many of which have been affected by the significant increase in e-tailing and increases in rental levels secured before 2008. As a result of the current economic climate, retailers are more reluctant to commit to new development than they have been in previous decades. Instead, they are more selective and are holding out for accommodation that is appropriate both in terms of location and the type of premises provided. Indeed, retailers are seeking to occupy larger units in order to achieve more efficient use of floorspace and attract shoppers from a wider area. These larger floor plates enable operators to provide a greater range of goods; for example, in 2009, when the retail market was generally stagnant, Primark opened one million sq.ft of new retail space.
2.14 International market conditions and price deflation in some key sectors have also meant that many high street names are becoming increasingly vulnerable to takeover. This is being pursued through disposals, company voluntary administrations (CVAs), informal arrangements with landlords, lease expiries and break options. More generally, whilst there is likely to be continued demand for larger, modern retail units in the future, increased sensitivity over future viability will mean a cautious
10 ‘The Grimsey Review – An Alternative Future for the High Street’, September 2013
10
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
approach to new investment for many key national retailers. Marginal locations within centres will increasingly be rejected. Many national retailers, who would have previously considered smaller/lower order centres in order to increase their market share, are now assessing their future strategies given the downturn experienced in the economy. Consequently, many investment decisions will be influenced by the scale of commitment from other retailers; developers will increasingly need to promote large town centre redevelopment schemes with anchor tenants if they are to attract other high quality retailers.
2.15 Mintel 11 identifies that the recession – allied with a period of higher inflation – has had an impact on consumer behaviour and the wider dynamics of grocery retailing. Price, or specifically value, is now identified as the key issue for consumers, and more shoppers are assessing whether purchases represent value for money. Shoppers have realised that they are able to ‘trade down’ and switch to own-label ranges or to discount retailers to save money without sacrificing on quality. Customers are mixing value and premium in the same basket.
2.16 As consumers alter their shopping habits, it is predicted that growth will be limited and the battle for market share will intensify further. With consumer confidence recovering post recession, Mintel predict slow growth on food spending in the coming years. However, winning a share of consumer spend will require more than low prices, with shoppers increasingly seeking to source high-quality, good value food.
2.17 The changing UK demographics are also having a major impact on the food and grocery sector. For example, there has been a rise in single occupancy young professional households who are ‘time poor’ and relatively ‘cash rich’. Though their baskets might be small, they tend to buy higher value items, therefore providing an opportunity to boost volume and value growth. Elsewhere, an ageing population profile is leading to a rise in time rich consumers who are likely to make more frequent small trips rather than do large weekly shops. The contrasting requirements of these markets means that retailers are seeking to open a variety of stores with a particular current focus on discount and small convenience stores and a move away from new superstores.
2.18 Verdict 12 estimates that the food and grocery sector was worth an £139.0 billion in 2015, equating to an annual growth of 2.8%. The four key supermarket chains in the UK have respective market shares of 22.0% (Tesco), 12.7% (Asda), 12.6% (Sainsbury’s) and 7.9% (Morrisons). National multiple
11 ‘Food & Drink Retailing’, Mintel, March 2014 12 ‘UK Food & Grocery – Verdict Sector Report’, Verdict, December 2015
11
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
retailers, which also include operators such as Co-operative Food (4.9%), Aldi (4.8%), Waitrose (4.0%), Marks and Spencer (3.9%), Lidl (2.4%) and Iceland (2.0%), collectively account for a total grocery market share of 77.0%.
2.19 Discount retailers are growing fastest in the market, a trend which looks set to continue. Both Aldi and Lidl have experienced significant increases to their market share in recent years. Research by Mintel 13 indicates that between 2011 and 2013 the number of consumers indicating that they visit Aldi or Lidl stores as their main destination for in-store grocery shopping almost doubled, rising from a combined figure of 6% to 11%.
2.20 There has been a recent slowdown in the growth plans of the majority of the principal supermarket operators. Tesco, for example, indicated in April 2013 that it had scrapped plans for major store developments on more than 100 sites and would instead focus on developing medium size units. It then announced in January 2015 its intention to pull out of a further 49 store development and to close 43 existing stores. Tesco subsequently announced in January 2016 its intention to scale back the number of its stores which trade 24 hours a day, with the opening hours of 76 stores being reduced.
2.21 Asda is the second largest supermarket retailer in the UK, with more than 550 stores nationwide. In contrast to Tesco’s plans, it announced in February 2015 its intention to invest £600m opening 17 new supermarkets and revamping 62 more as well as plans to open a further number of petrol filling stations. Asda’s focus for additional openings is believed to be in London and the south of England.
2.22 Morrisons also intends to open few larger stores once its current pipeline of development is completed. Its focus in recent years has been on developing the small-scale M Local convenience format store. However, the retailer posted disappointing results for the year to 1 February 2015 and announced the agreed sell-off of 140 M Local stores in September 2015 for a £30 million loss. The retailer also confirmed in September 2015 the closure of 11 of its supermarkets.
2.23 Sainsbury’s announced in October 2014 its intention to further develop the Sainsbury’s Local format and to improve its online offering. However, its most significant move was to enter the discount market under the Netto fascia, with Sainsbury’s owning a half share in Netto’s UK operation. Netto announced the trialling of 15 stores in November 2014 clustered around the M62 corridor between Liverpool and Hull in order to ‘test the water’. The first two new build openings were announced in March 2015 in Lymm and Hull, which appeared to suggest confidence in the venture. However,
13 ‘Food & Drink Retailing’, Mintel, March 2014
12
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
following the trial, the two retailers announced in July 2016 that they would end their partnership and close all Netto stores in the UK by August 2016.
2.24 Emboldened by changing convenience goods shopping patterns and significant increases in their market share, Aldi and Lidl have both announced ambitious store opening targets that, if met, will further increase pressure on the ‘main four’ operators (these being Asda, Morrisons, Sainsbury’s and Tesco). Aldi has identified major expansion plans on top of significant store openings in recent years, reflective of its position as the UK’s fastest growing food retailer. The retailer announced in August 2015 plans to invest £600m into its UK business with a target for 130 new stores over a two year investment period. Aldi also revealed plans to start trading online from 2016, initially limited to the sale of wine and non-food goods. Lidl similarly revealed plans in November 2015 to open 40 to50 stores a year over the forthcoming three year period, revising upwards previous plans for 30 to40 store openings a year. The retailer opened 20 new stores in 2014.
2.25 More generally, the role of supermarkets has continued to develop in recent years, with the large operators now offering a greater diversity of goods and services, via a larger number of formats and locations. Food and non-food sales are also increasingly being driven by large supermarket growth, with half of town centres competing with five or more supermarkets within a two mile radius 14 . Whilst the exact impacts which will arise from the opening of a new supermarket are dependent on local circumstances, BCSC notes that there has been a significant decline in the number of independent food retailers in recent times, including a reduction of 45% between 1996 and 2007 in the number of greengrocers. Over the same time period the market share of total retail sales secured by supermarkets increased from 38% to 42%. Mintel 15 predicts that the long term decline in the number of specialist food and drink retailers can be expected to bottom out in the coming years, helped by the shift being experienced toward convenience stores.
Markets
2.26 In recent years there has been an increased focus on the importance of markets in contributing to the health of town centres. The Portas Review (2011) recommended the support for markets as a key element of the High Street, including recommendations for a ‘National Market Day’ and reducing regulations relating to market trading. The Government published the ‘High Streets at the Heart of our Communities’ (March 2012) report in response which accepted the recommendations made by Portas
14 ‘What Does the Future Hold for Town Centres?’, BCSC, September 2009 15 ‘Food and Drink Retailing’, Mintel, March 2014
13
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
in relation to the importance of markets. At the same time, paragraph 23 of the NPPF states that local planning authorities should retain and enhance existing markets and, where appropriate, re-introduce or create new ones, ensuring that markets remain attractive and competitive.
2.27 The Government published ‘The Future of High Streets’ report in July 2013. It advises that the key to success and securing the long term future of the High Street is for communities to strike the right balance between traditional retail and other uses for high street property, and that markets, pop up shops, housing, community and social uses, and entertainment and cultural activities all have a part to play. The Government backed and helped to fund the Love Your Local Market campaign, run by the National Association of British Market Authorities, which seeks to:
• encourage people to take the first step on the entrepreneurial ladder; • support local growth by increasing footfall to local markets and town centres; and • encourage the local community to make the most of their local market and town centre.
2.28 In response to the increased focus on the role of markets in contributing to the strength of town centres, there has been a trend towards local authorities seeking to improve and capitalise on the contribution markets can make towards the health of centres. There has been a trend towards greater diversification of markets. Along with traditional markets, specialist and temporary markets are developing.
Out of Centre Development
2.29 In recent years, Colliers 16 notes that there has been a continually changing demand in the out of town retail sector. High profile administrations including MFI (November 2008), Comet (November 2012) and JJB Sports (September 2014), alongside the failure of other retailers with a significant out of town presence, created significant voids in the landscape of retail parks. The Local Data Company 17 reported the national average vacancy rate in out of centre retail warehouses in 2014 to be 8.0%, an increase of around 4.1% from 2012. The flooding of the market with un-let space acted to reduce rents although the vacancies created by administrations have now largely been absorbed by new interest from discount retailers such as B&M, Home Bargains and Dunelm alongside familiar high street retailer such as Mothercare, Next Home and TK Maxx 18 with vacancy rates improving to 6.6%
16 ‘Midsummer Retail Report: New Frontiers’, Colliers, October 2015 17 ‘Vacancy Report Summary H2 2014’, Local Data Company, February 2015 18 ‘Midsummer Retail Report 2014: Coming Up for Air’, Colliers, July 2014
14
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
reflecting this 19 . In January 2016, Dixons Carphone Warehouse announced plans to close 134 stores within 18 months, and to combine remaining Currys and PC World shops into a 3-in-1 store format incorporating a Carphone Warehouse outlet. The changing retailer mix at out of town destinations, buoyed by wider planning permissions, has provided a more diverse offering within the sector.
2.30 Looking forward, Colliers 20 indicates that future out of centre development will fall into two main categories. The first relates to the adaptation and refurbishment of existing stock. Colliers states that between 80% and 90% of the retail warehousing stock that the UK requires to service demand has already been built. Accordingly, most development activity will see landlords seeking to improve the suitability of their property for the latest retailers and also make improvements to improve dwell time on retail parks (for example, by seeking to introduce coffee shops and restaurants). Older schemes may be remodelled or redeveloped to meet current needs. According to Colliers, the other main strand of out of centre retail development relates to opportunities in areas where there has not been a great deal of retail warehousing in the past.
Shopping Centre Development
2.31 Shopping centre retail development has been at a virtual standstill in recent years, but there are a few signs that a corner may about to be turned. Cushman & Wakefield 21 reported that development activity was restrained in 2014, with an estimated 124,300 sq.m of shopping centre space added over the course of the year, which is less than half the total added in 2013. Cushman & Wakefield indicated that the shopping centre development pipeline for 2015 totalled 154,618 sq.m and included the 53,000 sq.m Birmingham Grand Central, the 51,100 sq.m Westfield Bradford and the 27,870 sq.m Friars Walk in Newport, all of which opened in the second half of 2015. It is anticipated that 2016 will see the delivery of several shopping extensions. Cushman & Wakefield forecasts that the shopping centre pipeline will pick up significantly from 2017 as the economic recovery and the greater availability of finance help to bring forward new schemes and extensions that already have planning permission.
2.32 Notwithstanding this, the viability of shopping centre retail development remains, for the moment, challenging no matter how well designed or well located a scheme is. There are three types of scheme which have a better chance of success in the current economic climate. The first of these will be where a town has a large, affluent catchment and an acknowledged undersupply of retail
19 ‘Vacancy Report Summary H1 2015’, Local Data Company, September 2015 20 ‘Midsummer Retail Report 2015: New Frontiers’, Colliers, July 2015 21 ‘Marketbeat Shopping Centre Development Report’, Cushman & Wakefield, September 2014
15
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
floorspace in both town centre and out-of-town locations. The second scenario relates to schemes which were very close to happening before the recession took hold, which may be revised to better meet the current needs of the market. Barnsley, Macclesfield, Bradford and Lichfield are examples of such schemes. The third opportunity relates to development where the key anchor is a foodstore and, as a result, demand has remained strong. However, due to changes in the food retail sector and the trading model of the ‘main four’ operators, opportunities in this last category are more difficult to come by.
2.33 In addition to retail, food and drink is becoming an integral part of many shopping centres. In particular, consumers are increasingly travelling to larger centres to use the leisure facilities and experience more of a complete ‘day out’. In the past, it was relatively typical for non-retail uses to occupy less than 10% of shopping centre floorspace, but this has increased in recent schemes, including Westfield in Stratford where catering and leisure units occupy over 20% of the space. Similarly, construction has started on the Westgate Centre in Oxford, which is due for completion in 2017 and will provide a mixed use development incorporating retail uses, food and drink uses and leisure uses, including a five-screen cinema, within a covered environment incorporating streets, arcades, lanes and squares.
Growth in E-tailing (‘E-commerce’)
2.34 Many consumers who previously shopped in town centres and at retail parks are now increasingly using the internet to make purchases. Experian 22 identifies that internet sales’ share of total retail sales stood at 11.6% in mid-2015 compared to just 4.7% at mid-2008. The value of internet sales in 2015 is estimated at £42.1 billion.
2.35 The rise in recent years of e-commerce has had a major impact upon retailers, developers and investors alike, with the top 10 e-retailers in 2012 including Amazon UK (16%), Shop Direct (5%) and Next (4%) 23 . As access to the internet/online shopping continues to grow through digital televisions, tablets and mobile phones, proportionally less money is anticipated to be spent on the high street or at retail parks.
22 ‘Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note 13’, October 2015 23 Ibid
16
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
2.36 The growth in internet as a sales medium has been enabled by the increase in access to the internet by households, which the Office for National Statistics 24 reports increased from 57% at 2006 to 86% in 2015. A total of 22.5 million households in Great Britain now have internet access. The proportion of households with access to the internet is expected to increase further over the coming years, alongside the growth in mobile phones and tablets with access via the new 4G spectrum. The ONS states that access to the internet using a mobile phone increased by nearly a third between 2011 and 2015, from 36% to 66%. This has supported the strong recorded growth in internet sales, together with improved consumer confidence in the security of online payment. The option of using the internet to ‘click and collect’ in-store at a dedicated counter is also increasing in popularity (particularly within stores with large sales areas), with the service now accounting for over 50% of John Lewis internet orders 25 .
2.37 As a consequence of such changes, the Office for National Statistics 26 indicates that the number of people using the internet to purchase goods continues to rise, with 76% of the UK population purchasing products over the internet in 2015, compared to 53% in 2008. The most popular online purchases were clothes/sports goods, with 49% of all adults in the UK purchasing some items via the internet. In addition, 42% of the population bought household goods online and 23% bought food or groceries.
2.38 Online spending continues to be the key growth opportunity for national and independent retailers, accounting for increasing proportions of total sales. With regard to foodstore operators, food accounts for approximately 20.5% of all internet sales27 , and by 2019 online sales will account for 8.3% of all grocery retailers’ sales 28 . Verdict’s research identifies that major retailers have seen their business grow as online shopping has increased and, as a result, the likes of Asda and Sainsbury’s have improved their geographical coverage and capacity. In particular, online sales at Tesco currently exceed £2 billion, with Mintel noting that the operator has a reported 39.1% online grocery market share, which is more than double that of the next leading competitor of Sainsbury’s who have a 17.5% market share.
2.39 It is evident that internet shopping as a whole is having an impact upon traditional high streets, in light of increased competition and lower prices. Consequently, there is a possibility that online retailing will continue to put pressure on retail rental growth over the next five to ten years. In
24 ‘Statistical Bulletin: Internet Access Households and Individuals’, Office for National Statistics, August 2015 25 ‘Click and Collect’, Mintel, September 2014 26 ‘Statistical Bulletin: Internet Access Households and Individuals’, Office for National Statistics, August 2015 27 ‘Shop Expansion and the Internet’, CBRE, May 2012 28 ‘Online Grocery Retailing’, Mintel, March 2015
17
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
particular, it appears likely that smaller town centres (which may be less able to offer a complete ‘shopping experience’) are likely to be the subject of greater ongoing impacts from online retailing.
2.40 Despite some variance in the estimated future growth of online shopping, it is clear that e-tailing cannot entirely replace the ‘shopping experience’ as shopping is a social activity. In this regard, retailers are already adopting innovative approaches to encourage people to visit their store through ‘try before you buy’ concepts. For example, Ellis Brigham has installed Vertical Chill indoor ice climbing walls at five stores for customers to try equipment and to interact with products. For successful retailers, online selling provides an additional route to the market. Online retailers benefit from demand generated through physical channels whilst high street outlets can benefit from reaching a wider customer base through the internet. Those retailers who are likely to have a healthy future are those who are able to combine a strong high street presence with an interesting and closely related e-tail offer.
Summary
2.41 In summary, it is evident that the retail market has undergone significant changes in recent years. Wider economic conditions facing the UK have led to a marked decline in some previously healthy town centres, as well as other traditional retail formats. This has principally been caused by a decline in available expenditure, due to suppressed disposable incomes and an increase in the proportion of expenditure committed online.
2.42 However, 2015 saw an increase in consumer confidence, mainly driven by an improved economic outlook as a result of falling unemployment and the availability of credit. As a consequence, it is anticipated that expenditure growth rates will increase moving forward. Whilst such forecasts remain below those achieved before the recession, they are significantly higher than those recorded over the last three or four years. Notwithstanding this, in June 2016, the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union resulted in a majority vote to leave the EU. A number of commentators have forecast that the uncertainty brought about by this decision will impact negatively upon consumer confidence.
2.43 The growth in online sales has impinged on the need for new tangible floorspace. However, increased expenditure growth allied with the retail industry embracement of innovative multi-channelling retail strategies, provides an opportunity for town centres to widen their audience in the future and retain ground. To deliver on this, it will be critical that town centres are flexible enough to both embrace and complement digital solutions, whilst also providing appropriate and well managed retail floorspace
18
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
that can showcase products and services. The ability for centres to ‘move with the times’ and utilise modern technology, whilst providing a materially different experience to online shopping, (partly through the inclusion of leisure and food and drink offers), will help ensure their ongoing vitality and viability.
19
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
3.0 Planning Policy Context
Introduction
3.01 Given that this Study seeks to provide important evidence to assist in the production of future retail planning policy, it is important to review existing national planning policy of pertinence to retail and town centre matters to explore the context for the Study and how it may impact upon the production of the Local Plan. We also summarise Middlesbrough’s planning policy, insofar as it is relevant to retail matters, in order to consider the Council’s strategy in respect of its centres.
National Planning Policy Framework
3.02 The National Planning Policy Framework was published in March 2012. The NPPF replaces all former Planning Policy Statements, Planning Policy Guidance Notes and some Circulars in a single consolidated document.
3.03 The main theme of the NPPF is that there should be ‘a presumption in favour of sustainable development’. In terms of plan-making, it is stated that local planning authorities should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area, with an emphasis on Local Plans having sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change.
3.04 In terms of economic development, it is set out within the NPPF’s core principles that planning should proactively drive and support economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs. Every effort should be made to objectively identify and then meet the business and other development needs of an area, with positive responses made to wider opportunities for growth.
3.05 The NPPF stresses the Government’s commitment to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity, with paragraph 17 stating that the planning system should do everything it can to support sustainable economic growth.
3.06 Paragraph 19 indicates that planning should operate to encourage and not to act as an impediment to sustainable growth, and that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system. The NPPF seeks to ensure that local planning authorities plan
20
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
proactively to meet the development needs of business and support an economy fit for the 21 st century.
3.07 The NPPF still recognises the need to promote the vitality and viability of towns and cities through the promotion of competition and growth management during the plan period. Paragraph 23 of the NPPF provides guidance for local planning authorities in drawing up Local Plans, it indicates that they should:
recognise town centres as the heart of their communities and pursue policies to support their vitality and viability;
define a network and hierarchy of centres that is resilient to anticipated future economic changes;
define the extent of town centres and primary shopping areas, based on a clear definition of primary and secondary frontages in designated centres, and set policies that make clear which uses will be permitted in such locations;
promote competitive town centres that provide customer choice and a diverse retail offer and which reflect the individuality of town centres;
retain and enhance existing markets and, where appropriate, re-introduce or create new ones, ensuring that markets remain attractive and competitive;
allocate a range of suitable sites to meet the scale and type of retail, leisure, commercial, office, tourism, cultural, community and residential development needed in town centre. It is important that needs for retail, leisure, office and other main town centre uses are met in full and are not compromised by limited site availability. Local planning authorities should therefore undertake an assessment of the need to expand town centres to ensure a sufficient supply of suitable sites;
allocate appropriate edge of centre sites for main town centre uses that are well connected to the town centre where suitable and viable town centre sites are not available. If sufficient edge of centre sites cannot be identified, set policies for meeting the identified needs in other accessible locations that are well connected to the town centre;
set policies for the consideration of proposals for main town centre uses which cannot be accommodated in or adjacent to town centres;
recognise that residential development can play an important role in ensuring the vitality of centres and set out policies to encourage residential development on appropriate sites; and
where town centres are in decline, local planning authorities should plan positively for their future to encourage economic activity.
21
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
3.08 Paragraph 23 also indicates that needs for retail, leisure, office and other main town centre uses should be met in full and should not be compromised by limited site availability.
3.09 Paragraph 24 requires local planning authorities to adopt a sequential approach to the consideration of planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre or in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. The following paragraph 25 indicates that that the sequential approach should not apply to applications for small scale rural offices or other small scale development.
3.10 Paragraph 26 indicates that local planning authorities should require an impact assessment for retail, leisure and office development outside of town centres which are not in accordance with an up-to- date Local Plan and if the development is over a proportionate, locally set threshold. Where there is no locally defined threshold, the default threshold will be 2,500 sq.m.
3.11 Paragraph 27 indicates that where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of a town centre or on existing, planned, committed investment in a centre it should be refused.
3.12 The NPPF also recognises that retail activity should still, where possible, be focused in existing town centres. Retail and leisure proposals which cannot be accommodated in or adjacent to the town centre will have to satisfy a dual impact test and the sequential test.
Ensuring the Vitality of Town Centres Planning Practice Guidance
3.13 Ensuring the Vitality of Town Centres National Planning Practice Guidance was published in March 2014 and replaces the previous Planning for Town Centres Practice Guidance. It provides a more concise summation of how retail and main town centre planning policy is to be applied in practice. However, the objectives of the Practice Guidance remain comparable with those of its predecessor, with there being a stated requirement for local planning authorities to plan positively and support town centres to generate local employment, promote competition within and between town centres, and create attractive and diverse places for users.
3.14 The Practice Guidance requires local planning authorities to fully assess and plan to meet needs for main town centre uses through the adoption of a ‘town centre first’ approach. Paragraphs 002 and 003 confirm that this should be delivered through a positive vision or strategy which is communicated through the development plan. The strategy should be facilitated through active engagement with the
22
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
private sector and other interested organisations (including Portas Pilot organisations, Town Teams and so on). Any strategy should be based on evidence which clarifies the current state of town centres and opportunities to meet development needs and support centres’ vitality and viability.
3.15 Such strategies should seek to address the following matters:
the appropriate and realistic role, function and hierarchy of town centres in the area of over the plan period, including an audit of the vitality and viability of existing town centres and their ability to accommodate new development;
consideration of the vision for the future of each town centre and the most appropriate mix of uses;
the assessment of the scale of development that a town centre can accommodate;
the timeframe for new retail floorspace to be delivered;
what other complementary strategies are necessary or appropriate to enhance the town centre to deliver the vision in the future; and
the consideration of the enhancement of car parking provision including charging and enforcement mechanisms.
3.16 Paragraph 005 of the Practice Guidance identifies a series of key indicators which are of relevance in assessing the health of a centre over time. Paragraph 005 goes on to state that not all successful town centre regeneration initiatives have been retail led or focused on substantial new development, but have instead involved improvements such as renewed public realm, parking, and accessibility and other partnership mechanisms. Paragraph 007 identifies the importance of planning for tourism as an important component of any overall vision and indicates that local planning authorities should consider specific tourism needs (including locational or operational requirements) and opportunities for tourism to support local services, vibrancy and the built environment.
3.17 Paragraph 009 reaffirms the town centre first policy in the form of the sequential test, which requires local planning authorities to undertake an assessment of candidate sites’ availability, suitability and viability when preparing their local plan. Such an assessment should also consider the scale of future needs and the type of land needed to accommodate main town centre uses.
23
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment Planning Practice Guidance
3.18 The Government has issued further Practice Guidance to provide specific instruction in respect of the undertaking of needs assessments (including those for main town centre uses). Paragraph 032 of the Practice Guidance states that plan makers should consider forecasts of quantitative and qualitative need based on a range of data which is current and robust. Local planning authorities will need to take account of business cycles and make use of forecasts and surveys to assess employment land requirements.
Relaxation of Permitted Development Rights
3.19 At a national level, recent changes to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 have sought to support the diversification and vitality of town centres. The changes follow the Portas Report recommendation to make it easier to change surplus space in order to provide for the effective re-use of buildings.
3.20 The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2013 came into force on 30 Mary 2013. It provides, for a period of three years, for the change of use of Use Class B1 offices to residential without the need for planning permission. The Order also provides for the temporary change of use (for up to two years) of uses falling within Use Classes A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1, D1 and D2 to uses falling within Classes A1, A2, A3 and B1, subject to the use relating to no more than 150 sq.m of floorspace and subject to the temporary provision not previously being relied upon.
3.21 From 6 April 2014, permitted development rights have been further extended to provide for certain additional changes of use without the need for planning permission. The changes come into force under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment and Consequential Provisions) (England) Order 2014 and result in the introduction of two new classifications that affect commercial premises.
3.22 The first provides for the change of use of premises and land from Use Class A1 to use as a ‘deposit taker’ (effectively comprising banks, building societies, credit unions and friendly societies). The second provides for the change of use from Use Classes A1 and A2 to residential. There are certain restrictions as to where and when the rights can be exercised.
24
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
3.23 Subsequent to the above, the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 came into force on 15 April 2015. The Order acts, inter alia , to consolidate and replace the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order 1995) and to provide additional permitted development rights. It should be noted that conditions and restrictions apply, and that prior approval is generally required in order to implement development. The new rights include:
a permitted change of use from amusement arcade/casino (sui generis use) to residential use (Class C3);
a permitted change from retail (Class A1) to financial services (Class A2);
a permitted change from retail/financial services (Class A1/A2) to food and drink (Class A3);
a permitted change from retail/financial services (Class A1/A2), betting offices, pay day loan shops and casinos to assembly and leisure uses (Class D2);
extension of the temporary permitted development rights introduced in May 2013 for extensions to shops, offices, industrial and warehouse buildings to support business expansion and the economy so they apply permanently;
the erection of click and collect facilities within the cartilage of a retail shop; and
modifications to the size of an existing retail shop loading bay.
3.24 The intended consequence of such measures is to secure the redevelopment and reuse of premises. However, it is considered that the relaxation in respect of changes of use to residential are more likely to encourage re-use of offices in larger metropolitan areas which may benefit from a greater supply of office buildings and where previously there may have been some reluctance to grant planning permission for residential uses. Notwithstanding this, the changes set out above are of relevance to Middlesbrough and we return to them in the concluding section of this report.
Development Plan
3.25 The adopted development plan for Middlesbrough currently comprises the saved policies from the following local plans:
• Core Strategy (adopted February 2008); • Regeneration Development Plan Document (DPD) (adopted February 2009); and 25
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
• Saved Policies of the Middlesbrough Local Plan.
3.26 As the retail and town centre policies contained within the Core Strategy, Regeneration DPD and Local Plan were adopted at the time that PPS4 provided national guidance in relation to planning for town centres and retail developments, several of the policies or elements of them do not directly accord with, and to some extent conflict with, the retail and town centre policies included in the NPPF. For this reason, we consider that considerable weight should be given to the policies of the NPPF when planning for retail and town centre development in the Middlesbrough area. However, we set out the key policies of relevance below from the three documents.
Core Strategy
3.27 The Core Strategy sets out the spatial strategy and preferred planning objectives for the Borough, examining the areas the Council needs to focus on to regenerate the town. The Council formally adopted the Core Strategy on 20 February 2008. The Core Strategy sets out the principal elements of the planning framework for Middlesbrough. It comprises a spatial vision and strategic objectives for the area; a spatial strategy; core policies; and a monitoring and implementation framework with clear objectives for achieving delivery.
3.28 The spatial portrait at Section 2 of the Core Strategy recognises that since the decline of heavy industry and petrochemicals, the economic has restructured by diversification into light and general industry and enhancing the town centre as the focal point for retail, leisure, commercial and civic administration for the whole of the Tees Valley conurbation. Middlesbrough town centre is the largest employment destination within the Tees Valley and much of this employment is within the service sector. However, the Council also recognises within the Core Strategy that despite the importance of the town centre to the sub-regional economy, there is constant external competition and Middlesbrough must continue to strive to enhance its town centre and improve the overall portfolio.
3.29 Chapter 8 – ‘A 21 st Century Retail and Leisure Centre’, sets out the local planning policy guidance in relation to the hierarchy and strategy for the defined centres within Middlesbrough. Paragraph 8.1 states that Middlesbrough town centre is one of the North East’s strongest performing shopping centres, with only Newcastle and the Metro Centre containing more retail floorspace. Paragraph 8.3 then goes on to refer to
26
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
3.30 Policy CS13– ‘A Strategy for the Town, District, Local and Neighbourhood Centres’ states that the Council will work with partner organisations and the local community to identify, protect and enhance the hierarchy of vital and viable town, district, local and neighbourhood centres in Middlesbrough.
3.31 Middlesbrough is the only defined town centre under Policy CS13. The Policy states that to ensure that Middlesbrough continues to fulfil the sub-regional role, it is important to provide development that meets both quantitative and qualitative needs. The Policy then sets out the hierarchy of the defined District, Local and Neighbourhood Centres. With regards to the District Centres of Berwick Hills and Coulby Newham, Policy CS13 states that development required to meet the needs of the areas served by these centres in a sustainable way, is of an appropriate scale and will not adversely impact upon the vitality and viability of other nearby town and district centres will be allowed. Turning to local and neighbourhood centres, the Policy then states that no proposed development will be allowed in these centres, unless it can be demonstrated that it is to meet local needs, is of a scale appropriate to the centre and will not adversely impact upon the vitality and viability of other nearby centres.
3.32 Policy CS13 then goes on to state that the above will be achieved via eight specific means:
a. Developing and expanding the town centre to incorporate Cannon Park, part of Middlehaven and the University;
b. Encouraging retail, commercial, leisure and cultural development within a centre of an appropriate type and scale commensurate with its current and future function;
c. Safeguarding the retail character and function of centres by resisting developments that detract from their vitality and viability;
d. Encouraging convenient and accessible district, local and neighbourhood shopping facilities to meet day to day needs of residents and contribute to social inclusion;
e. Ensuring shopping facilities are accessible by a range of means;
f. Ensuring new developments are of an appropriate high quality design particularly in the town centre;
g. Where appropriate seeking to consolidate retail and other uses into a more sustainable, compact and viable centre core; and
h. Alternative uses for local centres will only be considered where the centre is included as part of a comprehensive area based regeneration initiative.
27
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Regeneration DPD
3.33 The Regeneration DPD is in conformity with the adopted Core Strategy, identifying specific sites that are proposed for development, and principal regeneration sites. These allocations cover housing, employment, mixed use, retail, leisure, and transport uses. In addition, it sets out the site-specific policies that will be used in the determination of planning applications. The DPD was adopted on 25 February 2009.
3.34 Paragraphs 8.7 and 8.8 of the Regeneration DPD refer to Middlesbrough town centre and states that the town centre is the principal retail centre for the Tees Valley Region and is the focus of the service economy and the basis of the leisure and evening economy. Paragraph 8.8 then goes on to state that due to the constrained nature of the town centre boundary, it is difficult to identify sites within the existing boundary for new development and as such, it is proposed to extend the town centre boundary as shown on the Core Strategy Proposals Map.
3.35 Policy REG20 then sets out the ‘Principal Use Sectors’ and states that to support the role of the town centre as expressed in Policy CS13 of the Core Strategy, appropriate uses will be directed to the principal use sectors as identified on the proposals map. In terms of the retail sector, Policy REG20 identifies the primary retail area, including an opportunity for a new convenience superstore and contains the primary shopping frontage. Furthermore, the Policy identifies the Cannon Park sector and states that it is a town centre growth area for retail warehousing and employment uses. There are also an additional four sectors covered by Policy REG20 as follows:
• Retail Sector: primary retail area (Classes A1, A2, A3) including an opportunity for a new convenience superstore and contains the Primary Shopping Frontage;
• Cannon Park Sector: Town centre growth area for retail warehousing and employment uses;
• Central Sector: Location for leisure, culture and the evening economy as well as a location for offices;
• Middlehaven Sector: Town centre growth area for the digital economy, strategic leisure, office and residential;
• Southern Sector: Town centre growth area for retail (Classes A1, A2, A3 and A4) and university uses (complementary to those in the retail sector); and
• East Sector: Mixed residential and business uses.
28
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
3.36 Policy REG21 then refers specifically to the Primary Shopping Frontage and states that within this area, Use Class A1 will be appropriate. Other uses within Use Classes A2, A3 and other complementary uses may be acceptable provided that they will not harm the function and character of the shopping area and they will not impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre.
3.37 There is a clear aspiration from the Council to ensure that Middlesbrough town centre is redeveloped and enhanced to provide additional retail, leisure, office and residential uses and thus providing an area which is attractive as a town centre destination. As we discuss in further detail in subsequent chapters of this Study, this is a requirement to ensure that Middlesbrough town centre can continue to compete with other retail and leisure destinations.
Local Plan - Housing
3.38 The Housing Local Plan replaces the housing elements of the existing Local Development Framework, outlining the context and vision for future housing development within the town up to 2029. It was formally adopted in November 2014 and forms part of the adopted development plan.
3.39 The purpose of the Housing LP was to review the housing elements of the Core Strategy Regeneration DPD in light of the housing strategy not being successful. Of particular importance and a key aim for the Council is to address the population decline within Middlesbrough. Paragraph 2.5 of the Housing LP states that there has been a long-term population decline in Middlesbrough since the 1960s and that to ensure that the urban core of the Tees Valley grows and develops as a place in which people want to invest, live, work and visit, it will be necessary to firstly stop population decline.
3.40 The Housing LP then goes on to look at how the Council will create a balanced housing market. Paragraph 2.7 recognises that Middlesbrough and its neighbours face some tough challenges in creating a balanced housing stock to meet the needs and aspirations of the population both now and into the future.
Emerging Development Plan
Local Plan
3.41 The new Middlesbrough Local Plan will replace the existing Core Strategy and Regeneration DPDs, and cover all topic areas other than minerals and waste. The Council is at the very initial phases of the preparation of the new Local Plan and is currently in the process of preparing the supporting evidence.
29
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
The current timetable envisages that the Issues and Options will be published in July 2016 and the Preferred Options in September 2016. Final adoption is currently timetabled for September 2018. There are no draft policies to comment on at this stage and this 2016 Middlesbrough Retail Study will assist the Council in formulating those policies relating to town centre development.
30
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
4.0 Original Market Research
Introduction
4.01 The undertaking of original market research enables an in-depth analysis at a local level and allows the evaluation of the trade draw of particular town centres. The use of specifically commissioned and tailored survey research is fundamental to identifying the likely capacity for future retail floorspace across the Study Area.
4.02 A key requirement of this Study is the detailed understanding of strategic shopping patterns in terms of the use of the defined centres within the Middlesbrough administrative area and surrounding retail centres, and the identification of the catchment area. WYG commissioned specialist market researchers NEMS to undertake a comprehensive household telephone survey to identify consumers’ habits and preferences in the Study Area. A total of 1,600 household surveys were undertaken across the 11 Study Area Zones. These same 11 Zones and Study Area were also adopted for the 2005, 2008 and 2013 Retail Studies.
4.03 We set out the general methodological approach to the surveys and the key results below.
Household Survey
4.04 In February 2016, a survey of 1,600 households was undertaken across the defined Study Area. The Study Area comprises 11 separate zones and stretches beyond the Middlesbrough administrative boundary to incorporate adjacent local authority areas, including Stockton-on-Tees, Redcar and Cleveland and Hartlepool. Residents in these outlying areas also, to some extent, have the potential to look to facilities within Middlesbrough to meet some retail needs.
4.05 The Middlesbrough administrative area broadly equates to Study Area Zones 7 and 8, as well as parts of Zones 4, 6 and 10. Figure 4.1 below and Appendix 1 illustrates the Study Area. Table 4.1 sets out the postcode sectors which comprise each zone with the Study Area. The questions and full tabulation of results from the household survey are provided at Appendix 2.
31
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Figure 4.1: Study Area
Table 4.1: Postcode Sectors by Survey Zone Survey Geographical Postcode Sectors Zone Area Zone 1 Rural Stockton DL 2 1, TS15 0/9, TS16 0, TS21 1/2/3/4, TS22 5, TS27 3/4 Stockton-on- Zone 2 TS18 1/2/3/4/5, TS19 0/7/8/9, TS20 1/2 Tees Zone 3 Hartlepool TS24 0/7/8/9, TS25 1/2/3/4/5, TS26 0/8/9 Zone 4 Billingham TS 2 1, TS23 1, TS23 2, TS23 3, TS23 4 Saltburn and Zone 5 TS11 6/7/8, TS12 1/2/3, TS13 4/5, TS14 6/7/8, YO21 2 Guisborough Zone 6 Thornaby TS16 9, TS17 0, TS17 5, TS17 6, TS17 7, TS17 8, TS17 9 Central Zone 7 TS 1 1/2/3/4/5, TS 4 2/3, TS 5 4/5/6/7/8, TS 7 8, TS 8 9 Middlesbrough East Zone 8 TS 3 0, TS 3 6, TS 3 7, TS 3 8, TS 3 9, TS 7 9 Middlesbrough Zone 9 Neston TS 6 0, TS 6 6, TS 6 7, TS 6 8, TS 6 9 Zone 10 Hambleton TS 7 0, TS 8 0, TS 9 5, TS 9 6, TS 9 7 Zone 11 Redcar TS10 1, TS10 2, TS10 3, TS10 4, TS10 5 Shaded cells depict those zones which primarily fall within the Middlesbrough administrative area
32
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
4.06 The results of the household survey are utilised to calculate the expenditure claimed by each existing retail facility within the Study Area, a process which is considered in Section 7 of this report.
4.07 The household survey is also of assistance in identifying the market share claimed by specific retail destinations, the frequency of visits to purchase various types of goods, the incidence of linked trips, the most popular means of accessing town centre facilities, the use of other town centre facilities, and so on.
4.08 In considering the market share of trips secured by specific retail destinations, we have compared the market share of trips attracted to particular destinations in 2007, when the previous household survey was undertaken to inform the Middlesbrough Retail Study (2008) and Retail Study Update (2013), to the market share attracted by these same facilities now, in order to determine how market shares have changed over time.
4.09 It is important to note that to ensure that the survey is statistically reliable, we now include eight comparison goods shopping questions within the household survey, whereas the previous Studies in Middlesbrough were based on just six. The difference is, that we now split up the previously named ‘household goods’ to cover three separate type of goods; small household goods, toys and recreation products and books, CDs and DVDS. By splitting the goods up, we are able to apportion more detailed expenditure levels and therefore calculate more detailed overall comparison goods spending patterns across the Study Area. However, in light of this difference, we are unable to suitably compare the market shares from the 2007 household survey for books, household goods and recreation products with the market share in 2016.
4.10 In our view, the consideration of market share of trips (rather than market share of expenditure) is of particular interest as it accurately allows changes in customers’ shopping habits to be monitored over time. Accordingly, we consider below the market share of trips to particular retail venues to purchase both convenience goods and comparison goods. For convenience goods, respondents have been questioned in respect of where they last visited to undertake ‘main’ food shopping (which may take the form of a large ‘trolley’ shop and be undertaken on an weekly basis) and ‘top up’ (or basket) food shopping (which will generally be undertaken on a more frequent basis and will involve the purchase of grocery staples, such as milk and bread, and occasional items). For comparison goods, respondents have been questioned in respect of where they last visited to purchase eight separate types of comparison goods.
33
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
4.11 Our market share analysis utilises the same NEMS household survey data that we rely on to assess quantitative need and our commentary relates to physical retail destinations only (in other words, expenditure which is committed through the internet and other special forms of trading does not form part of our market share analysis that follows).
4.12 However, it is possible to identify from ‘unfiltered’ household survey data 29 those respondents who indicated that their last convenience and comparison goods purchases were undertaken via the internet or other non-store formats.
4.13 Table 4.2 below sets out the survey results, which suggest that there is considerable variation in terms of the types of goods which are purchased online. As we would expect, a greater proportion of main food shopping is undertaken online, when compared to top-up shopping. This is reflective of the fact that online food shopping is more practical, economical and convenient when a larger number of items are purchased.
4.14 There are four types of comparison goods where, across the Study Area as a whole, at least one in ten purchases are made online. These categories are: books, CDs and DVDs (for which 35.3% of respondents indicates they made their last purchase online); electrical goods (20.4%); toys, games, bicycles and recreation goods (18.0%); and clothing and footwear (11.1%). However, it should be noted that there is a reasonably significant degree of variation between zones in terms of the proportion of purchases committed online. Accordingly, in assessing the future quantitative need for additional retail floorspace, we deduct an allowance for special forms of trading based on the national average figures for convenience and comparison goods identified by Experian in its Retail Planner Briefing Note 13, which was published in October 2015. Importantly, the Experian allowance also takes into consideration the proportion of online sales which are actually sourced from stores’ shelves – expenditure which may be able to support additional floorspace in the future. We provide full details of our consideration of special forms of trading in assessing quantitative retail needs at Section 6 of this report.
4.15 Table 4.2 also sets out the proportion of convenience goods purchases which are made online within the Study Area in accordance with the household survey, by considering the mean figure for the proportion of main food and top-up shopping purchases made online. This mean figure of 2.3% is lower than the projected online convenience goods market share estimated by Experian at 2016 of 3.0%. This indicates that a lesser proportion of residents within the Study Area undertake their
29 This being the household survey results which have not had special forms of trading responses ‘stripped out’ from the dataset
34
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
convenience goods purchases online than would be expected. In terms of comparison goods shopping, we have again calculated the mean proportion of purchases made online across all of the comparison goods categories. The mean online comparison goods market share of 11.0% is also slightly lower than the projected online comparison goods market share estimated by Experian at 2016 of 12.4%. This indicates that the market share of online comparison goods purchases in the Study Area is lower than to that found nationally.
Table 4.2a: Proportion of Purchases Made Online by Zone (%) Goods Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Convenience Goods Main Food Shopping 2.5% 2.3% 2.7% 1.9% 1.4% 5.6% 4.4% 3.0% Top-Up Food Shopping 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.5% Comparison Goods Clothing and footwear 13.6% 7.4% 11.1% 7.9% 19.9% 8.0% 8.1% 11.0% Books, CDs and DVDs 48.7% 30.6% 35.3% 36.2% 39.5% 44.5% 30.5% 21.8% Small household goods 6.5% 5.7% 12.0% 5.3% 13.6% 12.7% 8.1% 8.3% Toys, games, bicycles and recreation 21.8% 17.1% 24.3% 9.9% 23.6% 18.5% 12.1% 11.3% goods Chemist goods 7.7% 4.1% 6.2% 6.1% 4.4% 5.1% 3.2% 4.2% Electrical goods 19.3% 23.7% 18.9% 13.3% 25.2% 23.9% 19.3% 14.5%
DIY and Garden goods 4.1% 8.1% 8.3% 1.5% 4.4% 7.8% 3.8% 3.3%
Furniture 7.1% 1.7% 0.3% 3.8% 1.1% 0.9% 2.2% 1.9% Source: Household Survey, NEMS, Weighted (Not Filtered) Experian average figure derived from Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note 13, Appendix 3
Table 4.2b: Proportion of Purchases Made Online by Zone (%) Goods Type 9 10 11 Total Mean Experian
Convenience Goods
Main Food Shopping 1.0% 0.0% 2.6% 2.8% 1.5% 3.0% Top-Up Food Shopping 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Comparison Goods Clothing and footwear 6.7% 14.1% 18.1% 11.1% Books, CDs and DVDs 24.3% 50.0% 39.9% 35.3%
Small household goods 5.6% 9.3% 13.3% 9.4%
Toys, games, bicycles and recreation 12.8% 19.5% 24.7% 18.0% goods 11.0% 12.4% Chemist goods 6.9% 0.9% 4.4% 4.7% Electrical goods 10.1% 28.9% 20.8% 20.4%
DIY 3.0% 6.1% 7.4% 5.7%
Furniture 4.0% 2.8% 6.2% 2.3% Source: Household Survey, NEMS, Weighted (Not Filtered) Experian average figure derived from Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note 13, Appendix 3
35
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
4.16 As we have explained, the market share analysis which follows relates to shopping trips only. However, we give some consideration to the market share of expenditure at Section 7 of this report.
4.17 It is important to note that as the latest household survey was undertaken in 2007 and therefore nine years have lapsed since that survey, there have been some considerable changes to shopping patterns and overall market share attracted by certain destinations.
Convenience Shopping Patterns
Changes to the Convenience Shopping Offer in Middlesbrough Borough
4.18 Since 2013, there have been improvements to the provision of convenience shopping facilities in the Study Area, notably in respect of:
• The opening of the Tesco Extra on South Bank in Eston; • The opening of the Aldi on Dalby Way in Coulby Newham; and • The opening of the Lidl on Cargo Fleet Lane in North Ormesby.
4.19 We also note that a new large format foodstore had been constructed but not occupied or opened to the north of Middlesbrough town centre. This was due to be occupied by Sainsbury’s, but the retailer has since withdrawn from the scheme and has stated that its intentions were to remain at their current store on Wilson Street. Therefore, whilst the store clearly does not attract any tangible shopping trips as it is not yet trading, it is worth considering when discussing capacity later on in this Study.
Main Food Shopping Patterns 4.20 Middlesbrough’s role and function as a convenience goods destination has varied slightly since the household survey was undertaken in 2007 which was used to produce the previous Middlesbrough and Stockton Retail Study in 2008 and the Middlesbrough Study Update published in 2013.
4.21 Table 4.3 demonstrates that within the Study Area, those convenience destinations within the Middlesbrough Borough administrative boundary retain a total of 20.1% of all main food convenience shopping trips, which has increased by 1.1 percentage points since 2007. The biggest decrease in number of trips to Middlesbrough facilities is from residents in Zone 8, which has decreased by 9.6 percentage points, however, Zone 7 (Central Middlesbrough) has seen an increase in trips to Middlesbrough destinations by 18.3 percentage points since 2007.
36
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
4.22 Zones 7, 8 and 10 have the highest proportion of trips attracted to destinations in Middlesbrough, all of which are above 50%, which is expected due to the proportion of these zones falling within the Borough boundary. However, this is also demonstrating a relatively high proportion of main food trips which are currently being undertaken at facilities outside of Middlesbrough. In terms of residents in Zone 7 (Central Middlesbrough), 6.9% are undertaking their main food shop at destinations in Zone 2 and 26.3% at destinations in Zone 6. Overall, a total of 38.4% of main food trips from Zone 7 are ‘leaking’ out of the Borough and 28.7% from Zone 8 are leaking out of the Borough. This demonstrates that there are main food shopping trips which could be ‘clawed’ back into Middlesbrough Borough.
Table 4.3: Middlesbrough Borough Main Food Market Share by Zone (%)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total Middlesbrough Borough Convenience Market Share Main Food 1.7 1.6 0.0 1.0 4.0 2.4 43.3 80.9 22.8 59.6 4.1 19.0 2007 Main Food 0.0 0.9 0.0 1.1 1.7 5.1 61.6 71.3 20.9 64.2 3.4 20.1 2016 Difference -1.7 -0.7 0 0.1 -2.3 2.7 18.3 -9.6 -1.9 4.6 -0.7 1.1
4.23 Looking at the breakdown of trips by the three zones as shown in Table 4.4 below, it can be seen that there has been an increase in trips from those living in Zone 7 to convenience destinations within the same zone, from 19.1% in 2012 to 21.3% in 2016. There has also been a considerable increase in main food trips from residents in Zone 7 to convenience facilities in Zone 10 from 13.7% to 32.2%. This is primarily due to an increase in trips from those residents for their main food shop to the Tesco Extra at Coulby Newham, from 13.1% to 21.7%, an increase in 8.6 percentage points.
4.24 Table 4.4 also shows a big decrease in main food trips from residents in Zone 8 to convenience facilities also in Zone 8, by 15.6 percentage points. This is primarily due to the decrease in trips from those residents to the Morrisons on Omesby Road in Berwick Hills from 68.5% to 46.2%, a decrease in 22.3 percentage points. Instead, a higher proportion of these residents are undertaking their main food shop at the Asda at South Bank in Zone 9 (an increase from 11.9% to 14.4%) and the Tesco Extra at South Bank / Eston also in Zone 9 which opened in 2014 (8.5%).
37
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Table 4.4: Zones 7, 8 and 10 Main Food Market Share (%)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total 2007 Total Zone 7 1.7 0.5 0.0 1.0 1.9 1.2 19.1 5.4 0.8 6.2 0.0 5.3 Total Zone 8 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.2 11.1 74.8 21.3 16.8 3.1 8.9 Total Zone 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 13.7 0.7 0.8 46.9 1.0 5.4 2016 Total Zone 7 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.7 1.0 2.0 21.3 8.1 5.8 6.2 0.0 5.3 Total Zone 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.7 8.1 59.2 14.1 6.3 1.4 6.5 Total Zone 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 1.4 32.2 4.0 1.1 60.5 2.0 9.0 2007 – 2016 Change Zone 7 -1.7 1.5 0.0 -0.3 -0.9 0.8 2.2 2.7 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zone 8 0.0 -1.1 0.0 0.0 -1.4 0.5 -3.0 -15.6 -7.2 -10.5 -1.7 -2.4 Zone 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 1.4 18.5 3.3 0.3 13.6 1.0 3.6 Notes: The above figures do not fully correspond with those in Table 4.3 due to some of the convenience facilities falling outside of the Middlesbrough Borough Boundary Figures Taken from Table 3 of Appendix 6
4.25 Table 4.5 below provides a breakdown of the main food market shares on a zonal basis for those destinations which have the highest proportion of responses in total.
4.26 Table 4.5 shows that the Sainsbury’s on Wilson Street in Middlesbrough secures the highest market share for main food goods within Zone 7 (Central Middlesbrough) at 2.0% overall, although this is significantly lower than the top destinations in Zone 8 and 10 and has decreased in overall market share since 2007, when it secured 2.5% of all main food trips from across the Study Area.
4.27 Out of the three zones, the Tesco Extra at Coulby Newham has the highest overall main food market share at 6.0%, which has increased since 2007 by 1.3 percentage points. This store also secures the highest main food market share across the whole Study Area, attracting the highest proportion of trips from all 11 Zones combined.
4.28 The Morrisons on Ormesby Road in Berwick Hills also has a high market share of 5.1%, although this has decreased by 3.2 percentage points since 2007.
38
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Table 4.5: Top Main Food Destinations within Zones 7, 8 and 10 (%)
Total Total Address 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2016 2007 Zone 7
Sainsburys, Wilson 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.8 8.3 1.2 2.7 4.9 0.0 2.0 2.5 Street, Middlesbrough Aldi, Marton Road, 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 3.1 1.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.5 Middlesbrough Aldi, Newport Road, 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 1.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 - Middlesbrough M&S Foodhall, Linthorpe 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 1.5 1.6 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.2 Road, Middlesbrough Iceland, Cleveland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.5 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.6 Centre, Middlesbrough Zone 8
Morrisons, Ormesby 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.5 7.2 46.2 11.3 5.1 0.0 5.1 8.3 Road, Berwick Hills Lidl, Cargo Fleet Lane, North Ormesby, 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 6.1 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 - Middlesbrough Asda Supermarket, Ormesby Road, Park 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 5.2 0.9 0.4 1.4 0.5 0.5 End, Middlesbrough Sainsburys Local, Fosdyke Green, Vaughan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 Shopping Centre, Middlesbrough Zone 10
Tesco Extra, Parkway 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 21.7 1.3 0.5 43.7 0.7 6.0 4.7 Centre, Coulby Newham Aldi, Dalby Way, 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 10.0 2.6 0.5 7.6 1.4 2.4 - Middlesbrough Co -operative Food, Springfield, Stokesley 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.3 0.5 (Larger store, with a car park) Co-operative Food, High 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.2 0.1 Street, Great Ayton Notes: Figures Taken from Table 3 of Appendix 6
‘Top up’ Food Shopping Patterns 4.29 Turning to the market share for ‘top-up’ food shopping, Table 4.6 below provides the proportion of ‘top-up’ food market share which is undertaken at facilities within the Middlesbrough Borough administrative boundary. Overall, the facilities within Middlesbrough attract 24.7% of top-up food shopping trips, which has increased by 3.7 percentage points since 2007.
4.30 Table 4.6 demonstrates that the zones with the highest top-up food market share being directed to facilities within Middlesbrough are Zones 7 and 8, which is logical in light of the location of these zones within the Borough. In addition, 34.5% of Zone 10 residents also undertake their top-up shop in Middlesbrough. This is not as high as Zones 7 and 8 in light of there being smaller scale convenience stores which attract top-up shopping trips within Stokesley which falls outside of the Middlesbrough
39
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Borough boundary. The market share retention for top-up goods in both Zones 7 and 8 has increased by 26.5 and 13.1 percentage points respectively since 2007
4.31 Zones 1-6 and 11 all have a market share to Middlesbrough facilities of less than 10%, which again is logical in light of the typical localised nature of top-up shopping, and residents being less likely to travel further distances to undertake such convenience shops.
Table 4.6: Top-up Food Market Share in Middlesbrough Borough by Zone
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total Middlesbrough Borough Convenience Market Share Top Up Food 2007 to Middlesbrough 1.3 1.2 0.5 1.6 2.7 3.2 62.5 73.1 8.4 48.4 3.0 21.0 Destinations Top -Up Food 2016 to Middlesbrough 4.2 1.3 1.0 0.0 1.2 1.7 89.0 86.2 22.7 40.6 4.1 24.7 Destinations Difference 2.9 0.1 0.5 -1.6 -1.5 -1.5 26.5 13.1 14.3 -7.8 1.1 3.7 Notes: Figures Taken from Table 3 of Appendix 6
4.32 Table 4.7 below provides a breakdown of the market share retention levels for Zones 7, 8 and 10 which broadly comprise the Middlesbrough Borough area. The Table demonstrates that the top-up market share of residents from Zone 7 undertaking their shop at facilities also within Zone 7 has increased from 46.8% to 67.3%, an increase in 20.5 percentage points. This increase cannot be attributed to one single store, but instead is a result of an increase in top-up shopping trips to a number of stores, including the Tesco Express and Sainsbury Local stores. Similarly to Zone 7, Zone 8 has a high retention rate from residents in the same Zone, although this has reduced by 1.3 percentage points since 2007.
4.33 Overall, both Zones 7 and 10 have seen an increase in top-up market share across the entire Study Area by 2.9 and 2.6 percentage points respectively, but Zone 8 has seen a marginal decrease by 0.4 percentage points.
40
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Table 4.7: Zones 7, 8 and 10 Top Up Food Market Share (%)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total 2007 Zone 7 1.3 1.2 0.5 1.6 2.7 1.6 46.8 9.0 6.0 1.8 0.0 12.1 Zone 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 7.1 62.8 1.2 5.1 3.0 5.1 Zone 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 9.2 1.2 1.2 78.4 0.0 5.5 2016 Zone 7 4.2 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 2.1 67.3 21.3 14.6 11.9 2.1 15.0 Zone 8 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 61.5 7.3 1.7 0.0 4.7 Zone 10 7.9 0.3 1.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 21.1 5.6 0.8 66.9 2.0 8.1 Change Zone 7 2.9 1.9 -0.5 -1.6 -2.2 0.5 20.5 12.3 8.6 10.1 2.1 2.9 Zone 8 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.6 -5.9 -1.3 6.1 -3.4 -3.0 -0.4 Zone 10 7.9 0.3 1.0 0.0 0.6 0.7 11.9 4.4 -0.4 -11.5 2.0 2.6 Notes: Figures Taken from Table 3 of Appendix 6
4.34 Table 4.8 below provides a summary of the main top-up food destinations within Zones 7, 8 and 10. Again, the Tesco Extra in Coulby Newham has a high market share of 3.1% from the entire Study Area, which has decreased by 0.1 percentage points since 2007. 12.0% of Zone 7 residents travel to this Tesco to undertake their top-up shop, and 13.3% of Zone 10 residents use the facility for their top up shop.
4.35 Within Zone 7, the Tesco Express on Roman Road has the highest top-up food market share at 1.4%, which has increased by 1.2 percentage points since 2007. Within Zone 8, the store with the highest top-up food market share is the Morrisons in Berwick Hills, although this has decreased by 2.1 percentage points since 2007.
41
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Table 4.8: Top ‘Top-up’ Food Destinations in Zones 7, 8 and 10 (%)
Total Total Address 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2016 2007 Zone 7 Tesco Express, Roman 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.4 0.2 Road, Middlesbrough Mi ddlesbrough Town 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 3.8 4.3 0.0 0.5 1.0 4.2 Centre Tesco Express, Marton 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 1.0 - Road, Middlesbrough Co -operative Food, Linthorpe Road, 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.2 Middlesbrough Ac klam Road / Cambridge Road Local 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 - Centre, Middlesbrough Zone 8
Morrisons, Ormesby 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 11.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.1 Road, Berwick Hills Li dl, Cargo Fleet Lane, North Ormesby, 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.9 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.9 - Middlesbrough As da Supermarket, Ormesby Road, Park 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 End, Middlesbrough Farmfoods, High Street, Ormesby, 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.6 1.7 0.0 0.6 - Middlesbrough
Zone 10
Tesco Extra, Parkway Centre, Coulby 0.0 0.3 1.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 12.0 1.2 0.8 13.3 0.3 3.1 3.2 Newham Aldi, Dalby Way, 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 1.3 0.0 3.6 0.0 1.3 - Middlesbrough Co -operative Food, Springfield, Stokesley 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.2 0.0 14.1 0.0 0.9 0.8 (Larger store, with a car park) Co -operative Food, High Street, Great 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.5 0.0 0.9 0.1 Ayton Notes: Figures Taken from Table 3 of Appendix 6
4.36 Overall, the proportion of top-up food shopping trips being undertaken at destinations within the Study Area is 95.5%, which has increased since 2007 when the percentage was 87.8%. This demonstrates the more localised nature of top-up shopping, and the typical habits of shoppers to visit shops in close proximity to their home for such shops or in close proximity to their places of work, due to shoppers often undertaking such shops during their lunch hours or after work. Therefore, the level of retention of expenditure within the Study Area is almost at 100.0%.
42
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Comparison Shopping Patterns – Non Bulky
Clothing and Footwear Shopping Patterns 4.37 Table 4.9 below provides a breakdown of the clothing and footwear market share currently being undertaken at destinations located within the Middlesbrough Borough boundary. Clothing and footwear shopping is an important sector of comparison retailing, and represents almost 30% of the total available comparison spend at 2016. Therefore, the analysis of clothing and footwear shopping patterns is extremely important in identifying key retail destinations.
4.38 The figures below demonstrate that overall, 36.0% of all trips are to destinations within Middlesbrough, which has decreased by 22.2 percentage points since 2007. Overall, the clothing and footwear market share from Zones 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 to destinations within the Borough have all decreased quite considerably.
4.39 Zones 7, 8, 9 and 11 have the highest clothing and footwear market share to destinations in Middlesbrough, all with more than 50% of trips going to destinations in Middlesbrough Borough. The highest decrease has been from residents in Zone 8, of which 56.4% now undertake their clothing and footwear shop at destinations in Middlesbrough compared to 88.5% in 2007. This reduction is primarily due to a reduction in trips from residents in Zone 8 to Middlesbrough town centre from 64.3% in 2007 to 51.7% in 2016. There has also been a reduction from Zone 7 to destinations in Middlesbrough, from 77.4% to 57.6%. Again, this can be attributed to a lower proportion of residents from Zone 7 undertaking their clothing and footwear shop in Middlesbrough town centre, which has decreased from 76.8% to 50.4%, a notable reduction in 26.4 percentage points.
Table 4.9: Clothing and Footwear Market Share to Destinations in Middlesbrough Borough
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total Market Share Clothing & 37.1 41.1 34.1 63.1 57.8 56.7 77.4 88.5 85.8 66.9 52.7 58.2 Footwear 2007 Clothing & 14.1 22.2 19.1 27.1 39.5 26.3 57.6 56.4 55.1 39.6 52.2 36.0 Footwear 2016 Difference -23.0 -18.9 -15.0 -36.0 -18.3 -30.4 -19.8 -32.1 -30.7 -27.3 -0.5 -22.2 Notes: Figures Taken from Table 11 of Appendix 6
4.40 Table 4.10 below provides a comparison of zonal clothing and footwear market share to the main destinations across the Study Area, from 2007 to 2016. It is apparent from the Table below that there has been a significant reduction in clothing and footwear shopping trips to Middlesbrough town centre across the Study Area overall, from 58.0% in 2007 to 33.3% in 2016, a reduction by 24.7 percentage
43
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
points. A reduction in market share to Middlesbrough town centre can be seen across all of the 11 Zones.
4.41 However, there has been a considerable increase in overall shopping trips to Teesside Shopping Park since 2007, by 19.5 percentage points, from 5.0% in 2012 to 24.5% in 2016. This increase broadly reflects the decrease in market share to Middlesbrough town centre, and can be seen across all 11 Zones too. It is important to note that Middlesbrough town centre does still have a higher market share for clothing and footwear goods overall across the whole Study Area, and is therefore still the most popular destination for purchasing such goods, despite its reduction in market share overall.
4.42 The increase in market share to Teesside Shopping Park is due to the increase in typical ‘town-centre’ retailers now present at the park, which were not all present at the time of the previous household survey in 2007. As such, the two destinations (Middlesbrough town centre and Teesside Shopping Park) now compete directly for trade due to the very similar offer of retailers. However, Middlesbrough still has a number of the larger national multiple retailers (House of Frasier, Debenhams etc) which Teesside Shopping Park does not have, and therefore the town centre is still attracting a higher percentage of trips due to its wider offer and the presence of these key ‘anchor’ retailers. In particular, we can see an increase in shopping trips from residents in Zones 7 and 10, both of which lie broadly within the Middlesbrough Borough boundary to Teesside Shopping Park for clothing and footwear purchases, and a considerable decrease to Middlesbrough town centre from these residents. As discussed in more detail in Section 5.0 of this Study, the interchanging of the market share between the two destinations is primarily due to the relative close proximity of the two, and therefore the ease of travelling to either and it coming down to a personal choice of which type of destination the shopper prefers. There have also been significant changes to the shopping patterns for clothing and footwear goods from residents in Zone 1, with a significant decrease in market share to Middlesbrough town centre and a significant increase in market share to Teesside Shopping Park.
44
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Table 4.10: Market Share of Top Clothing and Footwear Destinations by Zone
Address Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total
Middlesbrough 2007 37.1 41.1 34.1 63.1 57.8 56.7 76.8 88.5 85.8 64.3 52.7 58.0 Town Centre 2016 13.1 22.2 19.1 26.1 38.3 25.4 50.4 51.7 49.7 28.7 49.9 33.3
Teeside Shopping 2007 3.7 6.1 1.9 4.5 1.1 13.2 6.9 3.4 0.9 13.5 2.1 5.0 Park 2016 41.0 29.6 10.1 36.4 17.8 47.5 26.5 7.2 13.6 36.1 10.8 24.5
Hartlepool Town 2007 12.3 0.2 46.8 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.6 Centre 2016 4.8 0.0 37.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0
Stockton Town 2007 11.0 38.8 2.3 11.6 0.0 17.0 5.6 1.8 0.0 1.0 0.0 9.0 Centre 2016 2.8 25.3 0.8 5.8 0.5 4.8 1.1 1.3 2.4 0.0 0.0 5.5 Notes: Figures Taken from Table 11 of Appendix 6
Books, CDs and DVDs Shopping Patterns 4.43 Table 4.11 below provides a breakdown of the Books, CDs and DVDs market share currently being undertaken at destinations located within the Middlesbrough Borough boundary. The figures below demonstrate that overall, 41.0% of all trips are to destinations within Middlesbrough. The highest market share is from Zone 8, where 83.9% undertake their shop for books, CDs and DVDs at destinations in Middlesbrough, of which 59.8% are to Middlesbrough town centre.
Table 4.11: Books, CDs and DVDs Market Share to Destinations in Middlesbrough Borough
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total Market Share Books, CDs, DVDs 27.4 27.4 15.2 33.3 35.1 30.7 71.2 83.9 42.7 69.8 27.3 41.0 2016 Notes: Figures Taken from Table 13 of Appendix 6
4.44 Table 4.12 below provides a breakdown of the zonal market share for books, CDs and DVDs to the main destinations across the Study Area. Again, Middlesbrough town centre attracts the highest proportion of trips overall at 33.5%, followed by Teesside Shopping Park at 9.3%. These figures strip out SFT shopping and as we set out in Table 4.2 above, 35.3% of respondents stated that they purchased these types of goods online.
45
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Table 4.12: Market Share of Top Books, CDs and DVDs Destinations by Zone
Address 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total
Middlesbrough 27.4 26.4 14.2 33.3 34.1 29.4 51.5 59.8 40.3 30.6 27.3 33.5 Town Centre Teeside 29.3 8.3 1.4 2.8 2.4 12.5 15.1 6.4 19.9 11.7 0.0 9.3 Shopping Park Redcar Town 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 65.5 7.1 Centre Stockton Town 5.5 32.4 0.0 7.0 6.2 6.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 Centre Hartlepool 0.0 0.0 31.8 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 Town Centre Notes: Figures Taken from Table 13 of Appendix 6
Small Household Goods 4.45 Table 4.13 below demonstrates that overall, 18.5% of all trips for small household goods are to destinations within Middlesbrough. The highest market share is from Zone 8, where 44.5% undertake their shop for small household goods at destinations in Middlesbrough, of which 25.2% are to Middlesbrough town centre.
Table 4.13: Small Household Goods Market Share to Destinations in Middlesbrough Borough 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total Market Share Small Household 4.7 8.5 5.3 8.3 28.6 11.3 36.4 44.5 24.0 28.3 14.5 18.5 Goods 2016 Notes: Figures Taken from Table 15 of Appendix 6
4.46 Table 4.14 below provides a breakdown of the zonal market share for small household goods to the main destinations across the Study Area. Portrack Lane in Stockton has the highest market share across the overall Study Area for small household goods at 18.8%, followed by Teesside Shopping Park at 17.2%. This compares to just 12.2% secured by Middlesbrough town centre and 4.3% secured by Stockton town centre. Whilst small household goods are traditionally sold by retailers in town centres, larger out-of-centre retailers attract shopping trips by selling such goods as part of a significantly wider offer. Again, these figures have ‘stripped out’ the proportion of purchases of small household goods purchased online. As Table 4.2 above demonstrates, a total of 9.4% of respondents stated that they purchase these goods online.
46
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Table 4.14: Market Share of Small Household Goods Destinations by Zone
Address 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total
Portrack Lane, 27.7 22.5 10.0 36.0 14.5 21.9 20.7 24.6 16.4 11.6 9.8 18.8 Stockton Tee sside 24.8 16.9 8.8 20.2 18.9 19.1 23.6 0.0 12.6 24.7 15.8 17.2 Shopping Park Middlesbrough 2.1 8.5 4.0 8.3 21.7 8.4 20.4 25.2 16.3 12.5 11.8 12.2 Town Centre Stockton Town 3.9 20.3 0.6 4.1 0.9 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.9 0.0 1.4 4.3 Centre Cleveland/Skipp ers Lane Retail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 5.4 21.7 18.2 2.6 6.6 4.2 Park Hartlepool Town 1.4 1.3 22.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 Centre Redcar Town 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 43.6 3.8 Centre Notes: Figures Taken from Table 15 of Appendix 6
Toys and Recreation Goods 4.47 Turning to toys and recreation goods, Table 4.15 below demonstrates that overall, 13.5% of all trips for toys and recreation goods are to destinations within Middlesbrough. The highest market share is from Zone 7, where 30.0% undertake their shop toys and recreation goods at destinations in Middlesbrough, followed by Zone 8 at 26.3%. Current retail trends demonstrate that the purchase of such goods is still popular, and therefore is an important aspect to the overall market.
Table 4.15: Toys and Recreation Goods Market Share to Destinations in Middlesbrough Borough 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total Market Share Toys and Recreation Goods 1.9 5.4 5.2 5.4 14.8 9.2 30.0 26.3 20.2 13.9 16.1 13.5 2016 Notes: Figures Taken from Table 17 of Appendix 6
4.48 Table 4.16 below provides a breakdown of the zonal market share for toys and recreation goods to the main destinations across the Study Area. Teesside Shopping Park has the highest market share across the overall Study Area for toys and recreation goods at 33.2%, followed by Portrack Lane at 18.2%. Middlesbrough town centre attracts 11.3% of all trips across the Study Area, the third most popular destination for purchasing toys and recreational goods.
47
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Table 4.16: Market Share of Toys and Recreation Goods Destinations by Zone
Address 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total
Teeside Shopping 57.8 33.4 27.1 23.8 20.8 39.4 39.5 16.6 34.8 46.6 38.7 33.2 Park Portrack Lane, 6.6 38.2 11.2 36.0 14.3 24.3 11.9 17.7 12.8 17.8 3.6 18.2 Stockton Middlesbrough 1.9 5.4 5.2 5.4 13.0 6.7 23.2 23.9 20.2 2.0 14.7 11.3 Town Centre Cleveland/Skippers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.9 0.0 4.8 19.2 18.1 0.0 9.4 5.2 Lane Retail Park Stockton Town 5.2 17.3 0.7 4.2 0.0 11.3 2.9 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 4.8 Centre Hartlepool Town 5.6 0.0 23.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 Centre Redcar Town 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.4 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 3.9 Centre Notes: Figures Taken from Table 17 of Appendix 6
Chemist Goods 4.49 Table 4.17 below breaks down the chemist goods market share by zone directed to destinations within Middlesbrough Borough at 2016, and compares this with the market share for the same zones in 2012. Across all eleven zones, 23.9% of the shopping trips for chemist goods are to facilities within Middlesbrough. This has reduced by 5.1 percentage points since 2007. Zone 9 has seen a significant decrease in trips to destinations in Middlesbrough by 35.7 percentage points. This is primarily due to a decrease in trips to Middlesbrough town centre from 51.3% to 15.6%. Zone 7 (Central Middlesbrough) has seen an increase in market share to destinations within the Borough by 12.7 percentage points.
4.50 Although the market share to destinations in Middlesbrough Borough has decreased across the majority of the zones, the relatively high market share figures for Zones 7, 8 and 10 and particularly Zones 7 and 8, demonstrate that shopping trips for chemist goods typically takes place at destinations in close proximity to where people live, and is comparable to convenience market shares. This can be a reflection of people’s shopping habits for chemist goods at foodstores.
Table 4.17: Chemist Goods Market Share to Destinations in Middlesbrough Borough
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total Market Share Chemist Goods 11.1 7.1 2.6 6.2 13.3 13.9 60.9 87.8 51.3 59.9 6.9 29.0 2007 Chemist Goods 0.8 7.4 3.8 5.4 5.5 5.6 73.6 69.3 15.6 45.1 9.1 23.9 2016 Difference -10.3 0.3 1.2 -0.8 -7.8 -8.3 12.7 -18.5 -35.7 -14.8 2.2 -5.1 Notes: Figures Taken from Table 19 of Appendix 6
4.51 Looking at the top destinations for chemist goods, Middlesbrough town centre still comes out top with 10.7%, although this has reduced since 2007 from 25.0%, or 14.3 percentage points. Teesside 48
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Shopping Park has seen an increase from 5.8% in 2007 to 8.9% but both Stockton and Redcar town centres have seen decreases in market share. As noted above, these figures have ‘stripped-out’ the online shopping responses. Table 4.2 above demonstrates that 4.7% of the respondents stated that they purchase chemist goods online.
Table 4.18: Market Share of Top Chemist Goods Destinations by Zone
Address Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total
Middlesbrough 2007 11.1 7.1 2.6 6.2 12.2 12.7 55.1 75.4 51.3 19.7 6.9 25.0 Town Centre 2016 0.8 7.4 3.1 5.4 5.1 4.0 27.5 26.3 12.1 8.6 7.4 10.7
Teeside Shopping 2007 9.6 8.9 0.3 2.1 1.1 15.0 9.4 3.5 1.9 6.5 0.0 5.8 Park 2016 8.8 13.7 1.6 8.4 4.3 27.2 11.5 0.0 2.5 7.3 3.2 8.9
Stockton Town 2007 14.2 68.0 0.9 5.5 0.0 17.5 7.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.4 Centre 2016 3.9 42.8 0.0 11.9 0.5 6.3 1.3 1.3 0.0 0.9 0.0 7.9
Redcar Town 2007 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 27.0 0.0 4.9 2.2 15.5 0.0 92.0 10.1 Centre 2016 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.8 0.0 1.1 0.0 3.4 0.7 74.0 7.2 Notes: Figures Taken from Table 19 of Appendix 6
Bulky Goods
Large Electrical Goods 4.52 Looking firstly at the shopping patterns for large electrical goods, we are able to see that overall, the destinations within Middlesbrough, attract 5.7% of all of the trips, which has reduced from 14.5% in 2007, or a reduction in 8.8 percentage points. The notable decreases have been from residents in Zones 9 and 10, which have decreased by 21.6 and 17.7 percentage points respectively. Again this is primarily due to a reduction in trips from residents in these zones to Middlesbrough town centre to purchase such goods.
Table 4.19: Large Electrical Goods Market Share to Destinations in Middlesbrough Borough 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total Market Share Large Electrical 7.3 3.9 0.8 9.6 13.3 2.8 28.0 25.4 29.1 22.4 18.8 14.5 Goods 2007 Large Electrical 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.9 2.6 20.4 15.4 7.5 4.7 2.4 5.7 Goods 2016 Difference -7.3 -3.9 -0.8 -8.6 -11.4 -0.2 -7.6 -10 -21.6 -17.7 -16.4 -8.8 Notes: Figures Taken from Table 21 of Appendix 6
4.53 The most popular destination for the purchase of electrical goods is Teesside Shopping Park, which was also the most popular destination in 2007. This is followed by Cleveland Retail Park, Anchor Retail
49
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Park and then Middlesbrough town centre. Middlesbrough town centre has reduced in overall market share since 2007 from 14.0% to 4.2%, a reduction in 9.8 percentage points. Cleveland Retail Park and Anchor Retail Park have both seen an increase in overall market share for the purchase of electrical goods since 2007. The three out of centre retail destinations each have a considerable offer of ‘bulky’ electrical goods retailers, including Currys at Anchor Retail Park in Cleveland, Currys and Asda Living at Teesside Shopping Park and Currys and B&Q at Cleveland Retail Park. The ability to park adjacent to retailers at out of centre destinations often influences where people shop for bulky items, in particular electrical goods, home furnishings and DIY items.
Table 4.20: Market Share of Top Electrical Goods Destinations by Zone
Address Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total
Teeside Shopping 2007 44.8 63.2 12.4 50.4 34.5 77.2 59.4 40.6 22.4 64.0 39.1 46.5 Park 2016 63.3 67.0 8.6 76.8 36.7 86.1 61.1 22.2 15.3 70.0 45.7 48.7
Cleveland Retail 2007 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.1 32.9 30.6 1.1 5.9 4.2 Park 2016 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 32.8 0.9 7.3 50.1 54.0 9.5 30.1 13.6
Anchor Retail 2007 4.6 0.0 11.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Park 2016 7.9 0.0 61.2 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.1
Middlesbrough 2007 7.3 3.1 0.8 9.6 13.3 2.8 27.6 25.4 29.1 16.2 18.8 14.0 Town Centre 2016 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.6 15.7 13.5 4.9 2.2 0.0 4.2 Notes: Figures Taken from Table 21 of Appendix 6
Furniture Goods 4.54 The market share for furniture goods being directed to facilities within the Borough has decreased overall from 2007 from 25.0% to 11.1%, a decrease in 13.9 percentage points. The biggest decreases have been from residents in Zones 5 and 11 where the decreases have been 31.6 and 28.3 percentage points respectively. Looking at Zones 10 and 11 in particular, the percentage of trips to Middlesbrough town centre to purchase such goods has decreased from 33.0% to 8.7% for Zone 10 and 28.5% to 0.9% for Zone 11, which represent significant reductions in trips. Instead, residents in Zones 10 and 11 are travelling to Portrack Lane and Teesside Shopping Park to undertake their furniture shopping trips. Again, this is likely due to the provision of large furniture retailers at Teesside Park and Portrack, including Sofology, Dfs, Asda Living and Next at Home at Teesside Shopping Park and Dunelm, Sleep Depot, Bensons for Beds, Furniture Village and ScS at Portrack Lane.
50
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Table 4.21: Furniture Goods Market Share to Destinations in Middlesbrough
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total Market Share Furniture Goods 16.3 15.8 5.3 17.4 37.1 20.8 31.7 51.3 38.9 37.6 30.1 25.0 2007 Furniture Goods 6.2 3.7 1.5 4.1 5.5 6.8 27.9 30.3 17.0 13.9 1.8 11.1 2016 Difference -10.1 -12.1 -3.8 -13.3 -31.6 -14 .0 -3.8 -21 .0 -21.9 -23.7 -28.3 -13.9 Notes: Figures Taken from Table 23 of Appendix 6
4.55 Table 4.22 below provides a breakdown of the top destinations for furniture shopping across the Study Area across all eleven zones. Portrack Lane has the highest market share at 2016 of 31.1% across all eleven zones, which has increased from 22.2% in 2012. Teesside Shopping Park has the second highest market share for furniture goods at 16.8%, which has also increased from 2007 when it attracted 14.3% of all trips. Middlesbrough town centre has seen an overall decrease in market share from 23.4% in 2007 to 7.4% in 2016, a decrease in furniture goods market share by 16.0 percentage points. This is likely to be down to the fact that shopping habits have altered significantly since 2007, and more trips for bulky items are now to out-of-centre destinations rather than in-centre, where parking is readily accessible and there are higher conglomerations of retailers in close proximity to each other.
Table 4.22: Market Share of Top Furniture Goods Destinations by Zone
Address Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total
2007 15.8 43.4 7.5 49.1 9.4 38.0 24.9 12.7 18.5 12.9 16.7 22.2 Portrack Lane 2016 35.2 50.7 17.7 61.6 13.7 44.4 38.6 21.5 9.7 24.4 18.4 31.1
Teeside Shopping 2007 6.8 11.9 8.6 8.8 11.4 18.8 24.2 13.4 9.2 21.1 12.2 14.3 Park 2016 23.7 18.3 15.1 5.9 9.9 31.7 17.9 4.8 21.4 24.7 11.6 16.8
Cleveland Retail 2007 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.7 0.2 7.6 4.3 1.2 6.0 1.4 Park 2016 2.5 0.9 4.3 0.0 14.1 0.0 5.3 40.3 30.5 5.6 5.2 8.1
Middlesbrough 2007 12.0 13.6 5.3 15.2 35.6 20.8 30.2 51.3 37.8 33.0 28.5 23.4 Town Centre 2016 4.1 2.2 1.5 4.1 4.8 5.8 18.7 14.3 11.7 8.7 0.9 7.4 Notes: Figures Taken from Table 23 of Appendix 6
DIY and Gardening Goods 4.56 Finally, turning to DIY and gardening goods market share, we are able to see from Table 4.23 that the market share across all eleven zones has decreased by 3.3 percentage points since 2007, from 11.5% to 8.2%. The biggest decreases are within Zones 5, 9, 10 and 11, although Zone 8 has also seen a decrease in market share retention.
51
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Table 4.23: DIY and Gardening Goods Market Share to Destinations in Middlesbrough 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total Market Share DIY and Gardening Goods 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 17.8 0.0 21.7 19.9 15.7 31.0 27.4 11.5 2007 DIY and Gardening Goods 0.0 0.7 0.0 4.3 4.7 1.2 27.0 11.8 6.2 18.4 6.5 8.2 2016 Difference 0.0 -0.1 0.0 4.3 -13.1 1.2 5.3 -8.1 -9.5 -12.6 -20.9 -3.3 Notes: Figures Taken from Table 25 of Appendix 6
4.57 Looking at Table 4.24 below, the most popular destinations for DIY and gardening products are the B&Q at Portrack Lane which has an overall market share of 30.8% at 2016, followed by Cleveland Retail Park which has a market share of 21.3% at 2016. Again, this is expected due to the convenience of visiting such retailers where accessibility is good, parking is adjacent to the store and the retail units are large enabling the use of large shopping trolleys to transport goods around the aisles and to private vehicles.
Table 4.24: Market Share of Top DIY and Gardening Goods Destinations by Zone
Address Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total B&Q 2007 ------Cheltenham Road, Portrack 2016 34.5 68.0 1.1 68.6 6.5 62.8 36.7 3.0 4.5 26.7 8.7 30.8 Lane 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 24.1 0.0 12.4 64.7 67.6 14.4 34.5 Cleveland Retail 2007 14.6 Park 2016 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 45.3 1.2 15.2 77.2 76.0 20.8 63.4 21.3
B&Q Tees Bay 2007 ------Retail Park 2016 6.6 0.0 70.2 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 10.7 33.1 67.0 6.1 76.8 6.0 79.8 42.7 8.2 0.9 16.9 8.4 Portrack Lane, 2007 33.1 Stockton 2016 11.9 8.9 1.8 0.0 1.6 6.5 10.9 1.5 0.0 6.1 0.0 5.2 Notes: Figures Taken from Table 25 of Appendix 6
Market Share Summary 4.58 Table 4.25 below provides a summary of the comparison goods market share for facilities in Middlesbrough Borough. The Table demonstrates that the highest market share to facilities in the Borough is for books/CDs and DVDs, where the facilities in the Borough attract 41.0% of all trips. The proportion of trips for clothing and footwear to facilities within the Borough is 36.0% and for chemist goods is 23.9%.
52
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
4.59 In 2007, the market share for clothing and footwear to facilities in Middlesbrough Borough was significantly higher at 58.4%, demonstrating a reduction in number of trips to destinations in the Borough to purchase such items since 2007.
Table 4.25: Middlesbrough Borough Zonal Comparison Market Share by Goods Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total Middlesbrough Borough Comparison Market Share Non Bulky Goods Clothing and 14.1 22.2 19.1 27.1 39.5 26.3 57.6 56.4 55.1 39.6 52.2 36.0 Footwear Books/Cds/DVDs 27.4 27.4 15.2 33.3 35.1 30.7 71.2 83.9 42.7 69.8 27.3 41.0 Smal l Household 4.7 8.5 5.3 8.3 28.6 11.3 36.4 44.5 24.0 28.3 14.5 18.5 Goods Recr eation and 1.9 5.4 5.2 5.4 14.8 9.2 30.0 26.3 20.2 13.9 16.1 13.5 Sports Goods Chemist Goods 0.8 7.4 3.8 5.4 5.5 5.6 73.6 69.3 15.6 45.1 9.1 23.9 Bulky Goods
Large Electrical 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.9 2.6 20.4 15.4 7.5 4.7 2.4 5.7 Furniture 6.2 3.7 1.5 4.1 5.5 6.8 27.9 30.3 17.0 13.9 1.8 11.1 DIY 0.0 0.7 0.0 4.3 4.7 1.2 27.0 11.8 6.2 18.4 6.5 8.2 Notes: Figures Taken from Appendix 6
4.60 Turning to the market share of Middlesbrough town centre, Table 4.26 below provides a zonal breakdown for each type of goods and compares this, where possible, with the market share in 2007. The Table demonstrates that there has been a reduction in market share to the town centre destinations for each type of goods since 2007, except for main food shopping. The proportion of clothing and footwear shopping trips to destinations in the town centre have reduced from 58.0% to 33.3% in 2016, representing a significant decrease in market share for such goods. There have also been decreases in shopping trips to Middlesbrough town centre for the ‘bulky’ goods. The market share for large electrical goods has decreased from 14.0% to 4.2%, for furniture goods the decrease has been from 23.4% to 7.4% and for DIY and gardening goods the decrease is from 9.1% to 1.9%.
4.61 Looking at the market share for clothing and footwear goods within Middlesbrough town centre in particular, the highest proportion of trips are from Zones 7, 8, 9 and 11. However, each of these zones has seen a decrease in market share to the retailers within the town centre. In fact, there has been a decrease in the proportion of trips for clothing and footwear goods to Middlesbrough town centre from each of the zones.
53
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Table 4.26: Middlesbrough Town Centre Market Share
Goods Category Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total
2007 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.0 5.6 2.0 0.8 3.9 0.0 1.7 Main Food 2016 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.7 1.0 0.8 14.4 6.9 3.8 5.3 0.0 3.6 2007 1.3 1.2 0.5 0.8 0.1 0.0 14.6 4.3 3.6 0.0 0.0 4.1 Top-up Food 2016 2.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 10.4 9.4 5.6 0.5 0.5 2.9
Clothing & 2007 37.1 41.1 34.1 63.1 57.8 56.7 76.8 88.5 85.8 64.3 52.7 58.0 Footwear Goods 2016 13.1 22.2 19.1 26.1 38.3 25.4 50.4 51.7 49.7 28.7 49.9 33.3
Books/CDs and 2007 ------DVDs Goods 2016 27.4 26.4 14.2 33.3 34.1 29.4 51.5 59.8 40.3 30.6 27.3 33.5
Small Household 2007 ------Goods 2016 2.1 8.5 4.0 8.3 21.7 8.4 20.4 25.2 16.3 12.5 11.8 12.2 2007 ------Recreation Goods 2016 1.9 5.4 5.2 5.4 13.0 6.7 23.2 23.9 20.2 2.0 14.7 11.3 2007 11.1 7.1 2.6 6.2 12.2 12.7 55.1 75.4 51.3 19.7 6.9 25.0 Chemist Goods 2016 0.8 7.4 3.1 5.4 5.1 4.0 27.5 26.3 12.1 8.6 7.4 10.7
Large Electrical 2007 7.3 3.1 0.8 9.6 13.3 2.8 27.6 25.4 29.1 16.2 18.8 14.0 Goods 2016 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.6 15.7 13.5 4.9 2.2 0.0 4.2 2007 12.0 13.6 5.3 15.2 35.6 20.8 30.2 51.3 37.8 33.0 28.5 23.4 Furniture Goods 2016 4.1 2.2 1.5 4.1 4.8 5.8 18.7 14.3 11.7 8.7 0.9 7.4
DIY and 2007 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 15.9 16.2 14.7 16.5 26.3 9.1 Gardening Goods 2016 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 8.7 4.2 1.3 0.8 0.0 1.9 Notes: Figures Taken from Appendix 6
4.62 Table 4.27 below provides a breakdown of the total comparison market share for the ‘top’ destinations within the Study Area and then compares these with the figures from the 2013 Retail Study. The Table also provides the total comparison market share based on available expenditure for each of these destinations and again, compares these to the figures from the 2013 Study (which used the 2007 household survey results). Table 4.27 below demonstrates that at 2016, Middlesbrough town centre attracted a total of £287.8m of the available comparison expenditure within the Study Area, a reduction of £191.9m since 2013. In terms of the proportion of available comparison expenditure, the town centre attracts 16.0% at 2016, a significant reduction from 34.4% in 2013. Coulby Newham District Centre has seen an increase since 2013 from £11.3m to £29.8m or from 0.8% of the total available expenditure to 1.7% in 2016.
4.63 We can see; however, that the biggest increases in total comparison expenditure have been to the out of centre destinations outside of Middlesbrough Borough, including Teesside Shopping Park, Cleveland Retail Park and Portrack Lane. In particular, Teesside Shopping Park now attracts £427.8m of the available expenditure within the Study Area, which is an increase in £249.0m recorded in 2013. In
54
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
terms of the proportion of available comparison expenditure, this represents 23.8% at 2016, which has increased by 11.0 percentage points since 2013, when the destination attracted 12.8% of all available expenditure. Cleveland Retail Park has also seen a significant increase in comparison expenditure from £24.3m in 2013 to £141.7m in 2016.
4.64 Overall the level of comparison expenditure being attracted by destinations in Middlesbrough Borough is £363.0m at 2016, or 20.2% of the total available expenditure within the Study Area. This has decreased by £142.6m since 2013, when the same destinations attracted £505.6m of the available expenditure, or 36.2%. These figures demonstrate the clear attraction of the out of centre destinations for comparison shopping, which are also located outside of the Middlesbrough Borough boundary but in close proximity to it. Therefore, whilst these destinations are outside of the boundary, there are not a significant distance from residents located in Middlesbrough and as such, compete directly with the in centre retail provision.
Table 4.27: Total Comparison Market Share for Top Centres in Study Area
2013 2016 % Total % Total % % M’Brough £m Study Area £m Study Area M’Brough Exp. Exp. Exp. Exp. In centre destinations Middlesbrough Town 479.7 34.4% 94.9% 287.8 16.0% 79.3% Centre Stockton Town Centre 138.3 9.9% - 75.6 4.2% - Hartlepool Town Centre 148.9 10.7% - 73.0 4.1% - Coulby Newham DC 11.3 0.8% 2.2% 29.8 1.7% 8.2%
Out of centre destinations Teesside Shopping Park 178.8 12.8% - 427.8 23.8% - Cleveland Retail Park 24.3 1.7% - 121.7 6.8% - Portrack Lane 83.0 5.9% - 137.8 7.7% -
Total Expenditure to Destinations in 505.6 36.2% - 363.0 20.2% - Middlesbrough Total Study Area 1,395.2 - - 1,799.9 - - Expenditure Notes: Figures Taken from Appendix 6 (2014 Price Base) 2013 Figures Used the 2007 Household Survey (2012 Price Base)
Linked Trips 4.66 As part of the household survey, the respondents were also asked whether they linked their ‘main food’ shopping trip with any other purpose. This enables us to establish whether the provision of large convenience operators within or on the edge of centres, assists in encouraging linked trips with other uses in those centres. 55
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
4.67 Looking firstly at Middlesbrough town centre, and particularly at those respondents which stated that they visit the Sainsbury’s on Wilson Street or the Aldi on Newport Road for their main food shops, we can see that 40.0% who visit Sainsbury’s stated that they do not link their trips with any other activity and 49.7% of those visiting Aldi state the same. Of those who did state they link their trip with another activity 31.6% of the Sainsbury’s trips state that they link their trip with non-food shopping and 10.3% state they link their trip with other convenience shopping. Of those visiting the Aldi, 50.4% state that they link their trip with travelling to and from work.
Customer Behaviour 4.68 The results of the household survey are useful in understanding customer behaviour in terms of how people undertake their convenience and comparison goods shopping.
4.69 When respondents to the household survey were asked the main reason they choose to do their main food shopping at a particular store, most respondents (32.9%) explained that their chosen store was near to home. 17.4% of respondents stated that the reason was for lower prices, 7.7% stated habit, 6.2% stated the quality of food goods available and 6.1% said value for money.
4.70 The majority of respondents (60.6%) to the household survey do their main food shopping at least once a week. 14.3% do their main food shopping at least once a fortnight and 12.1% at least two times per week. The most popular time to undertake main food shopping was on weekdays during the day (43.2%), 15.5% undertake their main food shopping on weekdays during the evening and 13.3% on Saturday.
4.71 In terms of linked trips, the NEMS household survey results were accumulated and calculated to draw out the percentage of people that link their main food shopping trips to town centre stores, with other activities within those Centres. Of all of the respondents, 69.6% stated that they do not link their main food shopping trip with any other activity. 6.4% stated that they link their trip with non-food shopping, 4.9% with other convenience shopping and 4.3% when travelling to and from work.
4.72 Respondents were also asked if they ever visit Middlesbrough town centre. 73.3% stated that they do visit the centre. Of those 73.3%, 60.1% stated that they visit by car as a driver and 11.6% as a passenger in a car. 18.9% stated they visit by bus and 4.4% by train.
4.73 27.3% of the respondents who said they visit the centre state that they visit less often than every two months, with 23.9% stating they visit at least once a month. 14.9% state they visit at least every two
56
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
months and 12.5% once a week. In total, 66.1% of respondents who visit the centre visit less than at least once a month. Of these respondents, 59.0% stated they visit in the morning until midday and 28.6% visit between midday and 2pm.
4.74 Table 4.28 below sets out the respondent’s main reasons for visiting Middlesbrough town centre and the top answers when asked if the respondents would want to see any improvements in the centre. The majority or 56.5% said the main reason for visiting was the choice and range of shops and 71.6% stated that there were no measures which would encourage them to visit more often.
Table 4.28 – Main reasons for visiting Middlesbrough and Measures Respondents would like to see to improve the town centre 1st 2nd 3rd 4th
Main Reason for Window Visiting Choice and Range of No particular reason Choice of services shopping/browsing Shops (56.5%) (6.0%) (5.6%) Middlesbrough Town (7.7%) Centre Are there any measures which Increased choice and would encourage Cheaper/free parking Nothing (71.6%) range of shops More Parking (3.9%) (6.8%) you to visit the (4.8%) Town Centre more often?
4.75 Respondents were asked whether they undertake shopping via electronic means i.e. home, mobile or TV shopping. The majority of respondents (65.8%) stated that they shop via home internet, 25.4% shop via portable internet devices (mobile phone, tablets etc) and 2.2% shop via the TV. When asked which goods their household purchases via electronic shopping, the highest response was for books at 48.9% followed by clothes at 48.0% and CDs, DVDs and music at 40.5%.
Summary and Conclusion 4.76 The analysis of the changes in market share since the last household survey was undertaken in 2007, demonstrates some extensive changes, and particularly to retail destinations within the Borough and to other out of centre destinations.
4.77 In terms of convenience market share, we have seen an increase in overall market share to convenience facilities within Middlesbrough Borough from all 11 Zones, with a significant increase in main food expenditure retention in Zone 7 by 18.3 percentage points, demonstrating that a higher proportion of residents in Zone 7 also undertake their main food shop at destinations in Zone 7. The overall retention rates on a zonal basis have increased for Zones 7 and 10 but have decreased from
57
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Zone 8. The retention level for main food shopping in Zone 7 at 2016 is 21.3%, in Zone 8 is 59.2% and for Zone 10 is 60.5%.
4.78 The overall market share from across the Study Area has decreased to the Morrisons on Ormesby Road in Berwick Hills but has increased to the Tesco Extra in Coulby Newham. Furthermore, the Aldi in Coulby Newham now attracts 2.4% of all main-food trips, which previously did not exist at the time of the 2007 survey. There has also been a reduction by 0.5 percentage points from 2.5% to 2.0% of total main food trips to the Sainsbury’s in Middlesbrough town centre, but an increase in trips to the Aldi on Marton Road by 0.2 percentage points to 0.7%.
4.79 In terms of top-up shopping, the zonal retention levels are higher, with 67.3% in Zone 7, 61.5% in Zone 8 and 66.9% in Zone 10. This demonstrates the relatively local nature of top-up shopping, with shoppers more likely to travel lesser distances to undertake such shops.
4.80 Turning to comparison market shares, we have seen a significant decrease in market share secured by Middlesbrough town centre for comparison goods, and in particular when looking at clothing and footwear goods which has decreased from 58.0% to 33.3%. There has however been a considerable increase in market share to out of centre facilities and in particular Teesside Shopping Park, even from the population of Middlesbrough.
4.81 In terms of overall available comparison expenditure, the proportion spent in Middlesbrough town centre has reduced since 2013 from £479.7m or 94.9%, to £287.8m or 79.3%. This represents 34.4% of the total available expenditure within the whole Study area at 2013 and 16.0% at 2016, again a considerable decrease and has arisen due to the increase in shopping trips and expenditure secured by retail parks, and in particular Teesside Shopping Park.
58
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
5.0 Health Check Assessments
5.01 The NPPF identifies a number of factors which are of relevance in delivering sustainable development, with one such factor being the need to ensure the vitality of town centres. Paragraph 23 of the NPPF states that local authorities should promote competitive town centre environments and set out policies for the management and growth of centres over the plan period. Paragraph 23 also requires local planning authorities to recognise that town centres are at the heart of their communities and to pursue policies that support their viability and vitality. It is also noted that competitive town centre environments should be promoted in order to enhance customer choice, provide a diverse retail offer and in order to reflect the individuality of town centres.
5.02 Whilst the NPPF does not provide a list of indicators to be used to assess the health of a centre, such criteria has been published in the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance: Ensuring the Vitality of Town Centres. Indicators which should be monitored on a regular basis in order to judge the health of a centre and its performance over time include the following:
Diversity of uses – Data on the diversity of uses in Middlesbrough town centre, the two district centres, 21 local centres, five neighbourhood parades was collated during our survey of the defined centres in January and February 2016. Diversity of use data was also collected on ten further locations that had potential for a retail designation. Proportion of vacant street level property – Vacant properties were also identified during the undertaking of the surveys. Retailer representation and intentions to change representation – Information on the current strength of the defined centres, retailer representation and retailer requirements has been derived from Venuescore’s UK Shopping Venue Rankings and from other published sources. Commercial rents – research into commercial rents has been undertaken by WYG through liaison with local property agents and the rental valuations of retail units currently on the market. Pedestrian flows – General footfall and pedestrian flows were also observed during the undertaken during WYG’s survey of the town centre, with detailed footfall survey data provided by Middlesbrough Council for locations in Middlesbrough town centre. Accessibility – Consideration of access to and around the centres is informed by WYG’s surveys. Perceptions of safety and occurrence of crime – Consideration of recorded crime levels and initiatives to deter crime is informed by data available via www.ukcrimestats.com and our observations of initiatives present in each centre.
59
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
State of town centre environmental quality – Consideration of the quality of the buildings and public realm in the town centre has also been informed by WYG’s ‘on the ground’ observations.
5.03 To ensure the current health checks were compiled using the most up-to-date diversity of use information, surveys of each centre were undertaken by WYG in January and February 2016. For consistency, the centre boundaries which have been used for the diversity of use analysis are comparable to the boundaries used in the Middlesbrough Core Strategy Proposals Map (2008). However, to enable like for like comparisons with our previous health check survey in November 2012, we have used the extent of a Goad plan for the basis of our analysis for Middlesbrough town centre.
5.04 We have also had particular regard to the proliferation of vacant land and premises and the opportunities that may exist for future growth in each centre. This section therefore provides a summary of the key characteristics of Middlesbrough town centre, Berwick Hills District Centre and Coulby Newham district centre. We have also provided a brief summary with regard to the Local and Neighbourhood Centres. Full health checks for each centre are provided at Appendices 3 and 4. A plan showing the spatial distribution of the centres in the Middlesbrough authority area is contained at Appendix 5.
5.05 We commence our assessment by considering the role of the centres in the Borough and in the sub- regional shopping hierarchy.
Sub-Regional Retail Hierarchy 5.06 Venuescore provides a ranking system of centres, which draws from the number of national multiples and anchor stores, as well as units within the food service, convenience and comparison sectors. The score attached to each operator is weighted to reflect its overall impact on shopping patterns.
5.07 Table 5.1 shows that Middlesbrough authority area has four retail destinations that are identified within Venuescore’s retail rankings. These are Middlesbrough town centre, Coulby Newham district centre, Berwick Hills district centre and North Ormesby local centre. Middlesbrough town centre has a Venuescore of 236 and is currently ranked as the 58th largest centre in the country. It is the third largest retail venue in the North East region behind Newcastle city centre and the Metrocentre at Gateshead. Notwithstanding this, Middlesbrough is ranked higher than its other neighbouring larger centres, including Darlington, Durham, Redcar, Scarborough and Stockton on Tees. Middlesbrough is also classified as a ‘Major Regional’ shopping destination, indicating its significance within the wider sub-region.
60
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
5.08 Coulby Newham is Middlesbrough’s second largest defined centre and is classified by Venuescore as a ‘District’ centre. Notably, North Ormesby has a higher Venuescore (14) than Berwick Hills (11), despite North Ormesby being classified as a local centre and Berwick Hills being classified as a district centre within the Middlesbrough Local Plan. However, both centres are classified by Venuescore as ‘Local’ centres.
5.09 With the exception of Berwick Hills, which does not have ranking information for 2010/11, the Venuescore for each centre in the Middlesbrough authority area has decreased between 2010/11 and 2014/15. Middlesbrough’s rank decreased by 15 places and its Venuescore is now only 10 points higher than Darlington’s. The ranks of Coulby Newham and North Ormesby have also decreased by 53 places and 124 places respectively. However, it should be noted that a relatively minor change to the level of retail or service provision in a centre can result in a big difference in the rankings towards the bottom of the Venuescore table and therefore, the results form Venuescore should be treated with relative caution.
Table 5.1: Sub-Regional Retail Hierarchy
Location VENUE Local Authority Grade Rank Rank Rank
SCORE 2014/15 Change 2014/15 2014/15 2013/14 2010/11 2014/15 2010/11 –
Newcastle upon Tyne 456 Newcastle upon Tyne Major City 11 11 14 3 Metrocentre, 262 Gateshead Major Regional 46 47 53 7 Gateshead Middlesbrough 236 Middlesbrough Major Regional 58 57 43 -15 Darlington 226 Darlington Regional 63 66 62 -1 Scarborough 172 Scarborough Regional 125 141 137 12 Durham 155 County Durham Regional 149 167 132 -17 Stockton on Tees 140 Stockton-on-Tees Regional 179 182 175 -4 Redcar 115 Redcar and Cleveland Sub-Regional 221 234 281 60 Hartlepool 111 Hartlepool Sub-Regional 229 215 203 -26 Bishop Auckland 98 County Durham Sub-Regional 270 252 224 -46 Teesside Shopping 97 Stockton-on-Tees Sub-Regional 275 265 248 -27 Park Portrack Retail Park 43 Stockton-on-Tees District 693 735 798 105 Coulby Newham 36 Middlesbrough District 858 864 805 -53 Thornaby Town 36 Stockton-on-Tees District 858 781 1065 207 ClevelandCentre Retail Park 34 Redcar and Cleveland District 898 833 1488 590 Billingham Shopping 33 Stockton-on-Tees District 935 901 756 -179 Centre North Ormesby 14 Middlesbrough Local 2010 2061 1886 -124 Berwick Hills 11 Middlesbrough Local 2557 - - - Source : Venuescore (2014/15 and 2013/14 tables) 61
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
5.10 Tables 5.2 and 5.3 show the diversity of uses within Middlesbrough Borough’s retail centres. In terms of the number of units and the amount of retail floorspace, Middlesbrough town centre is by far the largest centre in the Borough. WYG’s survey identified a total of 703 units within Goad’s defined town centre boundary, comprising 165,870 sq.m gross floorspace.
5.11 Middlesbrough Borough also contains two district centres, 21 local centres and five neighbourhood centres, which all have a valuable contribution to the day-to-day retail needs of the Borough. Coulby Newham is the larger of the two district centres with 47 units and 25,951 sq.m floorspace. Berwick Hills is the other district centre and contains 27 retail and service units with a combined gross floorspace of 12,969 sq.m. The local centres range in size from 5 to 83 units with total floorspace between 399 sq.m and 11,950 sq.m. However, their collective importance is illustrated by their combined totals, with local centres providing an extra 458 units and 59,301 sq.m of floorspace. The five neighbourhood parades range in size from between three to seven units and they collectively provide 27 units. In terms of their respective floorspace, they typically range from 339 sq.m to 1,109 sq.m, and collectively provide 2,977 sq.m gross floorspace.
5.12 In terms of the proportion of convenience units, only Middlesbrough town centre and 4 of the 26 local centres and neighbourhood parades have lower percentages than the national average. However, none of the centres have a comparison good offer that is above the national average, although Coulby Newham’s offer is comparable with the national average. The Borough is well represented in terms of its retail services and leisure services, with a total of 182 retail service units and 307 leisure service units. The combined respective average totals of 14.4% and 24.3% are akin to the national averages. However, the Borough has a lower than expected level of financial and business service units, and comprise only 7.2% of the total number of units in the Borough. This is below the national average of 10.7%. Conversely, the proportion of vacant units at a borough wide scale is 18.4%, which is significantly above the national average of 11.3%.
5.13 It should be noted that some centres contain many other facilities that are not included within the Goad Category Report categorisation system. Such facilities are community centres, medical services and libraries. Berwick Hills district centre is a particular example that has a strong community provision, which is not identified within the unit or floorspace figures.
62
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Table 5.2: Proportion of Units within Each Defined Centre
Total
Units (%) (%) (%) Leisure Vacant(%) Comparison Service(%) Convenience Financialand Business(%) RetailService Town Centre Middlesbrough 703 3.8 30.0 10.1 21.9 8.8 22.3
District Centres Berwick Hills 27 19.2 15.4 23.1 30.8 7.7 3.8 Coulby Newham 47 8.6 32.1 14.4 22.7 10.7 11.3
Local Centres Acklam Road/Cambridge Road 28 10.7 25.0 14.3 28.6 10.7 10.7 Acklam Road/Mandale Road 30 23.3 13.3 26.7 23.3 10.0 3.3 Belle Vue, Marton Road 18 16.7 16.7 27.8 33.3 0.0 5.6 Beresford Buildings, Thorntree 9 44.4 11.1 11.1 11.1 0.0 22.2 Broughton Avenue, Easterside 8 37.5 0.0 12.5 37.5 0.0 12.5 Eastbourne Road 34 17.6 20.6 8.8 29.4 0.0 23.5 Lealholme Crescent 12 33.3 25.0 16.7 25.0 0.0 0.0 Linthorpe Village 83 10.8 27.7 25.3 25.3 7.2 3.6 Longlands/Marton Road 6 16.7 16.7 16.7 33.3 0.0 16.7 Marshall Avenue, Brambles Farm 5 20.0 20.0 20.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 Marton Road/Gypsy Lane 23 13.0 8.7 21.7 30.4 13.0 13.0 North Ormesby 53 5.7 20.8 18.9 32.1 9.4 13.2 Ormesby High Street 6 50.0 16.7 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 Parliament Road 35 8.6 22.9 14.3 22.9 5.7 25.7 Penrith Road 6 16.7 0.0 16.7 50.0 0.0 16.7 Roman Road 42 7.1 19.0 28.6 14.3 2.4 28.6 Saltersgill Avenue 14 28.6 0.0 14.3 50.0 0.0 7.1 Shelton Court, Thorntree 8 12.5 25.0 25.0 25.0 0.0 12.5 The Avenue, Nunthorpe 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 25.0 0.0 50.0 Trimdon Avenue 11 36.4 0.0 18.2 36.4 0.0 9.1 Viewly Centre, Hemlington 19 21.1 10.5 21.1 31.6 0.0 15.8
Neighbourhood Parades Cargo Fleet/Fulbeck Road 6 33.3 16.7 16.7 33.3 0.0 0.0 Hall Drive 7 0.0 0.0 14.3 14.3 0.0 71.4 Hollowfield Coulby Newham 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 0.0 0.0 33.3 Vaughan Centre 5 20.0 0.0 0.0 80.0 0.0 0.0 Whitfield Buildings 6 16.7 0.0 16.7 33.3 33.3 0.0
Middlesbrough Average 18.5 13.6 18.8 30.1 4.1 14.9
UK Average 8.6 32.1 14.4 22.7 10.7 11.3
Source : WYG visits in January and February 2016
63
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
5.14 In terms of the proportion of convenience goods floorspace, Middlesbrough town centre, two local centres and two neighbourhood parades are the only centres to have lower percentages than the national average. Middlesbrough town, however, is the only centre to have a higher proportion of comparison goods floorspace than the national average. This reflects the town centre’s role as a ‘Major Regional’ shopping destination. In terms of retail services, Middlesbrough and Berwick Hills both have lower proportions of floorspace than the national average, as do 17 of the 21 local centres and four of the five neighbourhood parades. The Middlesbrough authority area is well represented in terms of its leisure service floorspace, as apart from two local centres and two neighbourhood parades, each centre’s proportion of leisure service floorpsace is close to or above the national average. However, the centres across the authority commonly lack financial and business service floorspace with only Middlesbrough town centre, Coulby Newham district centre, four local centres and one neighbourhood parade having a higher proportion of financial and business service floorspace than the national average. Furthermore, 14 local centres and four neighbourhood parades lack financial and business service floorspace completely. A high level of vacant floorspace is also a common issue with many of the centres, as Middlesbrough town centre, Coulby Newham district centre, 13 local centres and two neighbourhood parades all have a higher proportion of vacant floorspace than the national average.
Table 5.3: Proportion of Floorspace within Each Defined Centre
Centre (%) (%) (%) Total (sq.m) Leisure Floorspace Vacant(%) Comparison Service(%) Convenience Financialand Business(%) RetailService Town Centres Middlesbrough 165,870 9.1 43.2 5.0 20.9 6.3 15.5
District Centres Berwick Hills 12,969 57.5 2.5 6.9 29.7 2.5 0.9 Coulby Newham 25,951 30.5 32.5 8.5 18.5 1.0 9.1
Local Centres Acklam Road/Cambridge Road 4,045 29.7 18.6 8.1 30.5 6.7 6.4 Acklam Road/Mandale Road 4,580 25.5 32.6 10.3 21.8 6.9 2.9 Belle Vue, Marton Road 1,793 35.4 21.4 14.6 21.1 0.0 7.5 Beresford Buildings, Thorntree 900 32.0 5.7 5.9 5.8 0.0 50.7 Broughton Avenue, Easterside 1,140 44.6 0.0 7.5 41.2 0.0 6.6 Eastbourne Road 4,472 26.3 13.3 12.6 29.3 0.0 18.5 Lealholme Crescent 2,890 60.3 18.4 13.4 7.9 0.0 0.0 Linthorpe Village 11,950 16.8 33.2 13.9 24.5 5.6 6.1 Longlands/Marton Road 399 40.4 9.5 6.8 26.8 0.0 16.5 Marshall Avenue, Brambles Farm 545 18.7 29.9 16.9 34.5 0.0 0.0 Marton Road/Gypsy Lane 1,910 25.4 10.5 18.2 29.0 9.1 7.9 64
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Centre (%) (%) (%) Total (sq.m) Leisure Floorspace Vacant(%) Comparison Service(%) Convenience Financialand Business(%) RetailService North Ormesby 7,572 4.8 22.4 16.7 44.5 5.9 5.7 Ormesby High Street 1,929 62.7 5.4 0.0 31.9 0.0 0.0 Parliament Road 3,469 20.4 27.0 10.4 18.7 5.0 18.7 Penrith Road 530 29.6 0.0 11.9 34.0 0.0 24.5 Roman Road 3,511 13.0 20.3 27.9 14.2 3.3 21.3 Saltersgill Avenue 1,798 35.2 0.0 10.0 48.4 0.0 6.4 Shelton Court, Thorntree 650 14.2 26.6 20.3 26.5 0.0 12.5 The Avenue, Nunthorpe 434 0.0 0.0 15.0 33.9 0.0 51.2 Trimdon Avenue 973 48.9 0.0 14.4 29.5 0.0 7.2 Viewly Centre, Hemlington 3,811 23.0 6.9 7.0 41.6 0.0 21.5
Neighbourhood Parades Cargo Fleet/Fulbeck Road 392 37.0 18.1 15.3 29.6 0.0 0.0 Hall Drive 1,109 0.0 0.0 12.1 35.8 0.0 52.1 Hollowfield Coulby Newham 437 0.0 0.0 38.4 0.0 0.0 61.6 Vaughan Centre 700 51.4 0.0 0.0 48.6 0.0 0.0 Whitfield Buildings 339 17.4 0.0 15.9 39.8 26.8 0.0
Middlesbrough Average 27.4 13.8 12.5 28.4 3.0 14.9
UK Average 15.2 35.9 7.5 23.5 8.1 9.2
Source : WYG visits in January and February 2016
Middlesbrough Town Centre 5.15 Middlesbrough town centre’s convenience offer is below what would normally be expected of a centre of its size. The town centre comprises of only 6.8% convenience units, compared to the national average of 8.6%. Middlesbrough’s proportion of convenience floorspace is also 6.1 percentage points below the national average of 15.2%. Our November 2012 health check established that the town centre’s comparison goods units previously comprised 32.1% of all units. However, WYG commented at the time of the previous study, that due to Middlesbrough being a ‘Major Regional’ centre in Venuescore’s sub-regional retail hierarchy, the proportion of comparison goods units could reasonably have been expected to be 10 percentage points higher. Our January 2016 survey identified that the proportion of comparison goods units has decreased by 2.1 percentage points to 30.0%. Although this is reflective of a reduction in comparison goods units nationally, the difference between the national average (32.1%) and Middlesbrough’s comparison goods offer has increased from 0.9 percentage points in 2012 to 2.1 percentage points in 2016.
65
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
5.16 Middlesbrough town centre’s retail service, leisure service and financial and business service offers are all below the national average levels for both the proportion of units and floorspace. However, the town centre remains the principal destination for service facilities in the authority area. In particular, Middlesbrough has a high proportion of health and beauty providers, the leisure park to the east of the town centre, which includes a Vie cinema, and a large number of high street banks and building societies.
5.17 The town centre has 157 vacant retail and service units, which account for 23.3% of all units. This is more than double the national average of 11.4%. The vacant units occupy 25,730 sq.m of floorspace and comprise 15.5% of the town centre’s total floorspace. Again, this is significantly above the national average of 9.2%. The number of vacant town centre units has increased by 13 since November 2012 and the amount of vacant floorspace has also had a net increase of 4,380 sq.m over the same time frame. Our previous health check in 2012 also identified an issue with a high proportion of small retail units in secondary locations where demand is limited. This issue persists, as 103 of the 157 vacant units are below 150 sq.m and the Vacancy Plan provided at Appendix 3 clearly shows a higher proportion of vacant units in secondary locations.
5.18 In terms of its retailer representation, Middlesbrough town centre contains 171 national operators, some of which are represented more than once. Within this list are 25 of Experian Goad’s top 27 comparison goods retailers, such as Debenhams, House of Fraser, Marks & Spencer and TK Maxx. We consider there to be potential for retailer interest to increase if some of Middlesbrough’s proposed regeneration schemes are completed, which would help to increase footfall in the town centre and would make operating from Middlesbrough more viable. However, Middlesbrough’s attraction to new operators continues to be limited by the lack of suitable high quality retail accommodation that meets the requirements of modern retailers, particularly in primary locations. The household survey found that Ikea and John Lewis were mostly commonly cited retailers that people want in the town centre.
5.19 On a smaller scale, Baker Street has grown to become an independent retail and service area towards the south of the town centre. We also noted from our visit that the redevelopment of 3-27 Bedford Street, which is the parallel Road to Baker Street, is nearing completion (ref: M/FP/1133/14/P). This will provide 11 newly refurbished units for A1, A3, A4 and B1 uses.
5.20 Cheetham and Mortimer, who are a specialist retail valuation agency, undertook an analysis of yields within Middlesbrough town centre in February 2016 to help inform the retail study. Cheetham and Mortimer found that Middlesbrough is within the second tier of towns in terms of its commercial yields. The town centre’s yield suffers from the stigma that is associated with town centres across the north
66
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
of England. Part of Cheetham and Mortimer’s assessment considered the valuation of similar retail facilities in the north of England, which were found to have a Net Initial Yield of 8%. Cheetham and Mortimer consider that a similar yield could be achieved by some shopping centres in Middlesbrough town centre. In terms of Zone A rental values, Cheetham and Mortimer assessed the Cleveland Shopping Centre and Hill Street Shopping Centre to achieve between £80-85/sq.ft. However, Zone A rents in the Dundas Shopping Centre and Captain Cook Square, are considerably lower, with the Dundas Centre achieving only £45/sq.ft and Captain Cook Square achieving only £40/sq.ft.
5.21 In relation to its accessibility, Middlesbrough town centre is well connected to the strategic highway network. The town centre is located approximately 8km to the east of Stockton-on-Tees, 14 km to the west of Redcar and 22km to the south of Hartlepool. However, the town centre’s roads can become congested, particularly during rush hour periods.
5.22 We consider the town centre to have a good provision of car parks, which are distributed to enable people to park close to their chosen destination. We consider the parking tariffs to be reasonable in comparison to other centres and spaces were readily available on the days that we visited the town centre.
5.23 Middlesbrough’s bus and trains stations also provide good public transport connections between the town centre and the surrounding settlements. We consider the number of people arriving by private automobile to be higher than expected, although the level of public transport ridership is at a reasonable level compared to other centres. In terms of walking, cycling and disabled access, much of Middlesbrough’s ‘retail core’ is pedestrianised and is compact, which enables easy access to many of the shops. However, the wider town centre boundary is extensive and getting from one part of the town to another can take some time. Notwithstanding this, we consider the town centre to have reasonably good pedestrian, cycle and disabled facilities. However, we consider the number of cycle trips to the town centre and those travelling on foot to be much lower than would normally be expected.
5.24 The central part of the town centre generally has a high level of pedestrian activity, although the level of activity varies considerably across the town centre. The busiest locations are Captain Cook Square, the Cleveland Centre and the Hill Street Shopping Centre. However, the Dundas Centre receives considerably lower footfall than the other shopping centres. The level of activity in the wider town centre also varies, as, for example, the civic area to the east of the town centre and the section of Linthorpe Road closest to the university are reasonably busy. However, Borough Road and the area to the west of the town centre currently lack footfall. The household survey also found that the majority
67
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
of people visit Middlesbrough town centre during the morning but visitor numbers fall considerably in the afternoon. It is also evident that Middlesbrough’s evening economy is under-performing, as less than a quarter of respondents to the household survey visit the town centre during the evening. This is likely to be in light of a lack of provision of evening economy uses.
5.25 Considerable efforts have been made to improve the environmental quality of Middlesbrough town centre and its general appearance is reasonably good. However, there are parts of the town centre would benefit from improvements. The pedestrianised areas are generally well maintained and are enhanced in several locations by public art, trees and street furniture. The Cleveland Centre and Hillstreet Shopping Centre in particular provide a modern and welcoming shopping environment. The public realm around Captain Cook Square also incorporates high quality features and Zetland Square has recently been the subject of a public realm improvement scheme. We also observed fewer occurrences of litter than may be expected within the pedestrianised areas, which is attributed to well- located litter bins and the vigilance of the street cleaning team.
5.26 However, Middlesbrough’s high vacancy rate has a negative impact on parts of the town centre and this issue is most acutely seen at Wilson Street, Albert Road and the adjoining side streets. Many of the vacant units in this area show signs of being empty for some time. This issue is compounded by the high prevalence of pubs, clubs and takeaways in this location, as many of the units are shut during the day, which gives the appearance of the area having a higher vacancy rate during the day than is actually the case. Wilson Street is also overshadowed by the concrete archways of the elevated A66 dual carriageway. Collectively, these issues do not create a particularly welcoming environment, particularly for visitors arriving from the nearby train station.
5.27 We consider Middlesbrough town centre to generally feel safe and secure. The four shopping centres provide an indoor shopping environment and are generally well maintained and feel safe. The ‘retail core’ is also reasonably busy and the pedestrians in the street help to provide natural surveillance. However, the high vacancy rate in some parts of the town centre contributes poorly to the surrounding areas’ environmental quality. This in turn has a negative impact of the sense of safety. One such example is around Albert Road, Wilson Street and the adjoining passageways, which has been labelled as a hotspot for crime during evening hours 30 .
30 Article in local newspaper ‘Gazette Live’ dated 7 th November 2015: ‘This part of Middlesbrough was the most crime-ridden spot on Teesside Park’
68
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
5.28 In addition, the household survey found that improved safety measures at night was one of the most cited answers for measures that could improve Middlesbrough’s evening offer. To assist with this issue, Middlesbrough town centre has a CCTV network of 177 cameras that is monitored 24 hours a day, throughout the year. The town also participates in the ‘Safer Shopping Scheme’, whereby intelligence on crime and patterns of behaviour is gathered and dissimilated and information is shared. The scheme also provides a coordinated management control infrastructure, which links the police, traffic and street wardens, shop security, university security and licensed premises door staff.
5.29 In terms of its access to digital facilities, the town centre has a high quality website (www.lovemiddlesbrough.com) and good WiFi coverage. In addition, many of the shops in the town centre now offer a click and collect facility. Middlesbrough’s DigitalCity project, which is based at Middlehaven, is also now underway. The project aims to create a ‘supercluster’ of digital hubs comprising 250 companies in the Tees Valley, which will increase digital expertise and demand for digital facilities in Middlesbrough town centre. Middlesbrough’s improving digital facilities are helping to strengthen the town centre’s retail offer and digital accessibility, but this could be adapted and enhanced in the future through links with DigitalCity.
Summary 5.30 Middlesbrough town centre is a major regional shopping destination that accommodates the majority of the top national comparison goods retailers. Most people visit the town centre for comparison goods shopping purposes, particularly the range of shops. However, the town centre’s comparison goods offer is lower than may be expected and the Middlesbrough’s comparison goods offer has reduced since 2013. Middlesbrough town centre remains the principal location for accessing services in the authority area. However, the town centre has only a limited convenience goods draw and the level of financial and business service provision also falls short of what would normally be expected.
5.31 Middlesbrough faces stiff competition from neighbouring settlements and out of centre facilities, which are easily accessible from the Middlesbrough area.
5.32 Vacancy rates are above the national average and the vacancy rate has also increased in recent years. However, the town centre has good accessibility and its built environment is generally of good quality and feels safe and secure. Overall, we consider the town centre to be vital and viable and it functions well in serving the retail and service needs of the surrounding area and the many tourists who visit each year.
5.33 In summary, Middlesbrough town centre presents the following strengths and opportunities:
69
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
1. High representation of top national retailers, including 25 of the 27 stores featured on Experian’s list of top comparison goods operators;
2. The absence of motor vehicles in the pedestrianised parts of the town centre help to create a safe and pleasant shopping environment; 3. The shopping centres provide a warm and bright shopping environment. This is particularly advantageous during adverse weather conditions;
4. Direct access to the strategic highway network. There are also good public transport connections with a bus station located directly adjacent to the main retail area and the railway station located on the northern edge of the town centre;
5. Strong evening economy uses, particularly along Corporation Street and towards the east of the town centre;
6. Good distribution of reasonably priced parking facilities around the town centre; 7. Good digital facilities within the town centre and a particularly good website (lovemiddlesbrough.com);
8. Several major regeneration opportunities within the town centre. These include the Middlehaven regeneration scheme, the Cannon Park area and the residential allocation to the south-east of Borough Road;
9. Baker Street has developed organically as an independent retail and leisure destination and its success has brought about the redevelopment of neighbouring Bedford Street. There is an opportunity to grow on this success and help bring this part of the town centre back into active use;
10. Opportunity to increase cycle ridership, particularly along Linthorpe Road between the pedestrianised shopping area and the University to the south; 11. Opportunity to improve the marketing of the town centre to attract new visitors; and 12. Opportunity to improve the western approach into the town centre. In particular, the bus station would benefit from refurbishment or regeneration.
5.34 In contrast, the centre presents the following weaknesses and threats:
1. The vacancy rate is 22.3% of all units, which is more than twice the national average of 11.3%. Furthermore, the number of vacant units is showing a pattern of increasing, as there were 13 additional empty properties in 2016 than were recorded in 2012;
2. Reduced comparison representation since 2012 and both the convenience and comparison goods sectors are below the level that would normally be expected of the size of Middlesbrough;
3. Large number of smaller retail units, which do not meet modern retailer requirements. There is also a lack of large modern retail accommodation, particularly in primary locations;
70
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
4. Poor sense of arrival into the town centre, most notably from the railway station and the approach from the west of the town centre;
5. The high vacancy rate reduces the active retail frontage, which in some locations reduces the quality of the surrounding environment and makes the area feel less safe and secure in some locations;
6. The size and shape of the wider town centre mean that travelling from one area to another can often take some time;
7. The local highway network can often become congested, particularly at busy periods of the day;
8. The surrounding centres and out of centre destinations are all highly accessible from Middlesbrough. These centres provide considerable competition to the town centre; and
9. The town centre is failing to attract people in the evening, due to poor evening economy and lack of provision.
District Centres
Berwick Hills District Centre 5.35 Berwick Hills district centre acts primarily as a destination for food shopping trips, as a community hub and as a service centre for the surrounding community. The district centre is anchored by a 4,434 sq.m (net) Morrisons superstore. The centre has a very strong convenience goods offer, which comprises 18.5% of all units and 56.1% of all floorspace. However, the comparison goods offer, which accounts for 18.5% of units and 4.9% of the centre’s floorspace, is limited when compared to the respective national UK averages of 32.1% and 35.9%. Berwick Hills’ proportion of leisure service units is 7.8 percentage points above the national average of 14.4% and its proportion of leisure service units is 6.9 percentage points above the national average of 22.7%. However, comparing to the national average of 10.7%, Berwick Hills has a lower than expected proportion of financial and business service units, which account for 7.4%
5.36 Although Berwick Hills has only one vacant unit and a low vacancy rate of only 3.7% of units and 0.9% of floorspace, there is an additional vacant plot in the north of the district centre, which was formally occupied by a Kwik Save supermarket. Our health check also identified concerns towards the north of the centre, where we consider the vacancy rate to be prone to rising.
5.37 In terms of its accessibility, Berwick Hills also does not have a train station, although we found the district centre to have good accessibility from all other modes of transport. However, we consider that the environmental quality of parts of the centre could be improved. Our health check appraisal also
71
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
found that the area around Norfolk Place lacks natural surveillance and some of the shop frontages would benefit from maintenance. Consequently, some visitors may feel less comfortable in this area.
5.38 The digital facilities at Berwick Hills are very limited. There are no Cloud Hotspots or Premium Wi-Fi venues and the district centre lacks a Collect+ facility. Furthermore, the district centre does not have a website.
5.39 Overall, we consider that Berwick Hills is performing reasonably well at present, although we have concerns that the vacancy rate could increase towards the north of the centre if an intervention does not occur. The district centre contains a superstore, a community hub and a variety of key services and facilities. Consequently, the overall offer is akin to what would normally be expected of a district centre and we recommend that Berwick Hills continues to be designated as a district centre. In summary, Berwick Hills has the following strengths and opportunities:
1. The superstore and community facilities act to draw people into the centre;
2. Good variety of retail and service facilities and low vacancy rate with only one empty property;
3. Good accessibility from all modes of local transport;
4. Opportunity to improve the pedestrian linkages between the Morrisons superstore within the southern part of the centre and the retail units in the north. The lack of footfall around the far north of the centre would also be improved by a retail development at the former Kwik Save site;
5. The former Kwik Save supermarket site is an ideal opportunity for a larger retailer; and
6. Increased natural surveillance and maintenance in some locations would increase the district centre’s sense of safety.
5.40 In contrast, the centre presents the following weaknesses and threats:
1. Reasonably small number of retail units when compared to other district centres;
2. Environmental quality could be improved, particularly around towards the north of the district centre and around the Berwick Hills Centre;
3. Low footfall around Norfolk Place;
4. Low rental values, which make new development less viable; and
5. Lack of an intervention may result in increased vacancies, particularly within the northern part of the centre.
72
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Coulby Newham District Centre 5.41 The majority of Coulby Newham’s retail facilities are located in the Parkway Shopping Centre, which is anchored by a 5,022 sq.m (net) Tesco Extra superstore. A new 847 sq.m (net) Aldi supermarket has recently also opened at Dalby Way. Coulby Newham has a number of other national retailers, many of which specialise in discount items. In August 2014, the Parkway Shopping Centre was sold for £12.2m to Bridges Ventures, who have redevelopment aspirations for the shopping centre 31 . In addition, the district centre has extant planning permissions for a non-food retail development of up to 990 sq.m (ref: M/OUT/1196/14/P), three new hot food takeaway units (ref: M/FP/0705/15/P) and a drive through restaurant, which is to be occupied by KFC (ref. M/FP/0469/15/P).
5.42 Coulby Newham district centre provides for the majority of the southern part of the Borough’s convenience goods needs. Indeed, the district centre’s convenience goods facilities comprise 10.6% of all units and 30.5% of all floorspace, which is above the national averages of 8.6% and 15.2% In addition, Coulby Newham has a strong comparison goods offer of 36.2% of its total number of units and 32.5% of its total floorspace. The offer is particularly strong when considered in the context of Coulby Newham being a district centre, which are more commonly associated with having stronger convenience and service offers. Coulby Newham’s high proportion of comparison goods units owes to the presence of Parkway Shopping Centre. Coulby Newham’s proportion of retail service units is 17.0% and its leisure service facilities comprise 19.1% of all units. Both proportions are above or similar to the respective national averages of 14.4% and 22.7%. However, Coulby Newham’s proportion of financial and business service units (4.3%) is below the national average of 10.7%.
5.43 Coulby Newham’s vacancy rate is 12.8%, which is 1.5 percentage points above the national average of 11.3%. The six vacant units, which have a combined floorspace of 2,364 sq.m, are all located in the Parkway Shopping Centre. The vacant units comprise 9.1% of Coulby Newham’s total floorspace, which is comparable to the national average (9.2%).
5.44 In terms of its accessibility, Coulby Newham does not have a train station but the centre is easily accessible by private vehicles, bus and via bike. However, the lack of housing surrounding the district centre and the limited pedestrian connectivity with the surrounding areas make it is less likely for visitors to arrive on foot. Notwithstanding this, we generally consider the district centre to feel safe for visitors. The Parkway Shopping Centre provides a secure shopping environment and the centre has security staff and CCTV in operation. There are also few indications that crime may be an issue in the other parts of the district centre.
31 www.bridgesventures.com/ellandi-bridges-ventures-team-new-community-shopping-centre-investment-platform
73
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
5.45 In relation to the district centre’s environmental quality, Coulby Newham’s design means that its shopping facilities are inward facing. The Parkway Shopping Centre provides a pleasant shopping environment and the units have reasonably good quality facades. However, the external parts of the district centre are dominated by areas of surface level car parking, which have poor aesthetic value and lack green features.
5.46 Apart from the Parkway Shopping Centre’s website, Coulby Newham has only limited provision of digital facilities. The WiFi coverage across the district centre is reasonably poor, with Coulby Newham providing only one Cloud Hotspots and Premium Wi-Fi venue. In addition, the district centre lacks a Collect+ facility. Improving the digital facilities at Coulby Newham may be an avenue to improving the district centre’s retail offer and digital connectivity.
5.47 Overall, we consider that Coulby Newham is performing reasonably well at present, although interventions could be undertaken to improve the appearance of the district centre. Notwithstanding this, we consider that the retail and service provision and the strong community hub are of the level that would normally be expected of a district centre. We therefore recommend that Coulby Newham continues to be designated as such. In summary, Coulby Newham has the following strengths and opportunities:
1. Strong comparison goods offer, particularly when considered in the context of Coulby Newham being a district centre;
2. The district centre also caters for a large proportion of the convenience needs southern part of the authority area;
3. Wide diversity of uses, including a strong retail service and leisure service offer and a variety of community facilities;
4. Good accessibility by private automobile and ample free car parking in close proximity to the centre’s facilities. The centre also had good public transport and cycle connectivity;
5. The Parkway Shopping Centre provides an indoor shopping facility that is warm and pleasant regardless of external weather conditions;
6. Four opportunity sites within or adjacent to the centre boundary, three of which already have planning permission;
7. Opportunity to protect the new Aldi supermarket on Dalby Way by extending the southern edge of the district centre boundary;
8. Investment from the new owners of the Parkway Shopping Centre, who aim to improve the retail and service offer, environmental quality and social facilities; and
74
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
9. Improvement of the district centre’s digital facilities, particularly a new website and increasing WiFi coverage.
5.48 In contrast, the centre presents the following weaknesses and threats:
1. Lack of cohesion between the facilities in the east and west of the district centre boundary and poor pedestrian linkages between the two areas;
2. Reasonably poor pedestrian connectivity with the surrounding residential areas and a lack of housing in close proximity to the district centre;
3. Limited financial and business service offer and no banking facilities, other than an ATM cash machine;
4. Inward facing design to the district centre with external areas largely comprising surface level car parking, which has little aesthetic or environmental value;
5. High vacancy rate within the Parkway Shopping Centre; and
6. Threat of competition from Middlesbrough town centre and other higher order centres.
5.49 Further vacancies in the Parkway Shopping Centre would have a damaging impact on the district centre, as it would reduce the centre’s ‘critical mass’ to attract visitors.
Local centres and neighbourhood parades
5.50 In terms of the 21 local centres and 5 neighbourhood centres, 7 of these centres have no vacant units at all. However, 14 of the centres have a higher vacancy rate than the national average with several locations having particularly high vacancy rates. These include Hall Drive neighbourhood centre (71.4%), The Avenue local centre, Nunthorpe (50.0%), Hallow Field neighbourhood centre, Roman Road local centre (28.6%), Parliament Road local centre (25.7%), Eastbourne Road local centre (23.5%) and Beresford Buildings local centre, Thorntree (22.2%). Despite high vacancy rates in these centres, the majority are still considered to function as retail service centres.
5.51 In respect of the local centres, Linthorpe Village is considerably larger than the other local centres, which consists of 83 units, comprising of 11,950 sq.m of floorspace. WYG consider Linthorpe Village to be the best performing local centre in terms of diversity of use, with good representation from all of the retail sectors and by national operators. Linthorpe Village also has a low vacancy rate consisting of three units comprising 3.6% of the total units and 6.1% of the total floorspace, considerably lower than the national averages.
75
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
5.52 The smallest local centre is Marshall Avenue, Brambles Farm which consists of five units comprising 545 sq.m of floorspace. WYG do not consider Marshall Avenue to be performing its currently designated role as a local centre and it is recommended that its designation is amended to a neighbourhood centre. WYG also recommend that the designations of local centres at Penrith Road, Shelton Court and The Avenue, Nunthorpe are amended to neighbourhood centres. These centres have been found to have retail services and amenities consistent with the existing neighbourhood centres. The existing and newly recommended neighbourhood centres provide a very localised retail offer, generally providing one or two convenience units. There is a distinct lack of representation from comparison goods retailers and financial and business services within neighbourhood centres, a factor that has been considered in our recommended designations.
5.53 A number of additional retail areas were appraised in order to assess their potential for designation as local/neighbourhood centres. WYG recommend the designation of Victoria Road as a local centre and Admirals Avenue/Cargo Fleet Lane, Otterburn Gardens and The Oval as neighbourhood centres. Further retail areas were assessed at Kestrel Avenue/Longlands Road, Princes Road and Westbourne Road/Acklam Road. Services at these locations were however not found sufficient for designation as local/neighbourhood centres.
5.54 Overall, we have found mixed health within Middlesbrough’s local and neighbourhood centres. A consistent factor throughout the surveyed centres is an under-representation of comparison good services in relation to the national average.
Out of Centre Retailing in Middlesbrough, Stockton and Cleveland 5.55 Middlesbrough is surrounded by some extensive retail warehousing and retail park destinations, of which very few are located within the Borough boundary. We summarise the key destinations below which have an influence on the overall shopping patterns and choice for residents within Middlesbrough, despite the key destinations being outside of the boundary.
5.56 Teesside Shopping Park is the largest and most extensive out of centre shopping and leisure destination within Middlesbrough, located on the western border of the local authority boundary. The Park straddles the boundary of Middlesbrough and Stockton, with the leisure element of the scheme within Middlesbrough Borough and the retail element within Stockton. The Park comprises of approximately 69,675 sq.m (gross) of retail and leisure floorspace, of which 40,134 sq.m (gross) is retail 32 . The park has been constructed under two separate phases, of which phase 1 consists of Open
32 Source: Completely Retail 2016
76
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
A1 retail and Phase 2 is restricted ‘bulky’ A1 retail, with a Morrisons located in between. There are a number of national multiple retailers, including 18 of the Experian Goad identified ‘major comparison retailers’. The larger of the retailers at the park include M&S, Next, Asda Living, Boots, H&M and TK Maxx, plus bulky retailers such as DFS, Sofaworks, Pets at Home and Barker and Stonehouse. The retail element of the park is served by 2,051 car parking spaces and has direct access onto the A66 and A19, both of which are arterial routes in and out of Middlesbrough. The Shopping Park consists of a number of large format and modern retail units, suitable for occupation by national multiple retailers.
5.57 In addition to Teesside Shopping Park, the other two main large format retail destinations are Cleveland Retail Park and the extensive retail warehousing at Portrack Lane. Cleveland Retail Park is located to the east of Middlesbrough, again outside the Borough boundary in close proximity to South Bank. The Retail Park comprises of approximately 27,100 sq.m (gross) of Class A1 floorspace, of which part is open-A1 and part is restricted to the sale of bulky goods only. Retailers at Cleveland Retail Park include M&S Simply Food, Currys, Carpetright, Next, Outfit, Boots, Pets at Home and B&Q. The Park is served by 825 car park spaces.
5.58 Portrack Lane consists of a number or properties under separate ownerships, including Portrack Shopping Park, Portrack Retail Park, Portrack Lane Retail Park, Portrack Interchange Retail Park and Portrack Lane. Overall, there is a total of approximately 65,030 sq.m (gross) and includes retailers such as ScS, The Range, B&M Homestores, Smyths Toys, Asda and Carpetright.
Summary of Health Check Assessments 5.59 Overall, we consider Middlesbrough town centre and the two district centres to be vital and viable. Middlesbrough town centre is a regional shopping destination with a sizable comparison goods offer. However, the town centre’s vacancy rate of 22.3% is significantly above the national average and its vacancy rate has increased since 2013. Middlesbrough also faces great competition from neighbouring out of centre destinations, including Teesside Shopping Park, Cleveland Retail Park, retail destinations at Portrack Lane and Anchor Retail Park.
5.60 Both district centres are anchored by superstores and they also both have act as a hub of community facilities. Although the two district centres have a lower proportion of financial and business service uses, they offer a variety of retail service and leisure service units and we consider that both Berwick Hills and Coulby Newham continue to provide the role of a district centre.
77
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
5.61 The combined totals of Middlesbrough’s 21 local centres and 5 neighbourhood parades show a strong convenience and retail service offer. However, many of the centres also suffer from high vacancy rates and are not currently performing at their potential or providing the level of services and amenities required by the respective local catchments. Notwithstanding this, these centres continue to play a vital role in supporting the day-to-day retail needs of the Borough’s population and supplementing the offer of the town centres.
78
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
6.0 Population and Expenditure
6.01 This section of the report assesses the current population and available expenditure (for both convenience and comparison goods) within the Study Area.
Study Area Population 6.02 The population within each ward and each zone at 2016 has been calculated using Experian Micromarketer G3 data (2014 estimate, which was issued in October 2015).
6.03 Table 6.1 sets out our estimate of future population growth across the Study Area using Experian Micromarketer G3 data. Experian’s baseline population data estimates (ONS mid-year 2014 estimate) take into consideration the findings of the 2011 Census release, which is then projected forward by Experian using a ‘demographic component model’, which takes into consideration the birth rate, ageing, net migration and death rate.
6.04 Further information on Experian’s methodology is available in their Population and Household Projections Data Profile (UK 2015 Data Release) and their UK 2015 Local Area Data Release Notes (UK 2015 Data Release).
Table 6.1: Study Area Population by Survey Zone (2016 to 2031) Zone 2016 2021 2026 2031 1 61,076 62,166 63,350 64,242 2 86,741 89,322 91,258 92,748 3 88,451 89,813 90,890 91,695 4 32,248 33,169 33,969 34,558 5 66,509 66,757 66,893 66,726 6 50,518 52,178 53,833 55,376 7 97,693 99,094 100,404 101,634 8 36,829 37,267 37,676 38,138 9 31,184 31,256 31,229 31,214 10 29,042 29,300 29,595 29,799 11 37,140 37,092 37,139 37,226 Study Area Total 617,431 627,414 636,236 643,356 Source: Experian Micromarketer G3 (2015 data)
6.05 The above table indicates that Experian forecast that the Study Area population will increase from 617,431 in 2016 to 643,356 at 2031, equating to an increase in population of 25,925 persons. Within Zones 7, 8 and 10 – which broadly accord to the area of the Study Area within Middlesbrough – the
79
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
forecast population increases from 163,564 at 2016 to 169,571 at 2031. This equates to an estimated population increase of 6,007 persons over the 15 year period or 400 persons per annum.
6.06 It is also useful to set out the proportion of the Study Area population which falls within the Middlesbrough boundary. As stated above, the majority of the population within Zones 7 and 8 fall within Middlesbrough Borough and approximately half of Zone 10 also falls within the Borough. We set out the proportions below, which represent approximately 23% of the total Study Area population. This is broadly commensurate to the amount of the expenditure market share currently attracted to both convenience and comparison retail facilities within the Borough, at 19.5% for convenience goods and 20.2% for comparison goods.
Table 6.2: Study Area Population within Middlesbrough Borough by Survey Zone at 2016 Population within Proportion of Total the Borough at Zonal Population at Zone 2016 2016 within Middlesbrough Borough 4 360 11.1% 6 51 0.1% 7 97,686 99.9% 8 30,818 83.7% 10 13,607 46.9% M’brough Total 142,522 Source: Experian Micromarketer G3 (2015 data)
6.07 We have assumed that Experian’s future population projections represent the most appropriate data source for the purposes of modelling future retail needs as part of this Retail Study.
6.08 However, it is also important to acknowledge that the emerging local plan seeks to allocate a large amount of new housing over the plan period up to 2031 within Middlesbrough. The Housing Core Strategy sets out under Policy H1 of the Spatial Strategy, that the Council is looking to provide an additional 6,970 new dwellings up to 2029. However, WYG considers it is too early to establish whether these additional levels of housing will actually be delivered over a sustained period of time and if the net outmigration will be reversed.
6.09 In any event, we have produced a second capacity model looking at a scenario based on an uplift in population based on the level of dwellings identified within the Housing Core Strategy. This assumes that there is an uplift of population between the level identified within the Housing Local Plan and those figures identified by Experian as set out above. This also assumes that the uplift will be within
80
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Zone 7 only, where the majority of the allocated housing is proposed. The uplift between the Experian figure for Zone 7 and the level identified within the Local Plan is 6,355 persons (i.e the difference between the 3,941 persons identified by Experian within Zone 7 and the 10,296 identified within the Housing Local Plan). Using the uplift between the two only, ensures that there is no ‘double counting’ of the growth in population. A copy of the revised scenario is included at Appendix 7.
6.10 We have included the revised capacity figures as part of the analysis below in brackets. It is clear that the uplift in population results in minor differences in most cases in terms of the identified capacity figures but are included for completeness.
Retail Expenditure 6.11 In order to calculate per capita convenience and comparison goods expenditure, we have utilised Experian Micromarketer G3 data which provides detailed information on local consumer expenditure taking account of the socio-economic characteristics of the local population. Experian is a widely accepted source of expenditure data and is regularly used by WYG in calculating retail capacity.
6.12 The base year for the Experian expenditure data is 2014. Per capita growth forecasts were sourced from Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note 13, which was published in October 2015. Appendix 3 of the Retail Planner Briefing Note identifies the annual growth forecasts for convenience and comparison goods which inform our assessment as set out in Table 6.3 below.
81
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Table 6.3: Expenditure Growth Forecast Year Convenience (%) Comparison (%) 2016 0.1 3.2 2017 0.3 2.9 2018 0.2 2.7 2019 0.2 2.8 2020 0.1 3.0 2021 0.1 3.2 2022 -0.1 3.1 2023 0.1 3.3 2024 0.2 3.3 2025 0.1 3.1 2026 0.1 3.1 2027 0.1 3.2 2028 0.1 3.1 2029 0.1 3.2 2030 0.1 3.3 2031 0.1 3.2 Source: Appendix 3, Retail Planner Briefing Note 13 (October 2015)
6.13 The latest growth forecasts suggest that the recovery from the downturn in the economy is well underway, albeit growth in convenience goods expenditure will improve over the medium and long term when compared to the current position. For convenience goods, Experian forecasts +0.1% annual growth at 2016. Whilst there is some deviation in the rate forecast thereafter, the rate of annual convenience goods growth forecast to 2031 broadly follows +0.1%.
6.14 By contrast, Experian identifies an immediate and relatively strong annual comparison growth rate of +3.2% at 2016. A drop in the rate of growth to +2.9% is anticipated at 2017, with annual growth rates thereafter to 2031 forecast to be extremely stable, within the range +2.7% to +3.3%. The latest data shows that there is very limited growth in convenience goods expenditure in the short to long term and this compares to higher annualised comparison goods expenditure growth.
6.15 Growth in expenditure forecast in the longer term (beyond the next ten years) should be treated with caution given the inherent uncertainties in predicting the economy’s performance over time. Assessments of this nature should therefore be reviewed on a regular basis in order to ensure that forecasts over the medium and long term are reflective of any changes to relevant available data.
6.16 Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note 13.1 also provides a forecast as to the proportion of expenditure which will be committed through special forms of trading (comprising ‘non-store retailing’, such as internet sales, TV shopping and so on) over the reporting period. We have excluded any expenditure 82
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
which survey respondents indicated was committed via special forms of trading and instead have made an allowance derived from Experian’s recommendation.
6.17 In considering special forms of trading, it should be noted that many products which are ordered online are still actually sourced from a physical store’s shelves or stockroom (particularly in the case of convenience goods). Accordingly, expenditure committed in this manner acts to support stores and should be considered ‘available’ to tangible retail destinations. In order not to overstate the influence of expenditure committed via special forms of trading, our approach is based on Experian’s ‘adjusted’ figure (provided at Appendix 3 of its Retail Planner Briefing Note 13) which makes an allowance for internet sales sourced from stores. The proportion of expenditure committed through special forms of trading cited below at Table 6.4 is excluded from the identified expenditure as it is not available to stores within the Study Area.
Table 6.4: Special Forms of Trading Forecasts Year Convenience Comparison 2016 3.0% 12.4% 2021 4.4% 15.0% 2026 5.1% 15.0% 2031 5.8% 14.6% Source: Appendix 3 of Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note 13 (October 2015)
6.18 Based on the above growth rates and special forms of trading allowances, it is possible to produce expenditure estimates for each survey zone at 2016, 2021, 2026 and 2031. In doing so, our assessment takes into account both per capita retail expenditure growth and population change.
Convenience Goods Expenditure 6.19 Taking into consideration the above increases in population and per capita expenditure, it is estimated that, at 2016, the resident population of the Study Area generates some £1,095.4m of convenience goods expenditure 33 . Available convenience goods expenditure is then forecast to increase to £1,107.0m at 2021, which represents an increase of £11.6m (or 1.1%) between 2016 and 2021. At 2031, the available convenience goods expenditure is forecast to rise to £1,127.0m, which represents an increase of £31.6m (or 2.9%) between 2016 and 2031.
6.20 We note that the forecast growth in convenience goods spending is substantially lower than estimated in the 2013 MRSU. In the MRSU the level of expenditure growth between 2017 and 2030 was
33 Expressed in 2014 prices, as is every subsequent monetary value
83
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
estimated at £135.3m34 , equating to a 13.2% increase over a 13 year period, compared to the current estimated growth rate over the 15 year period between 2016 and 2031 of 2.9%. This decrease in forecast convenience goods expenditure growth primarily reflects the substantial decreases in the forecast per capita convenience goods expenditure growth over the study period since 2012/2013.
Table 6.5: Total Available Study Area Expenditure – Convenience Goods (£m) Growth Growth Growth 2016 2021 2026 2031 2016-2021 2016-2026 2016-2031 (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) 1,165.6 1,176.7 1,188.0 1,196.4 11.6 23.1 31.6 (1,811.1) (1,191.7) (1,199.4) (16.0) (26.9) (34.7) Source: Table 2a, Appendix 6 In 2014 prices Figures in brackets taken from the population growth scenario at Appendix 7
Main Food and ‘Top-Up’ Shopping 6.21 The proportion of convenience goods expenditure that is committed through main food shopping trips and through ‘top-up’ shopping trips has been estimated with reference to respondents’ answers to Questions 2, 7, 18 and 19 of the household survey. Questions 2 and 19 ask respondents to estimate how much they spent on their last main and top-up food shopping trips, and Questions 7 and 18 ask how often they make such main and top-up food shopping trips, respectively. We analysed responses to these questions to derive an estimate of the split between main and top-up expenditure on a zonal basis.
6.22 Across the whole of the Study Area, we calculate (by adding together our estimates of the monetary split between main and top up shopping expenditure within each zone) that the proportion of convenience goods expenditure directed to respondents’ main food shopping destination equates to 79.2% of their overall convenience shopping expenditure. The remaining 21.8% of expenditure (which will typically be spent on regular purchases such as milk, bread and so on) is therefore attributed to the respondents’ top-up convenience shopping destination. Our estimate of the split between these two types of expenditure on a zonal basis is provided below at Table 6.6.
34 Converted from £361.5 in 2007 prices
84
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Table 6.6: Assumed Split of Convenience Goods Expenditure Between Main and Top-Up Shopping Zone Main Food Top Up 1 81.0% 19.0% 2 78.8% 21.2% 3 76.5% 23.5% 4 74.7% 25.3% 5 77.2% 22.8% 6 77.7% 22.3% 7 74.0% 26.0% 8 76.9% 23.1% 9 83.6% 16.4% 10 82.3% 17.7% 11 84.9% 15.1%
Source: Derived from Table 2b, Appendix 6
6.23 By applying these estimates to the identified resident population of the Study Area, convenience goods expenditure at 2016 committed through ‘main food’ shopping trips is estimated to be £911.8m and through ‘top up’ shopping trips is estimated to be £253.8m.
Comparison Goods Expenditure 6.24 For comparison goods, Table 6.7 sets out our estimation that the resident population of the Study Area will generate some £1,800.0m of comparison goods expenditure at 2016. Available comparison goods expenditure is then forecast to increase to £2,037.1m at 2021, which represents an increase of £237.1m (or 13.2%) between 2016 and 2021. At 2031, the available comparison goods expenditure is forecast to be £2,868.7m, which represents an increase of £1,068.8m (or 59.4%) between 2016 and 2031. At 2013, the Study estimated that the total comparison goods expenditure available within Zones 7, 8 and 10 at 2017 would be £388.5m. The new Study has calculated an available comparison expenditure at 2016 of £437.6m, which demonstrates the increase in available spending from residents within Middlesbrough. Overall, the 2013 Study estimated a growth in expenditure for Zones 7, 8 and 10 from 2012 to 2030 of £203.0m, which is considerably less than the growth now estimated between 2016 and 2031 of £255.8m. Again, this demonstrates the potential for higher spending power from the population.
85
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Table 6.7: Total Available Study Area Expenditure– Comparison Goods (£m) Growth Growth Growth 2016 2021 2026 2031 2016-2021 2016-2026 2016-2031 (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) 2,037.1 2,416.1 2,868.7 237.1 616.1 1,068.8 1,800.0 (2,044.4) (2,423.4) (2,875.8) (244.4) (623.5) (1,075.8) Source: Table 9, Appendix 6 In 2014 prices Figures in brackets taken from the population growth scenario at Appendix 7
6.25 For the purposes of this Study, comparison goods expenditure has been divided into eight sub- categories: ‘Clothing & Footwear’, ‘CDs, DVDs and Books’, ‘Small Household Goods’, ‘Toys, Games, Bicycles and Recreational Goods’ and ‘Health and Beauty/Chemist Goods’ (collectively referred to as non-bulky goods) and ‘Electrical’, ‘DIY and Gardening’ and ‘Furniture’ (these three categories collectively being referred to as bulky goods). The proportion of expenditure directed to each sub- category is estimated by Experian on a zonal basis.
6.26 For the purposes of this Study, it is also important to consider the average convenience and comparison expenditure per capita across the Study Area and Middlesbrough Borough in particular, and compare these figures with the averages from across the North East, England and the UK. This provides a good basis upon which to assess the level of available expenditure and therefore, the current trading characteristics and performances of existing retail designations within the Study Area but Middlesbrough in particular. Table 6.8 below provides the averages for both convenience per capita spending and comparison per capita spending.
Table 6.8: Average Convenience and Comparison Per Capita Expenditure Middlesbrough Study Area North East North England UK Borough Convenience £1,918 £1,949 £1,967 £1,998 £2,087 £2,115 Comparison £2,971 £3,138 £3,157 £2,947 £3,175 £3,157
6.27 Table 6.8 above demonstrates that the average per capita expenditure for both convenience and comparison goods within the Borough specifically, is below the averages for all other scenarios, including the averages from the Study Area and the North East as a region. As such, the figures show that the residents in Middlesbrough and the wider Study Area spend less each year on both convenience and comparison goods in comparison to the wider region, the North of England, England as a whole and the UK as a whole.
86
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
6.28 In considering the above, it should be noted that if an excess of expenditure manifests itself within the Study Area, this does not necessarily translate directly into a requirement for additional floorspace. In assessing quantitative need, it is also necessary to take account of:
Existing development proposals; Expected changes in shopping patterns; and The future efficiency of retail floorspace.
Middlesbrough’s Market Share 6.29 Having calculated the likely levels of expenditure that are generated by the resident population within the defined Study Area, it is also important to understand what proportion of this expenditure is currently retained by retail facilities within Middlesbrough (i.e. these market shares may differ slightly to those outlined in Section 4 as they are based on retail expenditure rather than shopping trips).
6.30 As previously highlighted, this study has involved the completion of 1,600 household telephone interviews within Middlesbrough and the wider area. By analysing the results from the survey, it has been possible to understand the likely levels of overall convenience goods expenditure that are captured by Middlesbrough. The market shares for the various expenditure categories are highlighted in Tables 6.9 and 6.10.
6.31 Table 6.9 below indicates that existing facilities within Middlesbrough attract £165.3m of main food convenience goods expenditure and £62.4m of ‘top-up’ convenience goods expenditure generated by residents of the Study Area. Accordingly, facilities within Middlesbrough retain a total of £227.6m, or 19.5%, of the total £1,165.6m convenience goods expenditure generated by residents within the Study Area.
87
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Table 6.9: Middlesbrough Borough’s Current Market Share (2016) – Convenience Middlesbrough Borough Total Main Food Top Up Food Total Zone Market Share 1 Convenience £m £m £m % 1 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.1% 2 1.1 0.4 1.5 0.1% 3 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0% 4 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0% 5 1.8 0.4 2.2 0.2% 6 3.7 0.4 4.1 0.4% 7 79.7 40.4 120.1 10.3% 8 34.4 12.5 46.9 4.0% 9 10.0 2.1 12.2 1.0% 10 32.0 4.4 36.3 3.1% 11 2.0 0.4 1.7 0.1% Middlesbrough 165.3 62.4 227.6 19.5% Borough Total Study Area Total 911.8 253.8 1,165.6 Notes: Derived from Tables 2 and 4 at Appendix 6. 1 Market share of total study area expenditure on main and top-up food shopping.
6.32 Zones 7, 8 and 10 comprise the primary convenience goods catchment for Middlesbrough’s facilities 35 . Each of these zones retains between 60.0% and 74.7% of the convenience goods expenditure of residents within the respective zone. Zones 6 and 9 form the secondary convenience goods catchment for Middlesbrough 36 , with between 4.4% and 21.7% of residents spending on convenience goods in each of these zones retained by facilities in Middlesbrough. The results show that there was no or limited (below 3.5%) convenience expenditure drawn to facilities in Middlesbrough from Zones 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 11.
6.33 In terms of individual stores within the Borough, the Tesco Extra in Coulby Newham District Centre is the most popular store, with a total convenience turnover of £59.2m at 2016. This is followed by the Morrisons on Ormesby Road in Berwick Hills with a total convenience turnover of £43.2m and then the Aldi on Dalby Way in Middlesbrough with a total convenience turnover of £23.5m. The Sainsbury’s on Wilson Street has a total convenience turnover of £17.3m.
35 We have identified the primary convenience goods catchment of Middlesbrough and as those study zones for which Middlesbrough achieves a convenience market share of 50% or greater. 36 We have identified the secondary convenience goods catchment of Middlesbrough and as those study zones for which Middlesbrough achieves a convenience expenditure market share of between 5% and 50%.
88
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
6.34 Outside of the Borough, the Asda on Marina Way in Hartlepool, the Asda on Allensway in Stockton and the Asda on Portrack Lane in Stockton each attract the highest levels of total convenience expenditure at £56.9m, £53.2m and £49.3m respectively.
6.35 Table 6.10 below sets out for each of the Study Zones, the comparison goods expenditure of residents retained within Middlesbrough Borough, across the eight categories of comparison goods spending. Retained comparison goods spending in Middlesbrough varies across the different categories of comparison goods, from £17.5m for ‘DIY and gardening’ to £209.1m for spending on ‘clothing and footwear’. Overall, existing facilities within Middlesbrough attract £525.6m of the total £1,800.1m of comparison goods expenditure generated by residents of the Study Area, equating to an overall market share of 20.2%.
Table 6.10: Middlesbrough Borough’s Current Market Share (2016) – Comparison Goods Middlesbrough Total
Non-Bulky Bulky
Total Market Zone Comparison Share 1 Small Small DIY & /DVDs /DVDs Chemist Chemist Electrical Electrical Furniture Furniture Footwear Footwear Gardening Gardening Clothing & Clothing Household Household Recreation Recreation Books/CDs
£m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m % 1 9.8 3.2 1.5 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.9 16.2 6.8% 2 14.8 3.1 2.2 1.8 1.8 0.0 0.2 0.5 24.4 10.6% 3 13.8 1.8 1.5 1.8 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 20.1 8.2% 4 6.6 1.4 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.2 10.7 12.9% 5 24.2 3.7 6.9 4.3 1.2 0.5 1.2 0.7 42.7 20.1% 6 13.1 2.4 2.5 2.0 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.5 22.1 13.5% 7 43.2 9.0 11.0 10.6 20.3 6.7 8.2 3.9 112.9 43.8% 8 12.9 2.8 4.4 3.1 5.0 1.5 1.1 1.2 32 42.3% 9 12.7 1.6 2.0 2.3 1.3 0.7 0.6 0.8 22 28.0% 10 11.8 3.9 4.6 1.9 5.2 0.7 2.1 0.9 31.1 29.8% 11 16.4 1.4 6.7 2.4 1.0 0.3 0.8 0.1 29.1 27.0% Middlesbrough 179.2 34.3 44.0 31.5 38.3 11.1 14.7 9.8 362.9 20.2% Total Study Area 526.1 87.8 212.0 249.0 186.0 231.1 99.9 208.2 1,800.0 100.0% Total Notes: Sourced from Tables 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21 and 23 to 25 at Appendix 6. 1 Market share of total zone/study area expenditure across all categories on comparison goods.
89
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
6.36 Zones 6, 7, 8 and 9 comprise the primary comparison goods catchment for Middlesbrough’s facilities 37 . Within these zones, between 46.7% and 77.8% of residents’ comparison goods expenditure is retained within the Borough. Zones 2, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 11 form the secondary comparison goods catchment for Middlesbrough, where between 12.8% and 36.2% of the comparison goods spending of each zone’s residents is spent in Middlesbrough. There is limited (below 8.5%) comparison goods expenditure drawn to facilities in Middlesbrough from Zones 1 and 3.
6.37 The most popular comparison goods destination within Middlesbrough Borough is Middlesbrough town centre which attracts a total £287.8m of comparison goods expenditure.
6.38 Outside of Middlesbrough, Teesside Shopping Park is the most popular destination, attracting £427.8m of all comparison goods expenditure, followed by Portrak Lane which attracts £137.8m of comparison goods expenditure and then Cleveland Retail Park which attracts £121.7m of expenditure.
Summary and Conclusions 6.39 Residents within Middlesbrough Borough represent approximately 23% of the total Study Area population, which broadly corresponds with the amount of expenditure currently being spent at destinations within the Borough at 19.5% for convenience goods and 20.2% for comparison goods.
6.40 The latest growth forecasts for expenditure suggest that the recovery from the downturn in the economy is well underway, albeit growth in convenience goods expenditure will improve over the medium and long term when compared to the current position.
6.41 In considering special forms of trading, it should be noted that many products which are ordered online are still actually sourced from a physical store’s shelves or stockroom (particularly in the case of convenience goods). Accordingly, expenditure committed in this manner acts to support stores and should be considered ‘available’ to tangible retail destinations.
6.42 The average expenditure per capita figures for both convenience and comparison spending differs from Middlesbrough and the rest of the country, even when comparing these figures with the average from the Study Area but also the average in the North East and the North. Overall, the expenditure per capita figures demonstrate that there is less available spending within Middlesbrough and therefore, this could account for some of the trading characteristics of stores across the Borough.
37 We have identified the primary comparison goods catchment of Middlesbrough and as those study zones for which Middlesbrough achieves a comparison expenditure market share of 45% or greater.
90
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
7.0 Retail Capacity in Middlesbrough
7.01 We have examined the need for new convenience and comparison goods floorspace over the five year reporting periods to 2031 (i.e. at 2016, 2021, 2026 and 2031).
7.02 At the outset, it is important to note that an assessment in the long term should be viewed with caution, due to the obvious difficulties inherent in predicting the performance of the economy and shopping habits over time. This need for caution is demonstrated by the fluidity of the market seen between the 2013 MRSU and the current study. In any event, any identified capacity should not necessarily be viewed as justification of new retail floorspace outside of centres as this could prejudice the implementation of any emerging town centre redevelopment strategies and the development of more central sites which may be currently available or which could become available over time.
7.03 A complete series of quantitative capacity tables are provided at Appendix 6 to provide further detail in terms of the step-by-step application of our quantitative assessment methodology.
Capacity Formula 7.04 For all types of capacity assessment, the conceptual approach is identical, although the data sources and assumptions may differ. The key relationship is Expenditure (£m) (allowing for population change and retail growth) less Turnover (£m) (allowing for improved ‘productivity’) equals Surplus or Deficit (£m).
7.05 Expenditure (£m) – The expenditure element of the above equation is calculated by taking the population within the defined catchment and then multiplying this figure by the average annual expenditure levels for various forms of retail spending per annum. The expenditure is estimated with reference to a number of factors, namely:
Growth in population; Growth in expenditure per person per annum; and Special Forms of Trading (e.g. the internet, catalogue shopping and so on).
7.06 Turnover (£m) – The turnover figure relates to the annual turnover generated by existing retail facilities within the Study Area. The turnover of existing facilities is calculated using Mintel Retail Rankings and Verdict UK Grocery Retailers reports – independent analysis which lists the sales densities for all major multiple retailers.
91
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
7.07 Surplus / Deficit (£m) – This represents the difference between the expenditure and turnover figures outlined above. A surplus figure represents an effective under provision of retail facilities within the Study Area (which, all things being equal, would suggest that additional floorspace could be supported), whereas a deficit would suggest a quantitative overprovision of retail facilities.
7.08 Although a surplus figure is presented in monetary terms, it is possible to convert this figure to provide an indication of the quantum of floorspace which may be required. The level of floorspace will vary dependent on the type of retailer proposed and the type of goods traded. For example, in the case of comparison goods, non-bulky goods retailers tend to achieve higher sales densities than bulky goods retailers. However, within the bulky goods sector itself there is significant variation, with electrical retailers tending to have a much higher sales density than those selling DIY or furniture goods.
Capacity for Future Convenience Goods Floorspace
Trading Performance of Existing Convenience Provision 7.09 In order to ascertain the likely need for additional convenience goods floorspace in Middlesbrough, it is first necessary to consider the performance of the current provision. Table 7.1 below assesses the individual performance of each of the main convenience goods facilities in Middlesbrough by comparing the survey-derived turnover of each food retail destination to its ‘benchmark’ turnover. The ‘benchmark’ turnover indicates the level of turnover that the store would generally be expected to attract, based on company average trading levels. A judgement can then be made on the trading performance of existing facilities based by comparing the survey-derived turnover with the expected ‘benchmark’ turnover (based on nationally published trading information from Mintel and Verdict) of existing provision.
7.10 The ‘benchmark’ turnover differs for each operator based on its average turnover per square metre throughout the country. Although robust up-to-date information is available in terms of the convenience goods floorspace provided by large foodstores, it can be more difficult to quantify the extent of local convenience provision as there is no single comprehensive database to rely upon. Where we have been unable to verify the exact quantum of floorspace provided by existing smaller- scale convenience destinations, we have assumed that stores are trading ‘at equilibrium’ (i.e. the survey-derived turnover equates to the expected level of turnover).
92
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Table 7.1: Trading Performance of Main Foodstores in Middlesbrough (2016)
NET SALES BENCHMARK SURVEY DESTINATION OVERTRADING CONVENIENCE DENSITY TURNOVER TURNOVER SALES AREA (£m) (£m) (sq.m) (£ per sq.m) (£m) (A) (B) (AxB)
Zone 7 Middlesbrough Town Centre In/Edge of Centre Middlesbrough Town Centre - - 2.83 2.83 0.00 Aldi, Newport Road, Middlesbrough 672 12,817 8.62 6.58 -2.04 Dundas Shopping Centre, - - 0.16 0.16 0.00 Middlesbrough Heron Frozen Foods, Dundas Street, 245 6,773 1.66 0.07 -1.59 Middlesbrough Iceland, Cleveland Centre, 543 7,096 3.85 3.75 -0.10 Middlesbrough M&S Foodhall, Linthorpe Road, 1285 11,194 14.39 5.60 -8.78 Middlesbrough Tesco Express, Corporation Road, 243 13,437 3.26 0.35 -2.91 Middlesbrough Sainsburys, Wilson Street, 2311 11,218 25.92 17.31 -8.61 Middlesbrough
Out of Centre Iceland, Linthorpe Road, 437 7,096 3.10 0.47 -2.63 Middlesbrough Lidl, Newport Road, Middlesbrough 741 4,236 3.14 2.82 -0.32 Sub Total Middlesbrough 66.93 39.94 -26.99
Linthorpe Village Local Centre In/Edge of Centre Linthorpe Village Local Centre, - - 1.07 1.07 0.00 Middlesbrough Heron Frozen Foods, Linthorpe 258 6,773 1.75 0.00 -1.75 Road, Middlesbrough Co -operative Food, Linthorpe Road, 797 8,507 6.78 3.17 -3.61 Middlesbrough
Out of Centre Sainsburys Local, Linthorpe Road, 155 11,218 1.74 0.71 -1.03 Middlesbrough Tesco Express, Linthorpe Road, 243 13,437 3.27 0.69 -2.58 Middlesbrough
Acklam Road/Cambridge Road
Local Centre In/Edge of Centre Acklam Road / Cambridge Road - - 2.91 2.91 0.00 Local Centre, Middlesbrough Sainsburys Local, Acklam Road, 214 11,218 2.40 1.63 -0.77 Middlesbrough Heron Frozen Foods, Acklam Road, 269 6,773 1.82 0.35 -1.47 Middlesbrough
93
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
NET SALES BENCHMARK SURVEY DESTINATION OVERTRADING CONVENIENCE DENSITY TURNOVER TURNOVER SALES AREA (£m) (£m) (sq.m) (£ per sq.m) (£m) (A) (B) (AxB) Other In/Edge of Centre Zone 7 Acklam Road / Mandale Road Local - - 0.41 0.41 0.00 Centre, Middlesbrough Acklam Road, Middlesbrough - - 0.09 0.09 0.00 Aldi, Marton Road, Middlesbrough 838 12,817 10.75 7.69 -3.06 Beechwood, Middlesbrough - - 0.12 0.12 0.00 Brookfield Local Centre - - 0.12 0.12 0.00 Broughton Avenue, Easterside Local - - 0.14 0.14 0.00 Centre, Middlesbrough Eastbourne Road Local Centre, - - 0.23 0.23 0.00 Middlesbrough Heron Frozen Foods, Eastbourne 125 6,773 0.85 0.32 -0.52 Road, Middlesbrough Longlands / Marton Road Local - - 0.09 0.09 0.00 Centre, Middlesbrough Marton Road / Gypsy Lane Local - - 1.01 1.01 0.00 Centre, Middlesbrough Marton-in-Cleveland Local Centre - - 0.51 0.51 0.00 Parliament Road Local Centre, - - 0.09 0.09 0.00 Middlesbrough Sainsburys Local, Broughton 132 11,218 1.48 0.36 -1.12 Avenue, Easterside Sainsburys Local, Crescent Road, 113 11,218 1.27 0.70 -0.57 Middlesbrough Sainsburys Local, Saltersgill Avenue, 134 11,218 1.50 0.59 -0.91 Middlesbrough Tesco Express, Acklam Road, 255 13,437 3.43 2.66 -0.77 Middlesbrough Tesco Express, Longlands Road, 232 13,437 3.12 1.72 -1.40 Middlesbrough Tesco Express, Marton Road, 241 13,437 3.23 2.54 -0.70 Middlesbrough Tesco Express, Parliament Road, 435 13,437 5.84 0.12 -5.72 Middlesbrough Tesco Express, Roman Road, 231 13,437 3.10 3.58 0.48 Middlesbrough Trimdon Avenue Local Centre, - - 0.50 0.50 0.00 Middlesbrough Viewly Centre, Hemlington Local - - 1.18 1.18 0.00 Centre
Other Out of Centre Zone 7 Co -operative Food, The Oval, 256 8,507 2.18 2.14 -0.04 Brookfield, Middlesbrough Londis, Croft Avenue, Middlesbrough - - 0.60 0.60 0.00 M&S Simply Food, Marton Road, 493 11,194 5.52 0.28 -5.24 James Cook Hospital, Middlesbrough Sainsburys Local, Marton Road, James Cook University Hospital, 187 11,218 2.10 0.23 -1.86 Middlesbrough Sub Total Other Zone 7 71.18 38.55 -32.63
Sub-Total Zone 7 138.11 78.49 -59.62
94
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
NET SALES BENCHMARK SURVEY DESTINATION OVERTRADING CONVENIENCE DENSITY TURNOVER TURNOVER SALES AREA (£m) (£m) (sq.m) (£ per sq.m) (£m) (A) (B) (AxB) Zone 8 Berwick Hills District Centre Berwick Hills District Centre - - 0.14 0.14 0.00 Morrisons, Ormesby Road, Berwick 3622 12,134 43.95 43.20 -0.76 Hills Sub Total Berwick Hills District 44.09 43.34 -0.76 Centre
Lealholm Crescent Local Centre In/Edge of Centre Asda Supermarket, Ormesby Road, 468 14,050 6.57 5.93 -0.64 Park End, Middlesbrough Iceland, Ormesby Road, 437 7,096 3.10 0.86 -2.24 Middlesbrough
Ormesby High Street Local
Centre In/Edge of Centre Farmfoods, High Street, Ormesby, 49 7,129 0.35 2.02 1.67 Middlesbrough Heron Frozen Foods, High Street, 198 6,773 1.34 0.41 -0.93 Middlesbrough
Other Zone 8 Lidl, Cargo Fleet Lane, North 722 4,236 3.06 6.45 3.39 Ormsby, Middlesbrough Marshall Avenue, Brambles Farm - - 0.33 0.33 0.00 Local Centre, Middlesbrough North Ormesby Local Centre, - - 0.83 0.83 0.00 Middlesbrough Ormesby High Street Local Centre, - - 0.68 0.68 0.00 Middlesbrough Sainsburys Local, Fosdyke Green, Vaughan Shopping Centre, 137 11,218 1.53 1.28 -0.26 Middlesbrough
Sub-Total Zone 8 61.89 62.12 0.24
Zone 10 Coulby Newham District Centre Coulby Newham District Centre - - 0.78 0.78 0.00 Aldi, Dalby Way, Middlesbrough 760 12,817 9.74 23.48 13.74 Iceland, Parkway Shopping Centre, 329 7,096 2.34 1.29 -1.05 Coulby Newham Parkway Shopping Centre, Coulby - - 0.68 0.68 0.00 Newham Tesco Extra, Parkway Centre, Coulby 3974 13,437 53.40 59.16 5.75 Newham Sub Total Coulby Newham 66.93 85.38 18.44 District Centre
Other Zone 10
95
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
NET SALES BENCHMARK SURVEY DESTINATION OVERTRADING CONVENIENCE DENSITY TURNOVER TURNOVER SALES AREA (£m) (£m) (sq.m) (£ per sq.m) (£m) (A) (B) (AxB) Hollowfield, Coulby Newham - - 0.31 0.31 0.00 Neighbourhood Centre The Avenue, Nunthorpe Local - - 0.71 0.71 0.00 Centre, Middlesbrough
Sub-Total Zone 70 67.95 86.39 18.44
TOTAL IN MIDDLESBROUGH 267.94 227.00 -40.94 BOROUGH Notes : Figures taken from Table 5 of Appendix 6.
7.11 For each convenience goods retail destination, consideration has been given as to whether any of its turnover is likely to be derived as ‘inflow’ from outside the Study Area. However, given the extent of the Study Area and the expanse it covers, we consider it unlikely that residents of areas further afield will travel to the Study Area in very significant numbers to undertake food shopping. This is particularly the case for convenience shopping as shoppers tend to stay relatively local to their residence to undertake such shops.
7.12 Our assessment is based upon a ‘goods based’ approach, which disaggregates expenditure by category type, and it is important to recognise that major foodstore operators generally sell an element of non-food goods such as books, compact discs, clothing and household goods. To account for this, the typical ratio between convenience/comparison goods provision for each operator 38 has been applied to the estimated net floorspace of each foodstore 39 . This provides an indication of the likely sales area dedicated to the sale of convenience goods at each store.
7.13 Whilst survey results are commonly accepted as a means by which to identify existing shopping patterns, their findings should be treated with a ‘note of caution’ as they can have a bias towards national multiple retailers and, as a consequence, may understate the role of smaller stores and independent retailers. However, in order to minimise any bias, WYG’s methodology asks respondents where they ‘last’ undertook their main food or top-up shopping, rather than where they ‘usually’ undertake such purchases.
38 Derived from Verdict UK Food & Grocery 2015 Company Briefing Reports. Where Verdict data is not available or is considered not to appropriately reflect how a store trades in practice, we have applied professional judgement in the manner set out in the notes to Table 5 of Appendix 6 39 Net sales areas have been sourced from Storepoint database of food retailers or planning application information. Where such data is not available, we have applied professional judgement in the manner set out in the notes to Table 5 of Appendix 5
96
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
7.14 We note that there is a substantial level of convenience goods floorspace identified at the local parade level across Middlesbrough that is not identified through the survey when establishing either main or top up food shopping patterns. However, from review of the floorspace it is often found that these facilities are very localised, with a high level of small scale CTN, off licences, bakers or butchers. Such provision does not serve either a main food or top-up food shop function and therefore it is considered that such facilities cater for micro level needs that are very difficult to identify and quantify and should not be materially considered within this strategic spatial capacity exercise.
7.15 Our assessment identifies that taking all convenience goods retail facilities in Middlesbrough, the expected turnover of provision is £267.9m at 2016, which is higher than the identified survey-derived turnover of £227.0m. This suggests that, taken cumulatively, existing convenience goods facilities within the Borough are ‘under-trading’ when compared to their expected benchmark turnover. Accordingly, it would appear that the existing food retail provision is currently more than that required to meet the existing quantitative need. This could reflect the fact that overall available expenditure is lower than the national average and therefore there is less money being spent at stores, despite the number of trips to stores still being of a similar nature.
7.16 There are instances where specific facilities trade very strongly or relatively poorly. For example, the Aldi at on Dalby Way has an estimated convenience goods benchmark turnover of £9.7m, but turns over an estimated £23.5m of convenience goods expenditure. In addition, the Tesco Extra in Coulby Newham has an estimated convenience goods benchmark turnover of £53.4m, but turns over an estimated £59.2m.
7.17 Conversely, the findings of the household survey indicate that several stores within Middlesbrough have a turnover less than their expected benchmark. For example, the survey indicates that the edge of centre Sainsbury’s on Wilson Street has an expected turnover of £25.9m but a survey derived turnover of £17.3m. The Morrisons on Ormesby Road in Berwick Hills has an expected benchmark turnover of £44.0m and a survey derived turnover of £43.2m and therefore is trading at around the expected benchmark level.
7.18 It should be noted however; that the estimation of a store’s turnover is subject to a number of assumptions. For example, in apportioning main and top up convenience goods expenditure using the household survey results, it is assumed that each person within a zone spends the zonal per capita average amount on such items. However, in reality, it is likely that the typical discount foodstore customer spends a lesser amount than the typical ‘main four’ (Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda and Morrisons) foodstore shopper. Accordingly, there is the possibility that the turnover of certain discount foodstores
97
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
may have been overestimated and that the turnover of certain ‘main four’ foodstores may have been underestimated. However, across the Study Area as a whole, the methodology acts to balance out any such discrepancies.
Baseline Quantitative Need for Additional Convenience Goods Floorspace
7.19 Table 7.2 appraises the future capacity for additional convenience goods retail floorspace in the Middlesbrough Borough, taking account of the current convenience goods trading position compared against the ‘benchmark’ (or anticipated) turnover of existing convenience goods floorspace. Accordingly, Table 7.2 sets out the benchmark turnover of existing convenience retail facilities in Middlesbrough in the 2016 base year and projects this forward to 2031 assuming that the benchmark turnover of existing floorspace will increase through improvements in floorspace efficiency at the rates set out in Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note 13.
7.20 The £227.0m of convenience goods expenditure generated by residents of the Study Area and claimed by destinations within Middlesbrough at 2016 equates to a market share of 19.5%. Our assessment assumes that the current market share of facilities in Middlesbrough of 19.5% is maintained over the forecast period. Rolling forward this market share, we estimate that the total available convenience goods expenditure in Middlesbrough will be £229.4m in 2021, increasing to £231.7m at 2026 and at £233.3m at 2031.
Table 7.2: Estimated Baseline Capacity for Convenience Goods Facilities in Middlesbrough Borough Benchmark Market Share of Expenditure Surplus Year Turnover of Study Area Available 2 Expenditure Existing Stores 1 Expenditure £m % £m £m 2016 267.9 19.5% 227.0 -40.9 2021 266.6 19.5% 229.4 (230.3) -37.2 (-36.3) 2026 266.3 19.5% 231.7 (232.4) -34.7 (-33.9) 2031 266.3 19.5% 233.3 (233.9) -33.1 (-32.5) Notes : Figures taken from Table 6a of Appendix 6. Figures in brackets taken from the population growth scenario at Appendix 7
7.21 Table 7.2 indicates that there is a negative convenience goods expenditure surplus of -£40.9m in 2016. The negative convenience goods expenditure surplus in Middlesbrough decreases to -£37.2m by 2026, and to -£33.1m by 2031. This level of negative surplus of convenience expenditure demonstrates how a number of the stores across the Borough are under-trading and therefore, in quantitative terms, there is sufficient convenience floorspace to meet resident’s needs.
98
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Commitments for New Convenience Goods Floorspace 7.22 There is just one commitment for new convenience goods floorspace in Middlesbrough which is further expected to draw on the convenience goods expenditure within the Borough. As summarised in Table 7.3 below, we estimate that the turnover requirements of the extant retail planning permission for new convenience goods floorspace in Middlesbrough would be £20.6m in the 2016 base year. This is solely related to the now completed Sainsbury’s Store at Middlehaven, which is currently unoccupied but was formerly due to be occupied by the national multiple.
7.23 However, despite Sainsbury’s reportedly withdrawing from the scheme, there is every potential for the floorspace to still be occupied by a convenience goods retailer (or even comparison retailers) and therefore the capacity figures need to take this into account. In any event, the occupation of the constructed convenience store at Middlehaven will assist in increasing the overall market share within Middlesbrough and has the potential to increase the market share within the town centre itself.
7.24 For the purposes of the capacity assessment exercise, we have assumed that 80% of the store’s convenience turnover will be drawn from the Borough and the remaining 20% will be drawn from available expenditure outside of the Borough. As such, we have estimated that £16.5m of the total convenience turnover will be drawn from the Borough. Whilst the store was due to be occupied by Sainsbury’s and would have therefore redirected the existing shopping trips and turnover from the existing Sainsbury’s store at Wilson Street, this is no longer the case and we have therefore taken the commitment as a brand new store and retailer at this stage. If it were the case that the Sainsbury’s was to relocate, then the level of turnover from the commitment which would be drawn from the surplus expenditure would be less. In any event, there is negative convenience capacity even before commitments are taken account of.
Table 7.3: Extant Convenience Commitments Drawn from Middlesbrough Estimated Convenience Planning Estimated Turnover Sales Area Proposal Application Turnover at from the Floorspace Reference 2016 Study Area at 2016 sq.m £m £m
New Sainsbury's Store, M/FP/0773/13/P 1,839 20.6 16.5 Middlesbrough
Notes : Figures taken from Table 6aiv of Appendix 6.
99
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Residual Quantitative Need for Additional Convenience Goods Floorspace Post Implementation of Commitments
7.25 Table 7.4 below sets out the residual convenience expenditure capacity in Middlesbrough Borough, taking into account the turnover requirements of extant planning commitments for new convenience retail floorspace, and converts this to a floorspace requirement.
7.26 After taking the existing commitment into account, the surplus expenditure reduces further to −£57.5m at 2016, -£53.6m at 2021 and to -£49.5m at 2031 as shown in Table 7.4. Overall, WYG considers there to be very limited opportunity or requirement to provide additional convenience floorspace within the Borough as a whole on purely quantitative terms. This is evidenced by the decision of Sainsbury’s to not take occupancy of the space at Middlehaven.
Table 7.4: Residual Quantitative Need for Additional Convenience Goods Floorspace in Middlesbrough Post Implementation of Commitments Convenience Goods Expenditure Floorspace Requirement (Net) Year Surplus Commitments 1 Residual Min 2* Max 3* £m £m £m sq.m sq.m 2016 -40.94 16.50 -57.45 -4,400 -8,200 2021 -37.16 (-36.30) 16.42 -53.58 (-52.72) -4,100 (-4,100) -7,700 (-7,600) 2026 -34.69 (-33.95) 16.41 -51.09 (-50.35) -3,900 (-3,900) -7,300 (-7,200) 2031 -33.05 (-32.45) 16.41 -49.46 (-48.86) -3,800 (-3,800) -7,100 (-7,000) 1 Allows for increased turnover efficiency as set out in Table 4a Experian Retail Planner 13 (October 2015) 2 Average sales density assumed £13,000 per sq.m (based on the average sales density of the leading four supermarkets as identified by Verdict 2015) 3 Average sales density assumed to be £7,000 per sq.m *Rounded to the nearest 100 sq.m Figures in brackets taken from the population growth scenario at Appendix 7 At 2014 prices
Capacity within Middlesbrough Town Centre and Berwick Hills and Coulby Newham District Centres
7.27 Below we assess the capacity and need for additional convenience floorspace in Middlesbrough town centre and the two district centres (Berwick Hills and Coulby Newham), assuming that the current market share of facilities in each of these towns is maintained over the study period.
7.28 Table 7.5 provides a summary of the identified baseline quantitative capacity in convenience expenditure terms for the three centres prior to taking account of planning commitments. It is important to note that due to popularity of the Tesco and Aldi at Coulby Newham, the centre has a
100
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
higher market share of convenience goods than Middlesbrough town centre. This also reflects the overall comparison nature of the town centre but the convenience nature of the two district centres.
Table 7.5: Estimated Baseline Capacity for Convenience Goods Facilities in Middlesbrough Town Centre and Berwick Hills and Coulby Newham District Centres Benchmark Market Share of Available Surplus Year Turnover of Study Area Expenditure 2 Expenditure Existing Stores 1 Expenditure £m % £m £m Middlesbrough Town Centre 2016 66.9 3.4% 39.9 -27.0 2021 66.6 3.4% 40.0 (40.2) -26.6 (-26.4) 2026 66.5 3.4% 40.4 (40.5) -26.1 (-26.0) 2031 66.5 3.4% 40.7 (40.8) -25.8 (-25.7) Berwick Hills 2016 44.1 3.7% 43.3 -0.8 2021 43.9 3.7% 43.5 (43.7) -0.3 (-0.2) 2026 43.8 3.7% 44.0 (44.1) 0.1 (0.3) 2031 43.8 3.7% 44.3 (44.4) 0.4 (0.5)
Coulby Newham 2016 66.9 7.3% 85.4 18.4 2021 66.6 7.3% 85.9 (86.2) 19.3 (19.6) 2026 66.5 7.3% 86.7 (87.0) 20.2 (20.5) 2031 66.5 7.3% 87.3 (87.6) 20.8 (21.0) Source: Tables 6a, 7 and 8 at Appendix 6 1 Allows for increased turnover efficiency as set out in Table 4a Experian Retail Planner 13 (October 2015) 2 Assumes a constant market share within Study Area for each centre over the study period. Figures in brackets taken from the population growth scenario at Appendix 7 At 2014 prices
7.29 Table 7.5 shows that the main focus of the identified capacity is on Coulby Newham District Centre, where a convenience goods expenditure surplus of £18.4m is identified at 2016, corresponding to the current level of over-trading at existing foodstores in the District Centre as identified in Table 7.1 above. By 2021, after increases in population and changes in floorspace productivity 40 are considered against the forecast fall in expenditure per capita, we estimate that the surplus convenience goods expenditure will be £19.3m at 2021, rising thereafter to £20.2m by 2026 and £20.8m by 2031.
40 Account has been made for the turnover efficiency of existing convenience goods floorspace to change in accordance with the projections set out in Table 4a of Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note 13 (October 2015), these being -0.4% per annum between 2015 and 2016, -0.1% per annum between 2017 and 2022, and 0.0% between 2023 and 2030. Operators have historically been able to make their existing floorspace more productive over time. However, these negative turnover efficiency growth rates reflect current forecasts for convenience goods floorspace productivity to fall or remain static over the study period.
101
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
7.30 However, a deficit in convenience goods expenditure is identified in Middlesbrough town centre and Berwick Hills, which at 2016 correspond to the current level of under-trading in these centres of −£27.0m and −£0.8m, respectively. The convenience goods expenditure surplus in Middlesbrough town centre remains negative throughout the study period to 2031, as the modest growth in available expenditure arising in these centres in the period up to 2031 due to population growth remaining less than the current deficit. Berwick Hills does see a modest growth in surplus expenditure to £0.4m by 2031.
7.31 Table 7.6 below sets out the residual convenience expenditure capacity in the three centres taking into account the turnover requirements of the extant commitments for new convenience retail floorspace.
Table 7.6: Residual Quantitative Capacity for Additional Convenience Goods Facilities in Middlesbrough Town Centre and Berwick Hills and Coulby Newham District Centres Post Implementation of Commitments Year Convenience Goods Expenditure Floorspace Requirement (Net) Surplus Commitments 1 Residual Min 2* Max 3* £m £m £m sq.m sq.m Middlesbrough 2016 -26.99 12.38 -39.37 -3,000 -5,600 2021 -25.41 12.32 -39.37 (-38.75) -3,000 (-3,000) -5,600 (-5,600) 2026 -24.95 12.30 -38.90 (-38.31) -3,000 (-3,000) -5,600 (-5,500) 2031 -24.65 12.30 -38.44 (-38.05) -3,000 (-2,900) -5,500 (-5,500 Berwick Hills 2016 -0.76 4.13 -4.88 -400 -700 2021 0.84 4.11 -4.44 (-4.28) -300 (-300) -600 (-600) 2026 1.31 4.10 -3.98 (-3.84) -300 (-300) -600 (-600) 2031 1.63 4.10 -3.67 (-3.55) -300 (-300) -500 (-500) Coulby Newham 2016 18.44 0.00 18.44 1,400 2,600 2021 20.47 0.00 19.30 (19.62) 1,500 (1,500) 2,800 (2,800) 2026 21.38 0.00 20.19 (20.47) 1,600 (1,600) 2,900 (2,900) 2031 22.00 0.00 20.80 (21.03) 1,600 (1,600) 3,000 (3,000) 1 Allows for increased turnover efficiency as set out in Table 4a Experian Retail Planner 13 (October 2015) 2 Average sales density assumed £13,018 per sq.m (based on the average sales density of the leading four supermarkets as identified by Verdict 2015) 3 Average sales density assumed to be £7,000 per sq.m Rounded to the nearest 100 sq.m Figures in brackets taken from the population growth scenario at Appendix 7 At 2014 prices
102
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
7.32 In Coulby Newham, convenience expenditure residual is £18.4m at 2016, rising to £19.3m in 2021, £20.2m at 2026 and £20.8m at 2031. Table 7.6 then converts the residual expenditure into a floorspace requirement and shows that the residual expenditure identified in Coulby Newham would be sufficient to support a supermarket with between 1,500 sq.m and 2,800 sq.m net convenience floorspace in the period up to 2021, modestly increasing to between 1,600 and 3,000 sq.m net convenience floorspace in the period up to 2031. The minimum figure is based on the identified need being met through the delivery of a new foodstore by one of the leading supermarket operators (Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Morrisons or Asda) and the maximum figure relates to need being met by independent or discount operators, which generally achieve lower sales densities. In reality, independent or discount operators are unlikely to deliver the scale of floorspace identified for Coulby Newham at 2031 under the maximum floorspace requirement, due to the level of provision already identified. We therefore advise that based on the current levels of overtrading of the foodstores in Coulby Newham, the Council should seek to promote the provision of additional convenience floorspace to meet the local needs. Any application needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis to ensure that any additional floorspace does not have a detrimental impact on the overall performance of the wider centre.
7.33 The expenditure claimed by the commitments for new convenience retail floorspace in Middlesbrough further increases the baseline convenience retail expenditure deficits over the study period identified in Table 7.5. Accordingly, there is no quantitative need for additional convenience goods floorspace in Middlesbrough town centre or Berwick Hills District Centre during the study period to 2031, assuming that that the current market share of facilities in Middlesbrough and Berwick Hills is maintained over the study period.
Qualitative Assessment
7.34 As well as considering any quantitative requirements for additional convenience goods floorspace, we have also considered whether any qualitative needs for additional convenience goods floorspace exist across the Borough. In order to determine such needs, we have considered whether the existing foodstores in each centre are overtrading or undertrading in comparison to company benchmark, whether there are any gaps in relation to access to convenience goods provision across the Borough and any notable changes in market shares which have occurred in each centre in recent years.
7.35 In terms of the spatial distribution of foodstores across the Borough, we do not consider that there are any significant gaps in provision which need to be responded to, as the existing foodstores are reasonably well distributed across the Borough. There is a reasonable representation from different
103
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
fascias across the Borough, including from each of the ‘main four’ supermarkets, discount retailers and higher end foodstores. A plan showing the existing foodstores is included at Appendix 8.
7.36 In terms of the qualitative requirement for additional floorspace within the defined centres identified, we consider that all efforts must first be concentrated in filling the current vacant convenience store at on the edge of Middlesbrough town centre. We therefore do not identify any additional qualitative requirement for additional convenience provision within Middlesbrough or Berwick Hills. This is further supported by the current general under-performance of existing stores within Middlesbrough and Berwick Hills. However, the Aldi and Tesco in Coulby Newham are both currently over-trading and clearly performing very well. There is a qualitative requirement for additional floorspace within Coulby Newham to relieve some pressure on existing foodstores. It may be that this requirement is met through a qualitatively different format of store in order to complement, rather than directly compete with the existing stores.
Capacity for Future Comparison Goods Floorspace
7.37 Turning to comparison goods capacity, it is important to note that our methodology deviates from that which has been deployed in respect of convenience goods for two principal reasons. Firstly, it can be extremely difficult to attribute an appropriate benchmark turnover to existing comparison goods provision given the diverse nature and composition of comparison goods floorspace (including retail warehousing, high street multiples, independent retailers, the different types of non-food goods sectors (DIY, clothing & footwear, chemist, etc) they operate in and so on). Secondly, there tends to be greater disparity between the trading performance of apparently similar comparison goods provision depending on its location, the character of the area and the nature of the catchment.
7.38 As a consequence, we adopt the approach with comparison goods floorspace that it is trading ‘at equilibrium’ at 2016 (i.e. our survey derived turnover estimate effectively acts as benchmark). We therefore assume that there is nil quantitative need for any additional floorspace across Middlesbrough in the 2016 base year.
Baseline Quantitative Need for Additional Comparison Goods Floorspace
7.39 Once again, it has been assumed that the future performance of Middlesbrough’s facilities will be commensurate with its current market share.
104
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
7.40 The £363.0m of all comparison goods expenditure generated by residents of the Study Area claimed by destinations within Middlesbrough at 2016 equates to a market share of 20.2%. Our assessment ‘rolls forward’ this market share to examine the likely level of comparison goods floorspace required to maintain the role and function of Middlesbrough’s comparison goods retail destinations going forward. By ‘rolling forward’ this market share, we estimate that the total available comparison goods expenditure in Middlesbrough will be £363.0m at 2016, increasing to £410.8m at 2021, £487.2m at 2026 and to £578.5m at 2031.
7.41 Given the forecast increases in comparison goods expenditure and population and allowing for year on year increases in the productivity of existing floorspace, we estimate that by 2021 there will be an expenditure surplus of £10.8m to support additional comparison goods floorspace within Middlesbrough as set out in Table 7.7. This surplus is forecast to increase to £46.0m at 2026 and then to £91.4m at 2031. Account has been made for the turnover efficiency of existing comparison goods floorspace to increase over the study period (on the basis that operators are generally able to make their existing floorspace more productive over time) 41 .
Table 7.7: Estimated Baseline Capacity for Comparison Goods Facilities in Middlesbrough Market Share of Turnover of Available Surplus Year Study Area Existing Stores 1 Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure 2 £m % £m £m 2016 363.0 20.2% 363.0 0.0 2021 400.0 20.2% 410.8 (412.2) 10.8 (12.3) 2026 441.2 20.2% 487.2 (488.7) 46.0 (47.5) 2031 487.1 20.2% 578.5 (579.9) 91.4 (92.8) Source: Table 28a at Appendix 6 1 Allows for increased turnover efficiency as set out in Table 4b Experian Retail Planner 13 (Oct 2015) 2 Assumes constant market share within the Study Area (20.2%). Figures in brackets taken from the population growth scenario at Appendix 7 At 2014 prices
Commitments for New Comparison Goods Floorspace
7.42 There are three commitments for new comparison goods floorspace in Middlesbrough which are expected to draw on the surplus comparison goods expenditure identified. As summarised in Table 7.8, we estimate that the turnover requirements of the extant retail planning permissions 42 for new comparison goods floorspace in Middlesbrough would be £3.2m, £23.4m, £12.9m and £4.7m in the
41 In accordance with the projections set out in Table 4b of Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note 13 (October 2015), these being 3.1% per annum in 2016, 2.2% per annum in 2017, 1.9% per annum between 2018 and 2022 and 2.2% between 2023 and 2030. 42 As reported by Middlesbrough Council to WYG at February 2016
105
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
2016 base year, respectively. However, not all of the comparison turnover of the committed schemes within Middlesbrough is expected to be drawn from the Study Area residents. Of the total £44.1m comparison turnover requirement of the committed schemes, we expect that £27.8m will be drawn from the Study Area with the remaining turnover drawn from residents outside of the Study Area as summarised in Table 7.8.
Table 7.8: Extant Comparison Commitments Drawn from Middlesbrough Estimated Comparison Turnover Planning Estimated Sales Area from Proposal Address Application Turnover Floorspace Study Reference at 2016 Area at 2016
sq.m £m £m Within Middlesbrough
Borough East of Parkway M/OUT/1196 Non-food retail development Shopping Centre, 792 4,000 3.17 /14/P Cropton Way Terrace Hill - 9 Units Wilson Street, M/FP/0760/1 Middlesbrough 3/P 4,670 5,000 23.35 New Sainsbury's Store Gateway, M/FP/0773/1 2,582 5,000 Middlehaven 3/P 12.91 Outside of Middlesbrough
Borough Teesside Shopping Extension to Next at Park 14/3078/FUL 934 5,000 4.67 Teesside Shopping Park
Residual Quantitative Need for Additional Comparison Goods Floorspace Post Implementation of Commitments
7.43 Table 7.9 below sets out the residual comparison expenditure capacity in Middlesbrough taking into account the turnover requirements of extant commitments for new comparison retail floorspace. We have assumed that all of the estimated comparison turnover of the commitments drawn from the Study Area will be drawn from the available expenditure within Middlesbrough.
7.44 Table 7.9 identifies a residual comparison goods expenditure deficit of −£19.8m at 2021 once the turnover requirements of existing commitments are taken into account. However, a positive residual comparison goods expenditure surplus in Middlesbrough of £12.3m is identified at 2026, increasing to £54.1m at 2031. Even accounting for the existing commitments, it is evident that that there is still residual expenditure available to support additional comparison retail provision in Middlesbrough Borough in the medium and longer term periods to 2026 and 2031.
106
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
7.45 In order to account for the differing trading performance of potential end operators, we have applied sales densities of £3,000 per sq.m and £5,000 per sq.m to the identified residual expenditure. Allowing for increases in the productivity of existing floorspace, it is estimated that by 2026 there will be a requirement for an additional 2,000 and 3,400 sq.m net of comparison retail floorspace in the Borough, depending on the format of the floorspace and assuming current the market share of existing comparison retail facilities in Middlesbrough is maintained. The requirement rises to between an additional 8,100 and 13,400 sq.m of net floorspace by 2031, by which time increases in comparison goods expenditure are forecast to be substantial.
7.46 Whilst we acknowledge that there is an overall identified capacity for additional comparison floorspace across the Borough, this needs to be considered alongside the overall conclusions with regard to current market share of Middlesbrough town centre and its current vitality and viability. WYG considers it is important to ensure that any future comparison floorspace within the Borough is delivered within the existing centres, and in particular within Middlesbrough town centre. This will therefore work towards drawing back the expenditure which is currently being spent at out of centre destinations surrounding the Borough, and seek to draw back the market share which is otherwise being directed to other, competing retail destinations. The Council therefore needs to concentrate on developing its overall aspirations for the key regeneration sites within the town centre, including Cannon Park, Middlehaven and to a lesser extent, Gresham.
Table 7.9: Residual Quantitative Need for Additional Comparison Goods Floorspace in Middlesbrough Post Implementation of Commitments Year Comparison Goods Expenditure Floorspace Requirement (Net) Surplus Commitments 1 Residual Min 2* Max 3* £m £m £m sq.m sq.m 2016 0.0 27.8 -27.8 -5,600 -9,300
2021 10.8 30.6 -19.8 (-18.3) -3,600 (-3,300) -6,000 (-5,500)
2026 46.0 33.7 12.3 (13.8) 2,000 (2,300) 3,400 (3,800)
2031 91.4 37.3 54.1 (55.6) 8,100 (8,300) 13,400 (13,800) Source: Table 28a at Appendix 6 1 Allows for increased turnover efficiency as set out in Table 4b Experian Retail Planner 13 (October 2015) 2 Average sales density assumed to be £5,000 per sq.m 3 Average sales density assumed to be £3,000 per sq.m *Rounded to the nearest 100 sq.m Figures in brackets taken from the population growth scenario at Appendix 7 At 2014 prices
107
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Capacity within Middlesbrough Town Centre and Berwick Hills and Coulby Newham District Centres
7.47 Below, we assess the capacity and need for additional comparison floorspace in Middlesbrough town centre, and Berwick Hills and Coulby Newham district centres assuming that the current market share of facilities in Middlesbrough and the two district centres is maintained over the study period.
7.48 Table 7.10 provides a summary of the identified baseline quantitative capacity in comparison expenditure terms for the three centres prior to taking account of planning commitments. Our assessment of expenditure capacity corresponds to the whole of the urban area of each settlement, encompassing in, edge and out-of-centre destinations.
7.49 Table 7.10 shows that the main focus of the capacity is on Middlesbrough followed to a lesser extent by Coulby Newham. After increases in population and per capita spending on comparison goods and the forecast changes in floorspace productivity 43 , we estimate that the surplus comparison goods expenditure in Middlesbrough will be £8.9m at 2021, rising thereafter to £38.0m at 2026 and £75.5m at 2031. The comparison goods expenditure surplus in Coulby Newham District Centre is identified to be £0.9m at 2021, increasing to £3.8m at 2026 and £7.5m in the longer term period to 2031.
Table 7.10: Estimated Baseline Capacity for Comparison Goods Facilities in Middlesbrough, Berwick Hills and Coulby Newham Market Share of Turnover of Available Surplus Year Study Area Existing Stores 1 Expenditure 3 Expenditure Expenditure 2 £m % £m £m Middlesbrough 2016 300.0 16.7% 300.0 0.0 2021 330.6 16.7% 339.5 (340.7) 8.9 (10.1) 2026 364.6 16.7% 402.6 (403.9) 38.0 (39.3) 2031 402.5 16.7% 478.1 (479.2) 75.5 (76.7) Berwick Hills 2016 2.7 0.1% 2.7 0.0 2021 3.0 0.1% 3.0 (3.1) 0.1 (0.1) 2026 3.3 0.1% 3.6 (3.6) 0.3 (0.4)
43 Account has been made for the turnover efficiency of existing convenience goods floorspace to change in accordance with the projections set out in Table 4a of Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note 13 (October 2015), these being -0.4% per annum between 2015 and 2016, -0.1% per annum between 2017 and 2022, and 0.0% between 2023 and 2030. Operators have historically been able to make their existing floorspace more productive over time. However, these negative turnover efficiency growth rates reflect current forecasts for convenience goods floorspace productivity to fall or remain static over the study period.
108
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Market Share of Turnover of Available Surplus Year Study Area Existing Stores 1 Expenditure 3 Expenditure Expenditure 2 £m % £m £m 2031 3.6 0.1% 4.3 (4.3) 0.7 (0.7)
Coulby Newham 2016 29.8 1.7% 29.8 0.0 2021 32.8 1.7% 33.7 (33.9) 0.9 (1.0) 2026 36.2 1.7% 40.0 (40.1) 3.8 (3.9) 2031 40.0 1.7% 47.5 (47.6) 7.5 (7.6) Source: Tables 28a, 29a and 30a at Appendix 6 1 Allows for increased turnover efficiency as set out in Table 4b Experian Retail Planner 13 (October 2015) 2 Assumes a constant market share within Study Area for each centre over the study period. The market share is to all in and out of centre facilities in those towns. Rounded to the nearest 100 sq.m Figures in brackets taken from the population growth scenario at Appendix 7 At 2014 prices
7.50 Table 7.11 below sets out the residual comparison expenditure capacity in Middlesbrough town centre and Berwick Hills and Coulby Newham District Centres taking into account the turnover requirements of the extant commitments for new comparison retail floorspace.
7.51 Table 7.11 identifies an expenditure residual within Middlesbrough town centre of £14.1m at 2026, rising to £49.1m at 2031. It is estimated that this equates to a requirement for between 2,300 to 3,900 sq.m net of comparison retail floorspace at 2026 and between 7,300 sq.m and 12,200 sq.m net at 2031, depending on the format of the floorspace.
7.52 Table 7.11 below identifies that there is no capacity for additional comparison floorspace within Berwick Hills and Coulby Newham district centres.
Table 7.11: Residual Quantitative Capacity for Additional Comparison Goods Facilities in Middlesbrough town centre, Berwick Hills and Coulby Newham Post Implementation of Commitments Year Comparison Goods Expenditure Floorspace Requirement (Net) Surplus Commitments 1 Residual Min 2* Max 3* £m £m £m sq.m sq.m Middlesbrough 2016 0.0 19.7 -19.7 -3,900 -6,600 2021 8.9 21.7 -12.8 (-11.6) -2,300 (-2,100) -3,900 (-3,500) 2026 38.0 23.9 14.1 (15.3) 2,300 (2,500) 3,900 (4,200) 2031 75.5 26.4 49.1 (50.3) 7,300 (7,500) 12,200 (12,500)
Berwick Hills 2016 0.0 3.9 -3.9 -800 -1,300
109
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Year Comparison Goods Expenditure Floorspace Requirement (Net) Surplus Commitments 1 Residual Min 2* Max 3* £m £m £m sq.m sq.m 2021 0.1 4.3 -4.2 (-4.2) -800 (-800) -1,300 (-1,300) 2026 0.3 4.7 -4.3 (-4.3) -700 (-700) -1,200 (-1,200) 2031 0.7 5.2 -4.5 (-4.5) -700 (-700) -1,100 (-1,100)
Coulby Newham 2016 0.0 7.0 -7.0 -1,400 -2,300 2021 0.9 7.7 -6.9 (-6.7) -1,200 (-1,200) -2,100 (-2,000) 2026 3.8 8.5 -4.8 (-4.6) -800 (-800) -1,300 (-1,300) 2031 7.5 9.4 -1.9 (-1.8) -300 (-300) -500 (-400) Source: Tables 28a, 30a, 32, 34, 36 and 38 at Appendix 6 1 Allows for increased turnover efficiency as set out in Table 4b Experian Retail Planner 13 (October 2015) 2 Average sales density assumed to be £5,000 per sq.m 3 Average sales density assumed to be £3,000 per sq.m Rounded to the nearest 100 sq.m Figures in brackets taken from the population growth scenario at Appendix 7 At 2014 prices
7.53 As noted above, these estimates assume that the current market share of facilities in Middlesbrough and each of the other centres is maintained over the study period.
7.54 However, WYG considers it is important to review the current situation within Middlesbrough with regard to the commitments and the likelihood of the schemes being delivered. In particular, we are aware of Sainsbury’s no long proceeding with the occupation of the new store and the uncertainty to the eventual type of retailer likely to occupy this floorspace. Furthermore, we are also aware that the Terrace Hill scheme is highly unlikely to be implemented.
7.55 In light of the above, we have undertaken a second scenario looking at the potential capacity following the confirmation of the Terrace Hill scheme on Wilson Street not being implemented.
7.56 Table 7.12 below provides the revised figures following the reduction in turnover of the commitments in light of the removal of the Terrace Hill scheme on Wilson Street from the list of commitments. This demonstrates that the level of residual expenditure rises to £29.3m at 2026 and £72.9m at 2031.
110
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Table 7.12: Residual Quantitative Need for Additional Comparison Goods Floorspace in Middlesbrough Borough Post Implementation of Commitments (minus the Terrace Hill commitment on Wilson Street) Year Comparison Goods Expenditure Floorspace Requirement (Net) Surplus Commitments 1 Residual Min 2* Max 3* £m £m £m sq.m sq.m 2016 0.0 13.8 -13.8 -2,800 -4,600 2021 10.8 15.2 -4.4 (-2.9) -800 (-500) -1,300 (-900) 2026 46.0 16.7 29.3 (30.8) 4,800 (5,100) 8,000 (8,400) 2031 91.4 18.5 72.9 (74.4) 10,900 (11,100) 18,100 (18,500) Source: Table 28a at Appendix 6 1 Allows for increased turnover efficiency as set out in Table 4b Experian Retail Planner 13 (October 2015) 2 Average sales density assumed to be £5,000 per sq.m 3 Average sales density assumed to be £3,000 per sq.m *Rounded to the nearest 100 sq.m Figures in brackets taken from the population growth scenario at Appendix 7 At 2014 prices
7.57 Table 7.13 below sets out the residual comparison expenditure capacity in Middlesbrough town centre and Berwick Hills and Coulby Newham District Centres taking into account the turnover requirements of the extant commitments for new comparison retail floorspace.
7.58 Table 7.13 identifies an expenditure residual within Middlesbrough town centre of £28.3m at 2026, rising to £64.8m at 2031. It is estimated that this equates to a requirement for between 4,700 sq.m to 7,800 sq.m net of comparison retail floorspace at 2026 and between 9,700 sq.m and 16,100 sq.m net at 2031, depending on the format of the floorspace.
7.59 If the Terrace Hill scheme at Wilson Street does not proceed, there is a clear requirement to deliver additional comparison floorspace within Middlesbrough town centre over the plan period. As stated above, we are aware of the Council’s aspirations to deliver mixed-use schemes at Gresham, Cannon Park and Middlehaven which will be key to regenerating the town centre, but we also consider it is vital that further regeneration (mainly concentrating on aesthetic and public realm improvements) takes place within the primary shopping area too and part of a holistic approach.
7.60 However, we advise that further work to improve the centre in terms of public realm, aesthetics and accessibility is undertaken in the first instance to seek to draw back the trade which is currently being lost to competing centres. Once shoppers are drawn back into the centre, it is likely that investors and retailers will then be interested in opening new shops and investing capital into the centre.
111
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Table 7.13: Residual Quantitative Capacity for Additional Comparison Goods Facilities in Middlesbrough town centre, Berwick Hills and Coulby Newham Post Implementation of Commitments (minus the Terrace Hill commitment on Wilson Street) Year Comparison Goods Expenditure Floorspace Requirement (Net) Surplus Commitments 1 Residual Min 2* Max 3* £m £m £m sq.m sq.m Middlesbrough town centre 2016 0.0 8.0 -8.0 -1,600 -2,700 2021 8.9 8.8 0.1 (1.3) 0 (200) 0 (400) 2026 38.0 9.8 28.3 (29.5) 4,700 (4,900) 7,800 (8,100)
2031 75.5 10.8 64.8 (65.9) 9,700 (9,800) 16,100 (16,400) Berwick Hills 2016 0.0 1.5 -1.5 -300 -500 2021 0.1 1.7 -1.6 (-1.6) -300 (-300) -500 (-500) 2026 0.3 1.9 -1.5 (-1.5) -200 (-200) -400 (-400) 2031 0.7 2.0 -1.4 (-1.4) -200 (-200) -300 (-300)
Coulby Newham 2016 0.0 4.7 -4.7 -900 -1,600 2021 0.9 5.2 -4.3 (-4.2) -800 (-800) -1,300 (-1,300) 2026 3.8 5.7 -1.9 (-1.8) -300 (-300) -500 (-500) 2031 7.5 6.3 1.2 (1.3) 200 (200) 300 (300) Source: Tables 28a, 30a, 32, 34, 36 and 38 at Appendix 6 1 Allows for increased turnover efficiency as set out in Table 4b Experian Retail Planner 13 (October 2015) 2 Average sales density assumed to be £5,000 per sq.m 3 Average sales density assumed to be £3,000 per sq.m Rounded to the nearest 100 sq.m Figures in brackets taken from the population growth scenario at Appendix 7 where different to original assessment At 2014 prices
Qualitative Assessment
7.61 Building on the analysis in Section 4, Table 7.14 sets out the level of total comparison expenditure leakage from the Middlesbrough areas (Zones 7, 8 and 10) to facilities outside the Borough.
7.62 The total amount of comparison expenditure leakage from Middlesbrough (Zones 7, 8 and 10) amounts to £185.6m at 2016. It is important to recognise that not all of the population within Zones 7, 8 and 10 are located within the Borough boundary but the majority of the population in Zones 7 and 8 are.
7.63 Comparing this figure to the total comparison expenditure generated within Middlesbrough Borough (£437.7m), it implies 42.4% of available comparison expenditure is spent at facilities outside the Borough. This shows that there is a qualitative need to improving the existing facilities in the Borough to attract residents to shop locally and to stop leakage to the extensive out of centre destinations
112
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
outside of the Borough’s boundary. In particular, given that out-of-centre Teesside Shopping Park is very well connected and accessible (via the A66 and A19) to most residents within the Borough, then most of this expenditure leakage is realistic.
7.64 However, there may be some scope for the claw back of lost trade if an appropriate typology of new retail and leisure accommodation could be secured in Middlesbrough’s network of town centres, ideally focused on Middlesbrough given its existing infrastructure and resident population.
Table 7.14: Total Comparison Expenditure Leakage From Primarily Middlesbrough Zones (Zone 7, 8 and 10) to Facilities outside Middlesbrough Zone 7 8 10
£m % £m % £m % Destinations within Middlesbrough Borough
Middlesbrough Town Centre 81.6 31.7% 25.6 33.8% 16.9 16.2% Total Middlesbrough Borough 112.8 43.8% 31.9 42.1% 31.1 29.8% Destinations Outside of Middlesbrough Borough
Teesside Shopping Park 68.9 26.7% 6.8 9.0% 34.2 32.8% Cleveland Retail Park 13.3 5.2% 25.5 33.7% 6 5.8% Portrak Lane 22.8 8.8% 3.3 4.4% 4.8 4.6% Total 257.7 100.0% 75.7 100.0% 104.3 100.0% Source: Table 26 of Appendix 6
7.65 At the time of the previous household survey in 2007, which was also used in the 2013 Retail Study update for Middlesbrough, the total comparison expenditure which was directed to facilities in Middlesbrough town centre from residents in Zone 7 was £117.2m, or 55.9%. The total from Zone 7 directed to facilities within the Borough was £122.3m or 58.3%, with the remaining 41.7% ‘leaking’ to facilities outside of the Borough. For residents in Zone 8, the level of expenditure being directed to Middlesbrough town centre in 2013 was £44.6m or 71.0%, with the majority of the 29.0% ‘leaking’ outside of the Borough. Both of these comparisons demonstrate the increase in the level of expenditure now being spent at destinations outside of the Borough from residents in Zones 7 and 8 in particular, when compared to the figures in 2013, using the 2007 household survey.
Summary and Conclusion
7.66 Our assessment identifies that taking all convenience goods retail facilities in Middlesbrough, the expected turnover of provision is £267.9m per annum at 2016, which is higher than the identified survey-derived turnover of £227.0m. This suggests that, taken cumulatively, existing convenience goods facilities within the Borough are ‘under-trading’ when compared to their expected benchmark
113
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
turnover. Accordingly, it would appear that the existing food retail provision is currently more than that required to meet the existing quantitative need.
7.67 The £227.0m of convenience goods expenditure generated by residents of the Study Area and claimed by destinations within Middlesbrough at 2016 equates to a market share of 19.5%. Our assessment assumes that the current market share of facilities in Middlesbrough of 19.5% is maintained over the forecast period. Rolling forward this market share, we estimate that the total available convenience goods expenditure in Middlesbrough will be £22.94m in 2021, increasing to £231.7m at 2026 and at £233.3m at 2031. After taking the existing commitment into account, the expenditure surplus reduces is negative at −£57.5m at 2016, -£53.6m at 2021 and -£49.5m at 2031 across the Borough as a whole.
7.68 Turning to comparison goods, the £363.0m of all comparison goods expenditure generated by residents of the Study Area claimed by destinations within Middlesbrough at 2016 equates to a market share of 20.2%. Given the forecast increases in comparison goods expenditure and population and allowing for year on year increases in the productivity of existing floorspace, we estimate that by 2021 there will be an expenditure surplus of £10.8m to support additional comparison goods floorspace within Middlesbrough.
114
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
8.0 Future Retail Strategy and Recommendations
Introduction
8.01 The NPPF requires local planning authorities, as part of their development plan, to set out a strategy for the management and growth of centres over the plan period. Most particularly, paragraph 23 of the NPPF indicates that, as part of their strategy, authorities should, inter alia :
• Recognise town centres as the heart of their communities and by pursuing policies to support their vitality and viability;
• Define a network and hierarchy of centres that is resilient to anticipated future economic changes;
• Define the extent of town centres and primary shopping areas, based on a clear definition of primary and secondary frontages in designated centres, and set policies that make clear which uses will be permitted in such locations;
• Promote competitive town centres that provide customer choice and a diverse retail offer;
• Retain and enhance existing markets and, where appropriate, re-introduce or create new ones, ensuring that markets remain attractive and competitive;
• Allocate a range of suitable sites to meet the scale and type of retail, leisure, commercial, office, tourism, cultural, community and residential development needed in town centres;
• Allocate appropriate edge of centre sites for main town centre uses that are well connected to the town centre where suitable and viable town centre sites are not available. If sufficient edge of centre sites cannot be identified, set policies for meeting the identified needs in other accessible locations that are well connected to the town centre; and
• Set policies for the consideration of proposals for main town centre uses which cannot be accommodated in or adjacent to town centres.
8.02 Policy 26 of the NPPF also indicates that local planning authorities should set their own appropriate threshold relating to the quantum of floorspace above which an impact test for retail, leisure and office development will be required.
8.03 Each of the above requirements is considered where relevant below in relation to the Borough of Middlesbrough.
115
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Key Findings: Retail Need
8.04 The household survey, undertaken in January 2016, identified that the Borough of Middlesbrough accounted for a market share of 19.5% of convenience trade in the Study Area and 20.2% of comparison trade in the Study Area.
8.05 The floorspace requirements identified in this Study – which are summarised below – are of some relevance to the determination of future planning applications for new retail floorspace in the Borough.
8.06 However, whilst any level of identified quantitative need has some relationship to the test of impact, it is necessary to be mindful that ‘need’ is no longer a direct planning test. Accordingly, identified floorspace requirements should not be considered a ‘cap’ on appropriately located development. Instead, proposals that come forward should be assessed against the relevant policies of the NPPF and the development plan.
Convenience Goods Floorspace Requirement
8.07 As set out at Section 7, we have not identified a quantitative requirement for any additional convenience goods floorspace within Middlesbrough’s catchment up to 2031 once existing commitments are taken into account. As set out at Table 8.1 below, based on the existing convenience goods market share claimed by facilities in Middlesbrough’s catchment remaining constant at 19.5% up to 2031, there will be an expenditure deficit of -£49.5m at 2031. This deficit in expenditure equates to a deficit in the convenience goods floorspace requirement of between -3,800 sq.m and -7,100 sq.m at 2031 (depending on format and operator). The deficit is more pronounced in the short term. Accordingly, there is no quantitative need for the Council to plan for the delivery of any additional convenience goods floorspace up to 2031.
Table 8.1: Quantitative Need for Convenience Goods Floorspace in Middlesbrough 2016 2021 2026 2031 (sq.m) (sq.m) (sq.m) (sq.m) Minimum Convenience Goods -4,400 -4,100 -3,900 -3,800 Requirement Maximum Convenience Goods -8,200 -7,700 -7,300 -7,100 Requirement
8.07 In addition to our consideration of the convenience goods floorspace requirement in the Borough as a whole, the capacity and quantitative need for additional convenience goods floorspace in relation to
116
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Middlesbrough town centre and the two district centres of Coulby Newham and Berwick Hills has also been considered as set out at Table 8.2.
8.08 We do not consider there to be a need for the Council to actively plan for the delivery of additional convenience goods floorspace in Middlesbrough and Berwick Hills, given the deficit capacity identified. Notwithstanding this, if any applications for additional convenience goods floorspace are forthcoming, they should be considered on their own merits and in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF and Development Plan.
8.09 Turning to Coulby Newham, due to the level of over trading of the existing stores and the available expenditure, we have identified the quantitative requirement for between 1,400 sq.m and 2,600 sq.m of convenience floorspace at 2016, rising to between 1,500 sq.m and 2,800 sq.m at 2021 and 1,600 sq.m and 2,900 sq.m at 2026.
Table 8.2: Quantitative Need for Convenience Goods Floorspace in Middlesbrough town centre and the District Centres of Coulby Newham and Berwick Hills Post Commitments 2016 2021 2026 2031 (sq.m) (sq.m) (sq.m) (sq.m) Middlesbrough town centre Minimum Convenience Goods -3,000 -3,000 -3,000 -2,900 Requirement Maximum Convenience Goods -5,600 -5,600 -5,500 -5,500 Requirement Berwick Hills district centre Minimum Convenience Goods -400 -300 -300 -300 Requirement Maximum Convenience Goods -700 -600 -600 -500 Requirement Coulby Newham district centre Minimum Convenience Goods 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,600 Requirement Maximum Convenience Goods 2,600 2,800 2,900 3,000 Requirement
8.10 As well as considering any quantitative requirements for additional convenience goods floorspace, we have also considered whether any qualitative needs for additional convenience goods floorspace exist across the Borough. In order to determine such needs, we have considered whether the existing foodstores in each centre are overtrading or undertrading in comparison to company benchmark, whether there are any gaps in relation to access to convenience goods provision across the Borough and any notable changes in market shares which have occurred in each centre in recent years.
117
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
8.11 In considering the level of convenience goods overtrading or undertrading in each centre, as set out in detail at Table 7.1, the household survey found existing foodstores in Middlesbrough as a whole to be undertrading, while existing foodstores in Coulby Newham (the Aldi and Tesco) are overtrading. Accordingly, there does not appear to be an immediate qualitative need for additional convenience goods provision in these centres, as existing facilities appear to be meeting current needs. Although overall facilities in Coulby Newham were found to be overtrading by the household survey, we do not consider there to be a short term qualitative need for additional convenience goods floorspace in this centre, as the currently level of overtrading may level out over time. In any event, should a proposal be put forward for new convenience floorspace in Coulby Newham, this should be assessed in accordance with national and local policy tests and the potential impact on existing facilities within Coulby Newham fully considered. It may be the case that additional convenience floorspace would have a direct impact on the smaller convenience retailers rather than the Tesco and Aldi in any event depending on the nature of the proposal, and therefore WYG would advise that the Council takes this on board when considering the merits of applications for additional floorspace.
8.12 In terms of the spatial distribution of foodstores across the Borough, we do not consider that there are any significant gaps in provision which need to be responded to, as the existing foodstores are reasonably well distributed across the Borough. There is a reasonable representation from different fascias across the Borough, including from each of the ‘main four’ supermarkets, discount retailers and higher end foodstores. A plan showing the existing foodstores is included at Appendix 8.
Comparison Goods Floorspace Requirement
8.13 Since 2007, there has been a significant reduction in the market share to facilities in Middlesbrough and particularly to town centre retailers. The reduction in market share can be accounted for by the increase in market share to the extensive out of centre retail destinations at Teesside Shopping Park, Portrack Lane facilities and Cleveland Retail Park, amongst others, which are also located outside of the Borough’s boundary. Therefore, it is evident that Middlesbrough’s principal centre (Middlesbrough town centre) is facing increased and significant competition from out-of-centre destinations and in particular Teesside Shopping Park. This is down to the wide offer of typical ‘town centre’ style retailers which are now occupying units at the Shopping Park, and the ease of accessibility to the Park, plus the wider leisure offer at the adjacent Vue. Furthermore, the out-of-centre destinations have ‘purpose built’ large format retail units, which are more suited to national multiple retailers.
118
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
8.14 In terms of comparison goods, we identify a requirement for between 8,400 sq.m and 14,100 sq.m of additional comparison goods sales floorspace at 2031 (again, depending on format and operator), after account has been taken of existing commitments.
8.15 Although it is considered that the Council should seek to plan for the reuse, refurbishment or redevelopment of the existing vacant units in the town centre wherever possible in order to accommodate this comparison goods requirement in the first instance, it is apparent that the demand for small scale retail units is currently limited. As such, the Council may wish to develop fiscal, planning and other incentives to encourage more independent operators to locate in the small scale units within the town centre.
8.16 If the Council wishes to attract additional national comparison goods operators to Middlesbrough, it is likely that further medium to large scale retail units would be required. As identified at Section 5, although there are a number of potential development opportunity sites present in the town centre, the demand from national multiple comparison goods operators to locate in Middlesbrough is likely to be limited in the short to medium term. Therefore, any such development in the short term would likely be speculative. Although the identified comparison goods need is modest, particularly in the short to medium term, these figures can be in addition to the redevelopment proposals, which will involve the recycling of some existing comparison goods floorspace also.
Table 8.3: Quantitative Need for Comparison Goods Floorspace in Middlesbrough’s Catchment Post Commitments 2016 2021 2026 2031 (sq.m) (sq.m) (sq.m) (sq.m) Minimum Comparison Goods -5,600 sq.m -3,600 sq.m 2,000 sq.m 8,100 sq.m Requirement Maximum Comparison Goods -9,300 sq.m -6,000 sq.m 3,400 sq.m 13,400 sq.m Requirement
8.17 In addition to our consideration of the comparison goods floorspace requirement in the Borough as a whole, the capacity and quantitative need for additional comparison goods floorspace in relation to Middlesbrough town centre and the two district centres of Coulby Newham and Berwick Hills has also been considered as set out at Table 8.2.
8.18 We do not consider there to be a need for the Council to actively plan for the delivery of additional comparison goods floorspace in Berwick Hills and Coulby Newham, given the deficit capacity identified. Notwithstanding this, if any applications for additional comparison goods floorspace are forthcoming,
119
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
they should be considered on their own merits and in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF and Development Plan.
8.19 However, in the medium to long term, we do identify surplus capacity for comparison goods floorspace within Middlesbrough town centre of between 2,300 sq.m and 3,900 sq.m at 2026 and 7,300 sq.m and 12,200 sq.m at 2031. However, in light of the large expanse of completed yet unoccupied Class A1 floorspace at Middlehaven which was to be occupied by Sainsbury’s, we consider that although we have identified a requirement for additional comparison floorspace, the Council’s priority should be directed towards ensuring that the existing developed floorspace is occupied first, and then looking at how shopping patterns and the overall health of the town centre looks at that stage.
8.20 We also understand that the Council is looking to create additional commercial and employment uses at Middlehaven and Cannon Park, which we support although developments in these areas need to be treated with caution to ensure there is no further loss of market share from Middlesbrough town centre itself. Enhancing connections, accessibility and the overall public realm within the town centre as a whole may assist this, but we recommend that the Council is sensitive to protecting Middlesbrough town centre given its recorded decline in market share and vitality and viability.
Table 8.4: Quantitative Need for Comparison Goods Floorspace in Middlesbrough town centre and the District Centres of Coulby Newham and Berwick Hills Post Commitments 2016 2021 2026 2031 (sq.m) (sq.m) (sq.m) (sq.m) Middlesbrough town centre Minimum Convenience Goods -3,900 sq.m -2,300 sq.m 2,300 sq.m 7,300 sq.m Requirement Maximum Convenience Goods -6,600 sq.m -3,900 sq.m 3,900 sq.m 12,200 sq.m Requirement Berwick Hills district centre Minimum Convenience Goods -800 sq.m -800 sq.m -700 sq.m -700 sq.m Requirement Maximum Convenience Goods -1,300 sq.m -1,300 sq.m -1,200 sq.m -1,100 sq.m Requirement Coulby Newham district centre Minimum Convenience Goods -1,400 sq.m -1,200 sq.m -800 sq.m -300 sq.m Requirement Maximum Convenience Goods -2,300 sq.m -2,100 sq.m -1,300 sq.m -500 sq.m Requirement
8.21 It is important to note that the market share for convenience and comparison goods which is being directed to facilities within the Borough but also Middlesbrough town centre in particular, has reduced 120
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
significantly since the last household survey was undertaken in 2007. There has been an almost commensurate increase in market share to out-of-centre facilities in Stockton and Cleveland administrative areas, which have had negative effects on the overall performance of retailers within Middlesbrough Borough. This is likely due to the change in shopper’s habits and in the ease of accessibility to these out-of-centre facilities, but also overall nature of Middlesbrough town centre. There are a number of areas which if enhanced aesthetically, would assist in making the town centre a more attractive environment. Furthermore, additional work into creating a night time economy within the town centre would assist in drawing in visitors in the evening.
8.22 The capacity figures in Section 7 are estimated at a specific point in time, therefore, given the fluidity of the retail market in recent years, WYG would recommend that any capacity requirements set out in the local plan should refer to the latest retail capacity estimates available in the Retail Study rather than being fixed for the duration of a planning policy document, which can often last 10 or 15 years. This will allow the policy to be cross referenced to the latest evidence base and ensure that the policy is sufficiently flexible enough to monitor and accord with the most up to date data.
Key Findings: Performance of Defined Centres and Future Development Priorities
Middlesbrough Town Centre
8.23 Middlesbrough town centre is the principal retail, commercial and administrative centre of the Borough. The centre’s Venuescore ranking has decreased by 15 places since 2010 from 43 rd largest centre to 58 th . However, Middlesbrough town centre continues to be classified as a ‘Major Regional’ centre, indicating its importance as a shopping destination to the North East region.
8.24 Middlesbrough town centre has 703 retail units as of January 2016. This represents an increase of 27 units since our previous survey in November 2012. In terms of the amount of retail and service floorspace, the overall figure has also risen from 164,150 sq.m in 2012 to 165,870 sq.m in 2016. Despite this, Middlesbrough’s convenience offer in terms of both floorspace and number of units, is below what would normally be expected of a centre of its size. Looking at the comparison offer within the centre, the number of units occupied by comparison retailers is slightly below the UK average at 30.0% but the total floorspace is above the UK average at 42.9%.
8.25 Middlesbrough’s vacancy rate comprises nearly a quarter of all town centre retail and service units, although the vacancy rate has declined since our previous survey in 2012. The vacancy rate is now 121
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
more than double the national average and the proportion of vacant floorspace is one and a half times higher than the national level. Middlesbrough continues to suffer from and over-supply of small units, particularly in secondary locations where there is limited demand. In addition, there continues to be a lack of large modern retail units that suit the requirements of new operators looking to locate within the town centre.
8.26 Middlesbrough faces increasing considerable competition from neighbouring settlements and out of centre facilities, most notably in relation to bulky goods items. Just over half of the respondents to the questionnaire visit the town centre once a week or more often.
8.27 Middlesbrough contains 25 of Experian Goad’s list of 27 top comparison retailers. Our survey established that Middlesbrough town centre also currently contains 156 additional national operators, which include 68 comparison goods units, 39 leisure service units, 20 financial and business service units, 17 convenience operators and 12 retail service units.
8.28 We consider Middlesbrough town centre to have good overall accessibility. The town centre is well connected to the strategic highway network, although the local highway network can become congested at times. We also found there to be a good network of reasonably priced car parking across the town centre, which allows people to access different parts of the centre whilst keeping the main shopping area free of traffic.
8.29 Efforts have been made to improve the environmental quality of Middlesbrough town centre and its general appearance is reasonably good. However, there are parts of the town centre would benefit from improvements. We consider the pedestrianised part of the town centre to be of reasonably good environmental quality. However, an issue exists with the quality of many of the surrounding areas, particular examples being the western approach to the town centre (including the bus station), Borough Road, Wilson Road and Albert Road and the parts of the southern section of Linthorpe Road.
Berwick Hills District Centre
8.30 Berwick Hill’s acts primarily as a destination for food shopping trips, as a community hub and as a service centre for the surrounding community. The district centre has only 27 retail and service units, so is reasonably small in comparison to Coulby Newham. However, there is only one vacant unit and there is an opportunity to increase the retail offer with the development of the former Kwik Save site, which is currently cleared and vacant. If development of a commercial nature was brought forward on the former Kwik Save site, we recommend that the district centre boundary should include this.
122
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
8.31 Although Berwick Hills does not have a railway station, it has good accessibility via all other modes of local transport and the centre is well located to serve the retail and service needs of the surrounding population. However, we consider that the environmental quality of parts of the centre could be improved. In addition, we believe that there is an opportunity to improve the pedestrian linkages between the Morrisons superstore within the southern part of the centre and the retail units in the north. The lack of footfall around the far north of the centre would be improved by a retail development on the former Kwik Save site but due to the limited convenience and comparison capacity, wider consideration to the nature of alternative development may be required.
8.32 Overall, we consider that Berwick Hills is performing reasonably well at present. Although the centre has a limited number of different retail and service facilities, it contains a superstore, a community hub and a variety of key services and facilities. Consequently, the overall offer is akin to what would normally be expected of a district centre and we recommend that Berwick Hills continues to be designated as a district centre.
Coulby Newham District Centre
8.33 Coulby Newham has a very strong comparison and convenience goods offer, which includes a Tesco Extra superstore and a number of other national comparison retailers. These are primarily located at the Parkway Shopping Centre, although additional larger format retail and service facilities are located within the west of the district centre boundary. Coulby Newham is also a community hub and offers a leisure centre, library, two medical centres, a dental practice and a neighbourhood office.
8.34 The centre has good accessibility to those arriving by private automobile, on public transport or by bus. However, there is only a small amount of housing within close proximity of the district centre boundary and the distance between the surrounding housing and the district centre’s shopping facilities mean that visitors are less likely to arrive on foot. In addition, the district centre lacks cohesion between the facilities in the east and west and Coulby Newham would benefit from a public realm improvement scheme, as well as improvements to the centre’s digital facilities.
8.35 Overall, we consider that Coulby Newham is performing reasonably well at present, although interventions could be undertaken to improve the appearance of the district centre. Notwithstanding this, we consider that the retail and service provision and the strong community hub are of the level that would normally be expected of a district centre. We therefore recommend that Coulby Newham continues to be designated as such.
123
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Retail Hierarchy
8.36 In drawing up Local Plans, Paragraph 23 of the NPPF requests the LPA to define a network and hierarchy of centres that is resilient to anticipated future economic changes.
8.37 In the absence of any definition to rely on in the NPPF and the associated ‘Ensuring the Vitality of Town Centres’ National Planning Practice Guidance, the definition of different tiers of the retail hierarchy provided by the now superseded Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth (PPS4) remains of some relevance. In respect of the definition of town centres, district centres and local centres, PPS4 states the following:
“Town centres will usually be the second level of centres after city centres and, in many cases, they will be the principal centre or centres in a local authority’s area. In rural areas they are likely to be market towns and other centres of similar size and role which function as important service centres, providing a range of facilities and services for extensive rural catchment areas. In planning the future of town centres, local planning authorities should consider the function of different parts of the centre and how these contribute to its overall vitality and viability. In London the ‘major’ and many of the ‘district’ centres identified in the Mayor’s Spatial Development Strategy typically perform the role of town centres.
District centres will usually comprise groups of shops often containing at least one supermarket or superstore, and a range of non-retail services, such as banks, building societies and restaurants, as well as local public facilities such as a library.
Local centres include a range of small shops of a local nature, serving a small catchment. Typically, local centres might include, amongst other shops, a small supermarket, a newsagent, a sub-post office and a pharmacy. Other facilities could include a hot-food takeaway and launderette. In rural areas, large villages may perform the role of a local centre.
Small parades of shops of purely neighbourhood significance are not regarded as centres for the purposes of this policy statement.”
8.38 Experian 44 defines the multi-functional offer of a city or town as including residential, public service, leisure and entertainment, commercial and cultural facilities (amongst others) and Appendix 2 of the NPPF defines ‘main town centre uses’ as:
44 ‘Town centre Futures 2020’, Experian, September 2012
124
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
‘Retail development (including warehouse clubs and factory outlet centres); leisure, entertainment facilities the more intensive sport and recreation uses (including cinemas, restaurants, drive- through restaurants, bars and pubs, night-clubs, casinos, health and fitness centres, indoor bowling centres, and bingo halls); offices; and arts, culture and tourism development (including theatres, museums, galleries and concert halls, hotels and conference facilities).’
8.39 In accordance with the findings of this Study, and in light of these definitions, we recommend the Council retains Middlesbrough at the top of the hierarchy as the sub-regional town centre. We consider Middlesbrough continues to perform a vital role for residents of the Borough and despite the overall decline in the vitality and viability and market share, the town centre has an important role and contains a good representation of retail, leisure, and civic uses that to cater the need of the borough’s residents. Furthermore, it will be important to ensure that any new development, if it materialises, is directed towards Middlesbrough in the first instance so as to help to reclaim some of the market share which has been lost, particularly in relation to comparison goods.
8.40 Our healthcheck analysis of the other existing defined centres of Middlesbrough demonstrates that Berwick Hills and Coulby Newham continue to perform their ‘district centre’ designation, due to the level of floorspace provided and the nature of overall provision within the centres. Berwick Hills provides a total of 12,969 sq.m of retail floorspace and Coulby Newham is almost double the size at 25,951 sq.m. Despite the differences in scale, we consider that both serve the typical district centre nature in that there is at least one large format convenience operator ‘anchoring’ the centres and a range of other amenities and retail services providing facilities for their respective local catchments.
8.41 Turning to local and neighbourhood centres, we broadly consider that the current designations are accurate and that they should remain as currently defined. However, there are some recommended changes following the healthcheck work and some additions to the overall hierarchy. We set out our recommended designations below.
8.42 The table also includes ten centres which WYG was instructed to review with the potential for them to be designated as a centre. We have provided our recommendations for those centres below too. It is important to note that the current hierarchy differentiates local centres into ‘small’ and ‘medium’ scale dependent on their size and offer. We have recommended to continue with this approach, but have also added ‘large’ scale local centres, which include those centres which provide considerably more floorspace but do not quite fall within the realms of district centres. These are Linthorpe Village and North Ormesby.
125
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Table 8.5: WYG Recommended Designations of Centres Recommended Existing Designation Designation Local Centres Acklam Road/Cambridge Road Medium-scale Local Centre Medium-scale Local Centre Acklam Road/Mandale Road Medium-scale Local Centre Medium-scale Local Centre Belle Vue, Marton Road Medium-scale Local Centre Medium-scale Local Centre Beresford Buildings, Thorntree Small-scale Local Centre Small-scale Local Centre Broughton Avenue, Easterside Small-scale Local Centre Small-scale Local Centre Eastbourne Road Medium-scale Local Centre Medium-scale Local Centre Lealholme Crescent Medium-scale Local Centre Medium-scale Local Centre Linthorpe Village Medium-scale Local Centre Large-scale Local Centre Longlands/Marton Road Medium-scale Local Centre Medium-scale Local Centre Marshall Avenue, Brambles Farm Small-scale Local Centre Neighbourhood Centre Marton Road/Gypsy Lane Medium-scale Local Centre Medium-scale Local Centre North Ormesby Medium-scale Local Centre Large-scale Local Centre Ormesby High Street Small-scale Local Centre Small-scale Local Centre Parliament Road Medium-scale Local Centre Medium-scale Local Centre Penrith Road Small-scale Local Centre Neighbourhood Centre Roman Road Small-scale Local Centre Small-scale Local Centre Saltersgill Avenue Small-scale Local Centre Small-scale Local Centre Shelton Court, Thorntree Small-scale Local Centre Neighbourhood Centre The Avenue, Nunthorpe Small-scale Local Centre Neighbourhood Centre Trimdon Avenue Small-scale Local Centre Small-scale Local Centre Viewly Centre, Hemlington Medium-scale Local Centre Medium-scale Local Centre
Neighbourhood Parades
Cargo Fleet/Fulbeck Road Neighbourhood Centre Neighbourhood Centre Hall Drive Neighbourhood Centre Neighbourhood Centre Hollowfield Coulby Newham Neighbourhood Centre No Designation Vaughan Centre Neighbourhood Centre Neighbourhood Centre Whitfield Buildings Neighbourhood Centre Neighbourhood Centre
Not currently designated
Admirals Avenue, Cargo Fleet Lane No Designation Neighbourhood Centre Beaumont Road No Designation No Designation Blenheim Road South, Longlands Road No Designation Add to: Longlands Road LC Kestral Avenue, Longlands Road No Designation No Designation Otterburn Gardens No Designation Neighbourhood Centre Parliament Road, Craven Street No Designation Add to: Parliament Road LC Princes Road No Designation No Designation The Oval No Designation Neighbourhood Centre Victoria Road No Designation Small-scale Local Centre Westbourne Road, Acklam Road No Designation No Designation Notes: WYG’s recommended changes are highlighted in green
8.43 As part of the designation of the hierarchy of the centres, we recommend that the Council sets out policy guidance to control the type of retailing and service uses which would be permitted in these
126
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
centres. The type of offer should be limited to reflect the nature and scale of the centres and to ensure that large format comparison retailing in particular, is still directed in the first instance towards Middlesbrough town centre.
8.44 It should be noted that neighbourhood parades are not generally considered to have the status of a define centre. However, we note that paragraph 70 of the NPPF provides for local planning authorities to ‘... guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, particularly where this would reduce the community’s ability to meet its day-to-day needs.’
8.45 Accordingly, it may be appropriate to bring forward a local policy which is consistent with NPPF paragraph 26 and which appropriately provides for the maintenance and enhancement of neighbourhood parades.
8.46 The spatial distribution of the proposed network of centres is set out at Appendix 5.
8.47 We are aware that significant residential growth is planned at Brookfield, Coulby Newham and Hemlington Grange, amongst other sites and locations. Appropriate retail and other main town centre facilities will be required to provide for the needs of residents in a sustainable manner. The appropriate scale and location for additional retail facilities to serve local needs arising from the planned housing growth will need to be determined with reference to the dwelling densities which will be realised, and the scale and location of existing retail and service provision.
8.48 In considering the future need for additional local shopping facilities, it will be necessary to understand the critical mass of households or population which may be required to support additional retail and service provision.
8.49 As we note above, no current definition of a local or district centre is provided by the extant Government guidance. In very general terms, we would typically expect a local centre serving a small catchment area to have a small supermarket, an additional number of shops of a local nature (possibly including a newsagent and post office) and an ATM. The ATM will often be inside the grocery store. Other uses that may be expected in a local centre are a hot food takeaway and a hairdresser. District centres are likely to have all of the above (and in greater number) and have an additional community function. A district centre may well accommodate a community centre of some form, a doctors’ surgery or health centre and, at least on occasion, a library and educational facilities.
127
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
8.50 The number and distribution of additional centres should be determined with reference to the delivery of future housing growth. Some new dwellings may be able to be appropriately served by existing centres, whilst other new residential developments would be better served by a new local centre. The proximity of any new centre to existing local centres or other higher order centres will also determine whether there is scope for the creation of a higher order centre (i.e. district centre). In our experience, a district centre will generally be supported by in excess of 10,000 persons.
Walking Catchments of Defined Centres
8.51 WYG have undertaken a walk-time analysis from each of the defined centres in order to understand their distribution and the composition of their catchment areas. This has helped to establish if there would be any impact on local communities if centres are not allocated within the retail hierarchy i.e. if there would be the potential for a deficiency of retail and service uses in an area if these uses are not protected via the allocation of a local centre in the retail hierarchy. The analysis also helps to understand locations where there are gaps in the provision of facilities and where best any deficiencies may be addressed.
8.52 The plans contained at Appendix 9 show walk time catchments areas of 400m and 800m from around the Middlesbrough Primary Shopping Area and each local centre identified in the Core Strategy. This equates to a walk time of approximately 5 and 10 minutes. WYG consider an 800m walk time to be a reasonable distance for people to travel to access retail and service uses, based on the Institute of Highways and Transportation in Guidelines for Journeys on Foot (2010), which states that 800 metres is a preferred maximum walking distance. However, given the smaller scale of some of the local centres in the Borough of Middlesbrough, WYG have also undertaken analysis of the 400m walking catchment areas.
8.53 The walk time analysis of the existing centres shows that 63% of the population residing within the Borough of Middlesbrough are within a 400m walk of an existing defined centre and 96% of the population are within an 800m walk of an existing centre. In terms of retail expenditure, the combined 400m walking catchments contain £383.3m of available retail expenditure and the combined 800m walking catchments contain £608.8m of available retail expenditure. This is 52% and 83% of the total available expenditure within the Borough for the respective 400m and 800m walking catchments.
8.54 The 5 minute catchment plan (or 400m catchment) demonstrates that there is a gap or deficiency in the provision of defined centres to the north of the A174, around Marton and Brookfield. The majority but not all of this ‘gap’ is covered by the ten minute or 800m catchment but there are still some clear deficiencies in the provision. It is important to note however, that as part of the healthcheck work, 128
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
WYG has recommended that two additional local centres are designated in and surrounding Brookfield (Otterburn Gardens and The Oval) which will help to ‘fill’ some of this gap in provision.
8.55 It is acknowledged that not all of the Borough’s population would be within 800m of a defined centre. However, in most cases this is because the population in these areas are not substantial enough to viably support a retail or service hub. However, our analysis of walking catchments demonstrates that WYG’s recommended hierarchy of defined centres and neighbourhood parades will help protect the ability of people living within the Borough to access services and facilities in the future and reduce the potential for unsustainable travel patterns to develop.
8.56 In addition, our analysis also demonstrates that our recommended retail hierarchy is viable and will enable the centres to sustain and improve their position in the future.
Town Centre Boundaries, Primary Shopping Areas and Frontages
8.57 In considering the Council’s future strategy for the Borough, we have provided recommendations in relation to appropriate town centre boundaries, primary shopping areas and, where appropriate, retail frontages. We have provided recommendations for Middlesbrough town centre, the two district centres, 21 local centres and 5 neighbourhood parades, which are identified by the Middlesbrough Local Plan Core Strategy (February, 2008). We have also given consideration to ten additional clusters of retail activity to assess the need for a retail designation. We have made these recommendations taking into account the definitions provided by the NPPF as follows:
‘Primary shopping area: Defined area where retail development is concentrated (generally comprising the primary and those secondary frontages which are adjoining and closely related to the primary shopping frontage).
Primary and secondary frontages: Primary frontages are likely to include a high proportion of retail uses which may include food, drinks, clothing and household goods. Secondary frontages provide greater opportunities for a diversity of uses such as restaurants, cinemas and businesses.
Town centre: Area defined on the local authority’s proposal map, including the primary shopping area and areas predominantly occupied by main town centre uses within or adjacent to the primary shopping area’.
129
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Middlesbrough Town Centre
Town Centre Boundary
8.58 The existing Middlesbrough town centre boundary is relatively extensive, covering a wide area within the centre of Middlesbrough. Furthermore, the existing boundary also includes large potential redevelopment and regeneration areas (Middlehaven and Cannon Park), extensive areas of residential uses to the east, plus the university campus. We recognise the importance of having specific allocations for Middlehaven and Cannon Park and in ensuring that the regeneration of these areas is a priority for the Council, to plan positively and thus ensuring policies work to bring forward the sites for development in the first instance. In these circumstances, we therefore recommend that they remain within the town centre boundary but that separate specific policy designations are set out for both under separate sub-categories within the policies. As such, we have included these two areas as ‘opportunity sites’ and would recommend that the Council refers specifically to these two areas separately within the emerging Local Plan. We understand that the Council has aspirations to see the delivery of a mixed-use commercial, leisure and residential development within Middlehaven, to sit alongside the college and dock. We also are also working with the Council to bring forward a brief for the Cannon Park area to understand better what could be viably delivered in that part of the town. In any event, we acknowledge the importance of protecting these areas from outside development and therefore support the inclusion of the sites within the town centre boundary.
8.59 Turning to the university, again we understand the importance of including the campus and associated uses within the boundary due to the wider benefits such an intense land use is bringing to the town centre. This is evidenced by the independent and leisure sector which is developing well around the university. As such, we again recommend that it should remain in the town centre boundary but that it is covered by a specific allocation entitled ‘university quarter’. This should specifically guide and restrict the type of development in this area to university related uses, small scale retail, leisure and residential, so as to not impact on the wider aspirations for the town centre.
8.60 Within the eastern section of the existing town centre boundary is an extensive housing area. Whilst we acknowledge the importance of including key residential areas and developments within the town centre, we do not consider that this part of Middlesbrough forms part of the town centre as they are not traditionally ‘main town centre uses’. We therefore recommend that the boundary is drawn tighter around the civic quarter and leisure uses, as shown on the plan included at Appendix 3.
130
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Primary Shopping Area
8.61 The existing primary shopping area includes the primary frontages of Middlesbrough but also includes a large section of the Cannon Park area of the town centre. We do not consider that there are sufficient main town centre uses within Cannon Park to require its inclusion within the primary shopping area. Whilst we acknowledge that this may alter in the future, we consider that in its current format, this should be removed from the primary shopping area. We do however consider that the Sainsbury’s and Aldi should be included due to their complementary nature to the town centre and the potential for linked trips with the primary shopping area, and we have therefore kept them in the boundary.
8.62 Looking at Linthorpe Road, we consider that this part of the town centre acts as a separate entity, providing retail and service uses to residents and university students in the southern section of the town centre. Due to its qualitatively different nature, we have recommended that this is designated separately to the main primary shopping are of Middlesbrough town centre and again, separate policy guidance be provided for each in accordance with their relative scales and offer.
Primary Frontages
8.63 Due to the relatively confined extent of the ‘heart’ of Middlesbrough town centre, we are comfortable with recommending that only primary frontages are defined within the local plan. These would reflect those already designated within the existing Local Plan and do not recommend any major alterations. This then also broadly reflects the extent of the primary shopping area. A copy of the proposed boundaries within Middlesbrough town centre is included at Appendix 3.
Berwick Hills District Centre
8.64 We consider that Berwick Hills’ district centre boundary should act as its primary shopping area. The extent of our recommended district centre boundary largely accords with existing boundary.
8.65 The southern part of the district centre boundary incorporates the Morrisons superstore and its car park. To the east, Ormesby Road provides a natural barrier between the district centre’s retail facilities and the residential area further to the east. Similarly, our recommended boundary excludes the residential uses to the west from the retail core. The northern extent of the district centre includes the parade of retail units at Norfolk Place and Crossfell Terrace. We would also recommend including the
131
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
vacant former Kwik Save supermarket plot within the northern extent of the district centre boundary to positively plan for new retail development to be encouraged on the site.
8.66 A copy of the plan showing the proposed district centre boundary is included at Appendix 3.
Coulby Newham District Centre
8.67 As with Berwick Hills, we consider that the district centre boundary at Coulby Newham should also act as the primary shopping area. The extent of our recommended district centre boundary largely accords with existing boundary.
8.68 To the north, the boundary follows Bickley Way and includes the Tesco Extra car park. This area also already includes the planned non-food retail development with extant outline planning permission. To the east, the district centre boundary follows Newham Way, which provides clear separation between the retail facilities and the wooded area further to the east. However, the boundary does not include the care homes or St Mary’s Church. The western boundary incorporates the large format retail and service units and their car parks but excludes the residential area and school further to the west.
8.69 To the south, we consider the district centre boundary should be extended to include the new Aldi store at Dalby Way and the adjoining petrol filling station. Although there is a requirement for pedestrians to cross Dalby Way in order to access the core of the centre, the distance is short and we consider there is the opportunity for linked trips between the Aldi store and wider district centre. Indeed, the Aldi store provides an important contribution to the district centre’s convenience goods offer. To the east of the district centre boundary, a vacant site currently has planning permission for a drive through KFC restaurant. Once complete, we recommend that the district centre boundary should also incorporate this site.
8.70 A copy of the plan showing the proposed district centre boundary is included at Appendix 3.
Potential Development Opportunity Sites
8.71 One of the key challenges facing the centres within Middlesbrough, and in particular Middlesbrough town centre, is the competition it faces from the extensive out of centre retail and leisure provision, particularly at Teesside Shopping Park, Cleveland Retail Park and Portrack Lane. Not only are these out of centre destinations now attracting a significantly increased level of market share, these destinations are also located outside of the Borough boundary, and therefore, expenditure is leaking
132
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
outside of the administrative boundary. There are several major regeneration opportunities within the town centre. These include the Middlehaven regeneration scheme, the Cannon Park retail development and the residential allocation to the south-east of Borough Road, and these all need to be brought forward in a positive manner to ensure that the centre starts to draw back trade which is leaking to neighbouring authority administrative areas.
8.72 Figure 8.1 below provides the areas which WYG and the Council have identified as development opportunities within the town centre. In particular, the plan shows the extensive area covering Cannon Park in the western section of the town centre, Middlehaven to the north and then the railway and bus stations within the heart of the centre and Gresham to the south. Due to the location of the majority of these sites on the periphery of the centre (i.e. outside of the Primary Shopping Area), wider mixed- use schemes are likely to be more viable, as we discuss in further detail below.
Figure 8.1: Opportunity Sites in Middlesbrough Town Centre
8.73 As set out in Section 7, the opportunities to attract additional national multiples to the town centre are limited in light of a high proportion of the ‘top’ national multiples already occupying units in the centre 133
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
but also due to a number of the retailers also having a presence at Teesside Shopping Park and Cleveland Retail Park, with the larger format retailers also in place at Cleveland Retail Park. Accordingly, it is considered that Middlesbrough town centre should concentrate on providing an additional ‘distinct’ offer which sets it apart from the offer within the out of centre destinations, and builds upon the important presence of the University, Middlehaven and Cannon Park, all which are located within the town centre boundary. The retail core of the centre is contained within a relatively dense area, with a number of well managed shopping centres. As such, it is the areas surrounding this core which need intervention.
8.74 Baker Street has developed organically as an independent retail and leisure destination and its success has brought about the redevelopment of neighbouring Bedford Street. There is an opportunity to grow on this success and help bring this part of the town centre back into active use. This is something which could be built upon in order to create a specialist offer in the centre and particularly around the University.
8.75 In order to attract both independent retailers and customers to the town centre, it is considered that further improvements are required to the public realm and shop units within the town centre. It is acknowledged that there has already been investment in the town centre environment and shop frontages; however, it is considered that further improvements would be beneficial to create a more consistent high quality public realm throughout the centre.
8.76 In order to improve the performance of the town centre, Middlesbrough would benefit from higher levels of activity. There has already been residential development in or close to Middlesbrough town centre which has assisted in increasing the town’s walk-in catchment, however, it is considered that further residential development would assist in boosting activity in, and the vibrancy of, the town centre further. This should be taken into account when considering the options for the potential development opportunity sites within the town centre. Further means to increase activity in the town centre could potentially include encouraging additional food and drink uses, alongside additional leisure uses in the town centre which would increase dwell time, through increased diversity which will also assist in encouraging linked trips.
8.77 The area around the railway station in particular, has a high vacancy rate and could really benefit from substantial intervention to not only bring additional uses and a better environment to the town centre but would also significantly improve visitor’s entrance experiences into the centre. This again could assist in attracting visitors back to the centre but also to retain visitors within the centre. Due to the close proximity to existing pubs and restaurants, additional leisure uses may be appropriate.
134
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
8.78 We also understand there are intentions to redevelop the bus station, which due to its proximity to the Primary Shopping Area, may be suitable for additional modern retail units. However, as stated above, this is dependent on retailer demand and should follow incentives to ensure that the unit at Middlehaven is occupied first.
8.79 It is considered that the current car parking provision in Middlesbrough town centre is working well, and we consider that the two hours free in several car parks, plus the relatively low levels of parking charges elsewhere to be well managed and appropriate for a centre of this size and nature. However, this should be regularly reviewed especially given the free surface level car parking available at Teesside Shopping Park, Portrack Lane retail facilities and Cleveland Retail Park.
8.80 The digital shopping revolution has significantly impacted the high street by offering consumers convenient alternatives to simply transact with business than in the traditional physical manner. Therefore WYG recommend that the Council considers initiatives to digitise the high street 45 to help it adapt and engage with the digital revolution that is transforming the ways we shop and buy products - failure to embrace such structural changes may result in an erosion of the vitality and viability of Middlesbrough town centre. As we have set out above, we consider it is important for Middlesbrough to provide a distinct offer which sets it apart from surrounding proximate centres, improvements to the digitalisation of the high street may be one way to do this.
8.81 It is vitally important that Middlesbrough town centre seeks to keep pace with consumers and technology advances which are changing at rapid velocity. Measures should also be implemented to encourage town centres businesses, including independent retailers to deliver OMNI channelling, which basically supports all formats of trading platforms, from website, to smartphone, click and collect to traditional bricks and mortar channels. This multiple channel approach will assist businesses in the town centre by maximising interactions with both physical and digital consumers.
8.82 As we have already discussed above, in order to improve the vitality and viability of Middlesbrough town centre, it is considered that additional activity needs to be brought into the town and this could be achieved via the introduction of additional residential development, commercial and leisure within a walk-in catchment. The sites at Middlehaven and Cannon Park could be opportunities to introduce such development, although significant amounts of work is also required to substantially enhance the linkages to and from these areas. In particular, the A66 acts as a significant barrier between the town centre core and Middlehaven. For the regeneration of this site and Cannon Park to work well,
45 Digital High Street 2020 Report, Digital High Street Advisory Board, March 2015
135
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
investment into linkage improvements needs to be undertaken. It is already apparent from the results of the household survey, that shoppers visiting the Sainsbury’s and Aldi already link their trips with other uses in the town centre. If Cannon Park was redeveloped, this could increase further, particualry if linkages were improved.
8.83 Whilst we acknowledge that there has been a significant reduction in overall market share to facilities in Middlesbrough town centre and to facilities within the Borough as a whole, WYG considers that in the first instance, work should be undertaken to improve the environment of the town centre rather than creating new retail floorspace. It will be key to introduce incentives in order to create a more attractive town centre environment for visitors in order to reduce any potential further decline in market share.
8.84 There are several other development opportunity sites present within the town centre, including the bus station, land at Gresham and areas around the University. However, as retail and leisure occupier demand for Middlesbrough is currently limited and is likely to remain so in the short to medium term, the Council may wish to consider the potential for residential development on a number of these sites. Although residential development has taken place within or close to the town centre in recent years, it is considered that there is the potential to introduce further high quality residential development of a quantum and quality to attract the right demographic back into the town centre. By creating a stronger customer base, the demand for more quality leisure, food and drink and other services will be stimulated, thus creating a more pleasant aspect to the town and stimulating additional occupier demand.
Local Impact Threshold
8.85 In accordance with national planning policy, it is appropriate to identify locally set thresholds for the scale of edge-of-centre and out of centre retail, office and leisure development which should be subject to the assessment of the impact criteria set out by paragraph 26 of the NPPF.
8.86 Paragraph 26 of the NPPF states that:
‘When assessing applications for retail, leisure and office development outside of town centre, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan, local planning authorities should require an impact assessment if development is over a proportionate, locally set floorspace threshold (if there is no locally set threshold, the default threshold is 2,500 sq.m’
136
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
8.87 The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) (2014) provides further guidance on local thresholds. Paragraph 13 of ‘ Ensuring the vitality of town centres’ states that:
‘The purpose of the test is to ensure that the impact over time (up to five years (ten for major schemes)) of certain out of centre and edge of centre proposals on existing town centres is not significantly adverse. The test relates to retail, office and leisure development (not all main town centre uses) which are not in accordance with an up to date Local Plan and outside of existing town centres. It is important that the impact is assessed in relation to all town centres that may be affected, which are not necessarily just those closest to the proposal and may be in neighbouring authority areas.’
8.88 Paragraph 16 provides guidance in relation to floorspace thresholds and states:
‘The impact test only applies to proposals exceeding 2,500 square metres gross of floorspace unless a different locally appropriate threshold is set by the local planning authority. In setting a locally appropriate threshold it will be important to consider the:
• Scale of proposals relative to town centres • The existing viability and vitality of town centres • Cumulative effects of recent developments • Whether local town centres are vulnerable • Likely effects of development on any town centre strategy • Impact on any other planned investment’
8.89 Accordingly, policy should advocate a tiered approach whereby the threshold applied to planning applications at edge of centre and out of centre locations varies in relation to the role and function of a particular centre.
8.90 In our experience, it will only generally be development of a scale greater than these thresholds which could lead to a ‘significant adverse’ impact, could merit the refusal of an application for town centre uses in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 27 of the NPPF. In setting the thresholds, we have had regard to the trading model of the smaller convenience goods store format operated by the likes of Co-operative Food, Morrisons, Sainsbury’s and Tesco. Such stores generally have net sales areas slightly below the 280 sq.m net sales area limit for extended Sunday trading and generally have a gross floorspace approaching 400 sq.m. Whilst of a relatively moderate size, these convenience stores often have a relatively substantial turnover and it is considered necessary for the local planning authority to retain control in respect of the consideration of impacts arising from the implementation of such proposals. The thresholds should not only apply to new floorspace, but also to changes of use and variations of condition to remove or amend restrictions on how units operate in practice. 137
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
8.91 The proposed threshold at town, district and local centre levels are considered to reflect the relatively small size of local centres and their consequent potential susceptibility to alternative out of centre provision. In our experience, a 200 sq.m (gross) operation located outside but in proximity to a defined local or neighbourhood centre has the potential to impact on its performance. However, in practice, it is envisaged that a proposal of just greater than 200 sq.m adjacent to local centre would generally only require an impact assessment of limited length (i.e. for development of such a scale, impact may on occasion be able to be dealt with as part of the covering letter accompanying the application). Where an application proposal is above the respective stated impact threshold we would recommend that the applicant discusses and agrees the scope of any retail impact assessment which is appropriate to the scale and nature of the proposed development, and identifies any specific local issues that may need to be addressed.
8.92 We do not consider that a blanket threshold will usually be appropriate across all types of centres and instead consider it more appropriate to utilise a range of thresholds, relating to the type of centre and the proposed development is proximate to. In this circumstance, we have adopted the approach previously used by Middlesbrough Council in defining the hierarchy of local centres, and split these into designations according to their size, nature and provision. As such, we have proposed that the Local Centres are divided into large-scale, medium-scale and small-scale.
8.93 We consider that Middlesbrough town centre contains a range of anchor stores which help to pull shoppers to the centre and ‘spin-off’ benefits to other retailers. The presence of anchor stores would maintain the vitality and viability of the centre. Some of the anchor stores have a large retail format such as Debenhams, Primark, House of Fraser which are all over the 2,500 sq.m national threshold. Accordingly, we would typically consider development proposals providing greater than 2,500 sq.m gross floorspace for retail, leisure or office uses in an edge or out of centre location proximate to Middlesbrough town centre would be the subject of an impact assessment as they could draw trade from the centre that may have a significant adverse impact and it would be appropriate to be able to assess such impact to ensure that the vitality and viability of Middlesbrough is retained.
8.94 However, in this circumstance, where it is necessary to ensure that further erosion of the town centre vitality and viability and market share is stopped, out of centre proposals need to be assessed in detail for their potential impact on the town centre. As such, we recommend that a threshold of 1,000 sq.m is implemented for developments surrounding Middlesbrough. This should be applied to ensure that the potential impact of any further out of centre development is fully assessed. The impact threshold also represents a standard large format development that could be promoted by developers.
138
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
8.95 Similar analysis has been carried out for the town and district centres and our recommended thresholds are listed in Table 8.9.
Table 8.6: Threshold Analysis for Defined Town Centre Total Recommended Centre Anchor stores floorspace thresholds Marks and Spencer (4,380 sq.m) Middlesbrough Town 165,870 sq.m Primark (3,990 sq.m) 1,000 sq.m Centre (86,140 sq.m)
Morrisons (6,852 sq.m) Berwick Hills District 12,969 sq.m Cooplands 500 sq.m Centre (7,910 sq.m) One Stop Post Office Tesco Extra (5,022 sq.m net) B&M Home Coulby Newham District 17,180 sq.m Boots Pharmacy 500 sq.m Centre (6,650 sq.m) Brighthouse Card Factory Note: Total Floorspace is defined as all uses identified in the vitality and viability assessment, the figures in brackets relate to the gross retail floorspace, this comprises convenience and comparison goods only.
8.96 Turning to the Local and Neighbourhood Centres, overall, these range in size from 339 sq.m (Whitfield Buildings Neighbourhood Centre) to North Ormesby which measures 7,572 sq.m and Linthorpe Village which measures 11,950 sq.m (albeit WYG recommend that Linthorpe Village is moved up in the hierarchy to a District Centre). The unit sizes also vary widely from centre to centre. It is worth noting that according to the Sunday Trading laws, a ‘large shop’ is one which is over 280sq m. A threshold at or below that level would appear sensible, and is a useful guide to national thinking as to what constitutes a ‘large shop’ which generates a reasonable amount of trade (and, therefore, the potential to result in an impact on shopping trends).
8.97 Having analysed the existing unit sizes and key ‘attractors’ of each centre, we consider that the following thresholds are applied:
• Neighbourhood Centres – 250 sq.m;
• Small scale Local Centres – 250 sq.m;
• Medium scale local centres – 250 sq.m; and
• Large scale local centres – 500 sq.m.
139
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Overall Summary and Conclusion
8.98 The latest household survey results used to underpin this Retail Study, have demonstrated the significant decline in market share attracted by facilities within Middlesbrough Borough but also specifically within Middlesbrough town centre. Instead, shoppers are more frequently undertaking their shops at out-of-centre destinations. We have seen a significant increase in market share to Teesside Shopping Park within Stockton in particular, to the detriment of Middlesbrough town centre.
8.99 The healthcheck analysis of the defined centres, demonstrates that there are a number which are struggling in terms of their overall vitality and viability, and particularly the smaller centres. Middlesbrough town centre has experienced some improvement in terms of overall vacancy rates, but these are still significantly above the national average and therefore, vacancy rates remain high. The ‘core’ of Middlesbrough town centre is relatively confined with some well managed shopping centres, but significant work is required to make the outer areas more attractive. Whilst there is overall capacity for additional comparison floorspace within Middlesbrough Borough as a whole and within the town centre, WYG recommends that efforts are made to fill the vacant foodstore in Middlehaven in the first instance and to fill vacant units within the PSA too. Furthermore, work is required to enhance the overall environment within the centre, in order to ensure that the market share does not reduce any further. It may be that further leisure uses would assist in creating a more diverse centre, and encourage visitors in the evening.
8.100 WYG acknowledges the Council’s aspirations and the importance to regenerate and redevelop the sites at Middlehaven, Cannon Park, Gresham and the bus station, but recommend that land uses beyond retail are considered in order to bring something new to Middlesbrough town centre and to enhance the overall offer of the centre and also the wider Borough.
8.101 Berwick Hills and Coulby Newham District Centres are trading relatively well and provide convenience and smaller scale comparison and service uses for the local residents. The centres have good accessibility and although the centres have some areas which could be improved through intervention, the centres appear to be broadly vital and viable.
8.102 The smaller local centres and neighbourhood parades vary in overall health and vitality and viability but the majority still provide local convenience and service facilities for residents.
140
Middlesbrough Council A092552 09/09/2016
Glossary of Terms
Capacity Retail capacity in terms of this report refers to surplus/deficit of expenditure (£m) which represents the difference between the expenditure and turnover of the identified facilities.
Comparison Goods Comparison goods relate to items not obtained on a frequent basis, these include clothing, footwear, household and recreational goods. A more detailed breakdown of comparison goods categories is provided below.
Furniture Goods Includes all consumer expenditure on furniture, floor coverings and household textiles such as beds, sofas, tables , cupboards, bed linen, curtains, towels, lamps, mirrors, and so on.
DIY Goods Includes all consumer expenditure on hardware, DIY, decorators’ supplies and garden centre type goods. This category includes products such as hammers, saw, screwdrivers, wallpaper, plumbing items, floorboards, ceramic tiles, plants, pots, turf for lawns, and so on.
Electrical Goods All consumer retail expenditure on domestic electrical and gas appliances, such as washing machines, dryers, dishwashers, ironing and press machines, cookers, freezers and fridge-freezers, coffee makers, radios, televisions, DVD players, and so on.
Clothing & Footwear All consumer retail expenditure on shoes and other footwear, garments for men, women, children and infants either ready-to-wear or made-to-measure, underwear, ties, handkerchiefs, scarves, and so on.
Household Goods Includes household textiles and soft furnishings, china, glassware, jewellery and other miscellaneous goods such as greeting cards, notebooks, pens, pencils, and so on.
Recreational Goods All consumer retail expenditure on bicycles and tricycles (excluding toy bicycles), musical instruments, sports equipment, camping equipment, toys of all kinds including dolls, soft toys, and so on.
Chemist Goods All consumer retail expenditure on prescription and non-prescription drugs, adhesive and non-adhesive bandages, first-aid kits, hot-water bottles, toilet shops, sponges, and so on.
Convenience Goods Convenience goods relate to everyday essential items including confectionary, food, drinks, newspapers and magazines.
District Centre District centres will usually comprise groups of shops often containing at least one supermarket or superstore, and a range of non-retail services, such as banks, building societies and restaurants, as well as local public facilities such as a library.
Expenditure Per Capita The average spend of each person within the defined Study Area on a variety of retail goods.
Expenditure Expenditure is calculated by taking the population within a defined area and then multiplying this figure by average annual expenditure levels for various forms of goods.
Expenditure Forecasts This assessment has been undertaken using the ‘goods based’ approach as prescribed in the Planning for Town Centres Practice Guidance. Retail expenditure forecasts have been derived from Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note 11 (October 2013).
Experian (MMG3) The database used to identify population, expenditure and socio- economic breakdown of the Study Area population.
Gross Floorspace Represents the level of total floorspace or footprint of a specific development (i.e. sales area, storage, checkouts, café, display, and so on).
GOAD Plans Provide accurate information on the composition of town centres, shopping areas, out-of-town retail parks and outlet villages in the
UK. Identifies the fascia name, retail category, floorspace, and exact
location of all retail outlets and vacant premises.
GOAD Reports Provide a snap-shot of the retail status or demographic make-up of
Goad surveyed town centres. Provides a comprehensive breakdown of floorspace and outlet count for all individual trade types in the Convenience, Comparison, Retail Service, Leisure, Financial/Business Services and Vacancy sectors.
Local Centre Local centres include a range of small shops of a local nature, serving a small catchment. Typically, local centres might include, amongst other shops, a small supermarket, a newsagent, a sub-post office and a pharmacy. Other facilities could include a hot-food takeaway and launderette. In rural areas, large villages may perform the role of a local centre.
Main town centre uses Retail development (including warehouse clubs and factory outlet centres); leisure, entertainment facilities the more intensive sport and recreation uses (including cinemas, restaurants, drive-through restaurants, bars and pubs, night-clubs, casinos, health and fitness centres, indoor bowling centres, and bingo halls); offices; and arts, culture and tourism development (including theatres, museums, galleries and concert halls, hotels and conference facilities).
Market Share Market shares derived from the household survey results, which are based on either the proportion of shopping trips or the proportion of expenditure attracted to a particular centre/facility.
National Multiple This is a retail or service operator which is or part of a network of nine or more outlets.
Net Floorspace Represents the level of internal area devoted to the sale of goods.
Primary and Secondary Primary frontages are likely to include a high proportion of retail uses Frontages which may include food, drinks, clothing and household goods. Secondary frontages provide greater opportunities for a diversity of uses such as restaurants, cinemas and businesses.
Primary Shopping Area Defined area where retail development is concentrated (generally comprising the primary and those secondary frontages which are adjoining and closely related to the primary shopping frontage).
Price Base The price base for the Study is 2014; all prices are or have been adjusted to 2014 in order to be consistent.
Rates of Productivity This takes into account the potential for existing retail floorspace to improve their turnover productivity (e.g. smaller goods could be sold from a smaller area for more money, increased opening hours, etc.).
Sales Density Retail capacity figures are expressed in term of floorspace, relying on the application of assumed sales density figures to the surplus expenditure identified. This is based on the typical turnover of a store by square metre/foot.
Special Forms of Trading Defined by Experian as expenditure not directed to traditional floorspace such as the internet, mail order, party plan and vending machines and other non-store activity such as market and road-side stalls.
Study Area This represents the household survey area, which is based on postal sectors.
Trade Draw This refers to the level of trade attracted to a particular facility/centre.
Turnover The turnover figure relates to the annual turnover generated by existing retail facilities.
Town Centre A town centre will usually be the second level of centres after city centres and, in many cases, they will be the principal centre of centres in a local authority’s area. In rural areas they are likely to be market towns and other centres of similar size and role which function as important service centres, providing a range of facilities and services for extensive rural catchment areas. In planning the future of town centres, local planning authorities should consider the
function of different parts of the centre and how these contribute to its overall vitality and viability.