TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

PLANNING AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE ACT 2004

SUPPORTING RETAIL STATEMENT

LONGWELL GREEN REGENERATION

ALDERMOOR WAY LONGWELL GREEN SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE BS30 7DA

PREPARED ON BEHALF OF

WEST MIDLANDS PENSION FUND

OUTLINE PLANNING APPLICATION INVOLVING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS, PROVISION OF VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESSES, ERECTION OF NEW BUILDINGS INCLUDING INTERNAL ESTATE ROAD, CAR PARKING, SERVICING AREAS AND INFRASTRUCTURE (ALL MATTERS OTHER THAN ‘ACCESS’ RESERVED FOR FUTURE APPROVAL)

October 2020

MWA 12 The Glenmore Centre Jessop Court Marconi Drive Waterwells Business Park Quedgeley Gloucester GL2 2AP

Tel: 01452 722323 Email: [email protected]

Page | 1

CONTENTS Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION AND THE PROPOSED 5 DEVELOPMENT

3.0 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY 9

4.0 COMPLYING WITH THE SEQUENTIAL APPROACH 21

5.0 RETAIL IMPACT 37

6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 48

Appendices:

Appendix [1] Planning history.

Appendix [2] Copy of Supreme Court decision in Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council [2012].

Appendix [3] R (on the application of Zurich Assurance Ltd T/A Threadneedle Property Investment v North Lincolnshire Council.

Appendix [4] Appeal decision in Newport, Shropshire

Appendix [5] Aldergate Properties Ltd v Mansfield District Council [2016] EWHC 1670 (Admin).

Appendix [6] Primary Catchment Area including town centres.

Appendix [7] Sequential assessment.

Appendix [8] Retail impact tables: Comparison goods

Appendix [9] Committed/planned investment in main centres.

Appendix [10] Health check of main centres.

Appendix [11] Retail impact tables: Convenience goods.

2 | P a g e

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 MWA accepted an instruction from CBRE Global Investors to prepare a Supporting Retail Statement (SRS) to accompany an outline planning application which seeks the redevelopment of approximately 4.1ha of land at Emersons Green within South Gloucestershire. A draft Retail Statement was submitted to South Gloucestershire Council as part of the pre-application process undertaken on behalf of the Applicant.

1.2 In summary the retail element of the scheme comprises 6,411 sq.m1. gross of comparison goods floorspace and 2,252 sq.m. gross of convenience retail space. In total the retail space planned on the site is 9,665 sq.m. gross. The site does however, benefit from 4 lawful development certificates confirming that 3,601 sq.m. gross can be used for Class A1 retailing.

1.3 The SRS also includes as appropriate information which has been agreed between the Local Planning Authority and the applicants2 promoting alterations and extensions to The Mall at Cribbs Causeway. The planning application (No. PT14/4894/O) was called-in by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on 1st March 2017 and a public inquiry was held in September 2017. As part of the inquiry process various documents were produced by the Council and the applicants including a Statement of Common Ground (July 2017) excluding retail and transportation matters. A Joint Retail Assessment (JRA) was also prepared by Lichfields on behalf of the applicants and Rapleys on behalf of South Gloucestershire Council (August 2017). We have used information within these documents where necessary on the basis that it represents the agreed position by the Council on retail and planning policy matters.

1.4 However, we are aware that the Secretary of State on 1st October 2018 refused planning permission for the development on the grounds that a sequentially preferable site was available and suitable within Bristol City Centre (Callowhill Court) and as a consequence would be likely to prejudice development of that site for retail development.

1.5 Additionally, we have also had regard to the relatively recent approval by the Council for development of land known as Site 20 at Merlin Road, Cribbs Causeway. The Council has

1 Of which 2,139 sq.m. would be provided as mezzanine space. 2 Cribbs Mall Nominee (1) Ltd, Cribbs Mall Nominee (2) Ltd, Bayliss Ltd and John Baylis Ltd.

3 | P a g e

resolved to grant planning permission for a mixed-use redevelopment (App. No. PT15/5319/O) including the provision of an indoor ice rink, indoor sky diving centre and retail sports goods store (Decathlon) has been granted following a decision by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government not to call-in the application for his own determination. That application was also accompanied by a Second Updated Retail and Leisure Assessment (November 2016) prepared by GVA. We have as necessary cross-referred to information submitted in support of that application.

1.6 The report has been prepared in draft to enable pre-application discussion with the Council before a planning application is considered for submission.

1.7 The report is set out as follows:

- Section 2 – This describes the site, surrounding area and the proposal. - Section 3 – Provides an overview of planning policy at national and local levels. - Section 4 – Planning Assessment demonstrates the acceptability of the proposal against the sequential test. - Section 5 - Outlines our approach to impact assessment. - Section 7 - Summary Conclusions which draws together the main points arising and demonstrates that the proposal should be positively determined.

4 | P a g e

2.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

(i) Site location and description

2.1 The application site (hereafter referred to as ‘the site’) comprises Kingswood Industrial Estate and the Saville’s Freights Limited premises at Longwell Green. The site is approximately 3.8 ha in total and is accessed via Aldermoor Way. Existing uses on the site include a range of A1/B8/D2 uses. These include Tile Flair, Avondale Tiles, Multi-Save Carpets, Oakflooring Supplies and Flip Out. A summary of the main planning applications affecting the site is set out in Appendix [1]. The Council has over the years permitted a range of non-B class uses to be established including Flip Out within Unit 9K (now closed) and a gym (Majestic) within Savilles Freight Ltd.

2.2 However, the Council has also issued Lawful Development Certificates under Section 191 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, that Units 9A/9B, 9C, 9D and 9E can lawfully be used as shops (Class A1) without any restriction. In total these units extend to 3,601 sq.m. gross.3

2.3 Gallagher and Longwell Green Retail Parks are located immediately to the north-west of the site. Current occupiers at the retail parks include Carpetright, Homebase, Wickes, PC World, B&Q, River Island, Clinton Cards, Clarks, M&S, Next, Boots, Outfit, Carphone Warehouse, New Look and Clarks. A large Asda superstore is located to the north of the site, on Marsham Way. Lidl is also constructing a supermarket to the north on Aldermoor Lane on the former Homebase store with Smyths Toys also proposed.

2.4 Longwell Green is highly accessible for Bristol, Keynsham and Bath residents, with good road links from the A4174, A4 and A431. It also benefits from a large number of local bus services which link to all surrounding town centres.

Zone Unit Floorspace Floorspace Proposed Use Units Nos. (GEA) (GIA) Class

1 A-1 to A- 3,908 3,685 Class E (d) All units 8 Class E(g)(i), (ii), (iii) Class B2

3 Unit 9A/9B - 1,496 sq.m.; 9C – 703 sq.m.; 9D – 696 sq.m.; 9E – 706 sq.m.

5 | P a g e

Class B8/trade with ancillary showrooms

2 A-1 to A8 3,270 3,080 Class E (d) All units Class E(g)(i), (ii), (iii) Class B2 Class B8/trade with ancillary showrooms

3 A-1 to A- 5,851 5,575 Class E (d) All units 11 Class E(g)(i), (ii), (iii) Class B2 Class B8/trade with ancillary showrooms

4 A-1 to A3 585 520 Class E(b) All units Sui generis (takeaway)

Total - 13,614 12,860 -

Table 3.2 Option B (Illustrative)(Drawing No. 831 PL 2.201)

Zone Unit Floorspace Floorspace Proposed Use Units Nos. (GEA) (GIA) Class

1 B-1 to 3,915 3,685 Class E(a), (c)(i), All units B.4 (ii), (iii) Class E (d)

OR

Class E (d) Class E(g)(i), (ii), (iii) Class B2 Class B8/trade with ancillary showrooms

2 B-1 to 3,270 3,080 Class E (d) All units B.8 Class E(g)(i), (ii), (iii) Class B2

6 | P a g e

Class B8/trade with ancillary showrooms

3 B-1 to B- 5,851 5,575 Class E (d) All units 8 Class E(g)(i), (ii), (iii) Class B2 Class B8/trade with ancillary showrooms

4 B-1 to 3,705 2,208 Class E(b) Class E(b) and B.3 Sui generis sui generis for (takeaway) Units B. 1 & Class C1 B.3.

Class C1 for Unit B.2

Total - 16,741 14,5484 -

4 Area at ground floor. The upper floors of the hotel would add a further 1,520 sq.m. GIA. Thus, the hotel (C1) would incorporate 1,864 sq.m. GIA.

7 | P a g e

(ii) The proposed retail development

2.5 As described in the Planning Statement, the application proposes the following land uses:

Table 2.1 Option A (Illustrative)(Drawing No. 831 PL 2.200)

2.6 The most likely scenario based on projected demand is that Option A will be preferred for all zones (1-4). No retail floorspace is proposed within this option. But the planning application seeks flexibility in the nature of uses permitted within each zone.

2.7 However, the site benefits from a series of LDCs which confirm that part of the site can be used for retailing as now defined in Class E(a). Option B therefore includes within Zone 1 retail (shop} floorspace broadly equivalent to that covered by the LDCs. Therefore, despite the lawfulness of the existing space within Units 9A/9B, 9C, 9D and 9E, this element of the scheme has been subject to the sequential and impact tests.

8 | P a g e

3.0 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY

3.1 This section identifies key retail planning policy and guidance at a national and local level of relevance to the proposed allocation.

1. National Planning Policy

(i) NPPF (February 2019)

3.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in February 2019 and sets out the Government’s overarching planning policies.

3.3 There is no requirement to demonstrate that there is a need for a retail proposal set out in the NPPF.

3.4 Paragraph 86 states that LPAs should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre nor in accordance with an up-to-date plan. Suitable sites include those which are likely to become available within a reasonable period although the latter is not defined.

3.5 Paragraph 89 of the NPPF sets out the circumstances under which an Impact Assessment should be undertaken to accompany proposals for retail, leisure and office development outside of town centres, which are not in accordance with an up to- date Local Plan. Planning authorities should require an Impact Assessment if the development is over a proportionate locally-set floorspace threshold. Paragraph 89 goes on to state that where there is no locally-set threshold, the default threshold is 2,500 sq. m. Since the scheme exceeds 2,500 sq.m. gross an Impact Assessment is required.

3.6 Where an Impact Assessment is required, paragraph 89 states that this should include an assessment of:

➢ The impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in the centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and

Page | 9

➢ The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area.

3.7 Paragraph 90 of the NPPF sets out how the sequential assessment and impact assessment should be considered. It states that where an application fails to satisfy sequential tests or is likely to have significant (our emphasis) adverse impact on one or more of the above factors, it should be refused. This needs to be considered in the context of the advice given at paragraph 11 of the NPPF which requires planning authorities to weigh the balance of any adverse impacts against any benefits that arise from the application proposals, with permission only being refused where there are significant and demonstrable adverse effects that outweigh any planning benefits.

(ii) Planning for Growth (March 2011)

3.8 In March 2011, The Minister of State for Decentralisation (Mr. Greg Clark) made a ministerial statement in relation to promoting economic growth through the operation of the planning system and indicated that the Government’s objectives for economic growth should inform Development Management decisions.

3.9 At paragraph 13, the Companion to PPS 1 (The Planning System General Principles) states:

“The Courts have also held that the Government’s statements of planning policy are material considerations which must be taken into account, where relevant, in decisions on planning applications. … where such statements indicate the weight that should be given to relevant considerations, decision makers must have proper regard to them. If they elect not to follow relevant statements of the Government’s planning policy, they must give clear and convincing reasons.”

3.10 With regards to the weight that should be attached to the Ministerial Statement, Mr. Clarke states:

“The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will take the principles in this statement into account when determining applications that come before him for decision. In particular he will attach significant weight to the need to secure economic growth and employment.”

Page | 10

(iii) NPPG ‘Ensuring the vitality of town centres’ (March 2014)

3.11 Paragraph 006 (ID: 2b-006-20140306) advises that it may not be possible to accommodate all forecast needs in a town centre. Planning authorities are advised to identify the most appropriate alternative strategy for meeting the need for town centre uses having regard to the sequential and impact tests.

3.12 Paragraph 007 (ID: 2b-007-20140306) notes that tourism is extremely diverse and LPAs should plan positively for ensuring that the needs of the tourist industry are met.

3.13 Paragraph 010 (ID: 2b-010-20140306) of NPPG sets the context for applying the sequential test. It states:

‘It is for the applicant to demonstrate compliance with the sequential test (and failure to undertake a sequential assessment could in itself constitute a reason for refusing permission). Wherever possible, the local planning authority should support the applicant in undertaking the sequential test, including sharing any relevant information. The application of the test should be proportionate and appropriate for the given proposal. Where appropriate, the potential suitability of alternative sites should be discussed between the developer and local planning authority at the earliest opportunity.’

3.14 Paragraph 010 also contains a checklist of considerations for the sequential test. The concluding third bullet at Paragraph 010 is clear: if there are no suitable sites in sequentially preferable locations then the sequential test is passed. Suitable sites must be sites that are available and appropriate for the given proposal. Appropriate sites include available sites that can accommodate the proposal with provided flexibility is applied to the proposal concerned. The guidance further advises at paragraph 011 (ID: 2b-011-20140306) that the sequential test should recognise that certain main town centre uses have market and location requirements. Therefore, there is an inherent acceptance that the sequential test needs to have regard to the economic factors that influence locational decisions of businesses.

3.15 Paragraph 013 (ID: 2b-013-20140306) of the NPPG outlines the impact test. The test applies to retail, office and leisure development. It does not apply to food and drink uses nor to hotels. The Annex to the NPPF clearly identifies retail uses as separate from restaurants which are classified as recreational uses.

Page | 11

2. Local Planning Policy

3.16 The Development Plan, for the purposes of section 38(3) of the Planning and compulsory Purchase Act 2004, comprises:

• The South Gloucestershire Local Plan Core Strategy (Adopted 2013); and

• South Gloucestershire Policies Sites and Places DPD (November 2017).

3.17 South Gloucestershire Council adopted their Core Strategy on 11th December 2013. The Policies Sites and Places DPD was adopted in November 2017.

South Gloucestershire Core Strategy 2006-2027

3.18 Policy CS14 ‘Town Centres and Retail’ sets out that the Council will work with partner organisations and the local community to protect and enhance the vitality and viability of existing centres. It goes on to state that new retail development will be directed into the town and district centres, reflecting the scale and function of the centre including making provision for 34,000 sqm net of new comparison floorspace by 2026.

3.19 Policy CS14 makes it clear that:

“Cribbs Causeway/Mall, Abbey Wood and Longwell Green Retail Parks will be treated as out-of-centre and development proposals will need to satisfy the sequential test.”

“New investment in main town centre uses consistent with the NPPF will be directed into the town and district centres, reflecting the scale and function of the centre including making provision for 34,000 sq.m net of new comparison floorspace by 2026 to meet the needs of the communities in South Gloucestershire. The distribution of this floorspace will be through the Policies, Sites and Places Development Plan Document or a replacement Core Strategy/Local Plan.”

“Development in local centres/parades will be primarily to meet local needs only and of a scale appropriate to the role and function of the centre/parade and where it would not harm the vitality and viability of other centres.”

3.20 Policy CS14 then sets out the way in which the policy objectives of directing new investments in main town centre uses to town and district centres, and of protecting and enhancing their vitality, will be achieved, as follows:

Page | 12

“This will be achieved by:

1. Identifying in the Policies, Sites and Places Development Plan Document or a replacement Local Plan/Core Strategy centre boundaries, primary shopping areas, shopping frontages, and development opportunities in accessible locations within and on the edge of centres; 2. Encouraging retail, commercial, leisure and cultural development within a centre of an appropriate type and scale commensurate with its current or future function; 3. Safeguarding the retail character and function of centres by resisting developments that detract from their vitality and viability and protecting against the loss of retail units; 4. Applying the sequential approach when considering proposals for new town centre uses; 5. Requiring impact assessments for edge-of-centre and out-of-centre proposals with a floorspace over 1,000 sq.m. gross; 6. Encouraging convenient and accessible local shopping facilities to meet the day to day needs of residents and contribute to social inclusion.”

3.21 It should be noted that Policy CS14 has been changed since the submission of the South Gloucestershire Core Strategy Incorporating Post Submission Changes (December 2011) to the Secretary of State. Draft Policy CS14 originally proposed that 17,000 sqm of the 34,000 sqm comparison floor space requirement should be directed to The Mall. However, the Inspector’s Report on the Examination into South Gloucestershire Core Strategy (November 2013) highlighted in paragraph 179 that ‘placing more than 5 times the provision in this location in comparison to each of the five other centres is likely to reinforce its sub-regional role in the shopping hierarchy’. On this basis, paragraph 180 states that ‘the scheme would be at odds with the NPPF which in pursuing sustainability principles promotes a town centre first approach aimed at promoting and safeguarding traditional centres’. Because of the Inspector’s comments, the adopted Core Strategy Policy CS14 does not identify a floor space quantum for Cribbs Causeway/The Mall. Instead, Cribbs Causeway, Longwell Green and Abbey Wood are identified as out-of-centre retail locations.

3.22 Policy CS14 states that development proposals at these locations will need to satisfy the sequential test.

3.23 Policy CS29 ‘Communities of the East Fringe of Bristol Urban Area’ sets out that development plan documents and development proposals will take account of the need to ‘improve the vitality and viability of Emersons Green, Downend, Staple Hill, Kingswood and Hanham centres, to enhance their role as service centres for the

Page | 13

urban and surrounding rural areas and provide for additional comparison floorspace as appropriate’.

3.24 Apart from Emersons Green, no major housing development is proposed within the CS for the Eastern Fringe communities. The Council has argued that limited development is appropriate for the East Fringe to address the imbalance between homes and jobs, which results in significant levels of commuting to various parts of the urban area. However, the Inspector’s Report argues that ‘as part of the review of the Core Strategy the Council should explore the potential of the East Fringe both as a longer- term resource and as a means of providing flexibility to meet needs should circumstances change during the Plan period’. The Inspector noted however that ‘in my opinion the East Fringe represents a potential opportunity area where measures to improve the structural in balance between homes and jobs, address deficiencies in the public transport system and regenerate older urban areas are catalysts for change’. Because clear therefore that future growth will happen in this location before the end of the current plan period and that the Places Sites and Policies DPD should plan for this longer term growth.

Policies, Sites and Places DPD (November 2017)

3.25 The Policies, Sites and Places DPD, contains detailed planning policies to manage new development, allocate smaller scale (non-strategic) sites for various types of development, and identify the vision and objectives of local communities for their respective area, including future development, consistent with the government’s localism principles.

3.26 The PSPP is in two parts. Part One contains a suite of Development Management policies. Part Two ‘Sites and Places’ contains, inter alia, details of town centres and site allocations, including those site allocations and designations rolled forward from the South Gloucestershire Local Plan.

3.27 Policy PSP31 ‘Town Centre Uses’ expands on Policy CS14, confirming that development proposal(s) for main town centre uses will be directed to town and district centres identified on the Policies Map. It also identifies proposals for additional comparison retail floor space totalling 16,000 sq. m across six town and district centres to meet identified need to 2021.

Page | 14

3.28 Policy PSP31 also sets out the requirements for considering out-of-centre proposals as follows:

6) Out of centre proposal(s) for main town centre uses will only be acceptable where: i. no centre or edge-of-centre sites are available; and ii. the proposal(s) would be in a location readily accessible on foot, cycle, and by public transport; and iii. alternative formats for the proposed uses have been considered.

7) When considered with recently completed developments in the plan period from 2011, outstanding planning permissions and allocations in the catchment area they serve, out-of-centre development proposal(s) should not have an unacceptable impact on: a) existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre(s), in the catchment area of the proposal(s); and b) the vitality and viability of established centres.

8) An impact assessment will be required for: a) retail proposal(s) larger than 350m² in all locations outside Primary Shopping Areas; or b) with exception of offices, main town centre use proposal(s) above 1000m2, where they are outside of the designated Town Centre boundary; or c) office proposal(s) larger than 10,000m2, where they are outside of the designated Town Centre boundary

3.29 Also relevant to the consideration of out-of-centre proposals are the general assessment criteria set out at point 12 of PSP31. This states as follows:

“12) Development proposal(s) for all main town centre uses, including retail, in any location, will be expected to:

i. positively respond to any centre specific health check or locally prepared and endorsed vision (see also CS1 criteria 4); and

ii. be in proportion to the role and function of the location; and

Page | 15

iii. ensure any shopfront(s), sign(s) or advertisement(s), are of a scale, detail, siting and type of illumination appropriate to the character of the host building, wider street scene and avoids harmful effects on amenity of the surrounding area; and

iv. have convenient, safe and attractive access to and from surrounding residential areas for pedestrians and cyclists; and

v. have appropriate provision for parking and servicing; and

vi. not give rise to unacceptable levels of vehicular traffic to the detriment of the amenities of the surrounding area and highway safety; and

vii. where possible and viable include and make positive use of upper floors; and

viii. demonstrate a positive contribution towards the public realm and non-car circulation; and

ix. be well served by public transport.”

3.30 For the purposes of the sequential approach to main town centre uses required by the NPPF and Policy CS14, Paragraph 7.56 of the supporting text to Policy PSP31 confirms that the boundaries and extent of town centres and primary shopping areas are defined on the Policies Map. The extent of the Longwell Green Retail Park is defined is defined on the Policies Map. Policy PSP31 clearly makes provision for how any out-of-centre proposals for main town centre uses should be considered, consistent with Policy CS14 and the NPPF. Indeed, this is reiterated at paragraph 7.61 of the supporting text to PSP31 which states that:

“The identified need for comparison floor space is 34,000m25net by 2026/27. This is based on a retail study, which demonstrates needs arising from within the district 18,000m2 by 2021, and a possible further 16,000m2by 2026/27. However, floorspace needs beyond 2021, have been identified as far less certain. Therefore, a revised retail need figure for the period after 2021 will be established and confirmed as part of the new Local Plan for South Gloucestershire which is scheduled for adoption 2019. This will include the need for sub-regional consideration of retail issues. In the interim, any proposal(s) to meet retail need post 2021 will be considered against the strategy for

5 This is based on the South Gloucestershire study area and does not for example include the wider trade draw associated with the Mall.

Page | 16

retail development and investment for centres, set out within this policy and national policy related to sequential and impact test requirements. The retail study did not assess a strategic need for large scale convenience retail within the district. Proposal(s) for large scale convenience retail outside of Primary Shopping Areas will be subject to the provisions of this policy, sequential and impact tests of the NPPF.”

3.31 Policy PSP31 does not preclude development of main town centre uses in out-of-centre locations. Indeed, if it were to do so, it would be inconsistent with the NPPF. Rather it makes provision for how such proposals should be determined in requiring that they satisfy the sequential and impact tests. It is by requiring that those tests be met in respect of applications for out-of-centre locations that the vitality and viability of existing centres are protected and that new investment is directed into town and district centres. The explanatory text at paragraph 7.61 of the PSPP explains that the sequential and impact tests contained in PSP31 are to be interpreted in a way that is consistent with the NPPF. If those tests are met the application is considered to accord with those parts of Policy PSP31. However, reference to “alternative formats” for a proposed development appears to go beyond the requirement for applicants to demonstrate flexibility as set out in the NPPF and NPPG. Additionally, requiring the impact of recently completed developments in the plan from 2011 exceeds the requirements in the NPPF.

3.32 The policy provides for only 16,000 sq.m. of the proposed 34,000 sq.m. within the CS. However, while the policy is silent in relation to The Mall, the Council is supporting large scale retail expansion at that location. The Main Modifications to the PSP make clear that the 16,000 sq.m. net figure to 2021 will tie in with the new Local plan for South Gloucestershire which is scheduled for adoption in 2019. Proposals meeting the need after 2021 will be considered against the strategy for retail development and investment for centres.

The West of England Joint Spatial Plan

3.33 South Gloucestershire Council is working with the three other West of England unitary authorities (Bath and North-East Somerset Council, Bristol City Council and North Somerset Council) to prepare a Joint Spatial Plan (JSP). The JSP will set out the overall amount of residential and employment development and where it should be located across the West of England sub-region, as well as the infrastructure required to support that growth for the period up to 2036. The JSP is a development plan document (DPD) covering the West of England. However, its future is uncertain after the two Planning

Page | 17

Inspectors appointed to conduct the examination hearings recommended that the plan should be withdrawn. The plan was formally withdrawn in April 2020.

3.34 No weight can be attributed to this plan.

South Gloucestershire Local Plan 2018-2036

3.35 The Council published for consultation purposes a prospectus ‘Looking ahead and planning for our future’ on the proposed scope and programming for the preparation of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan (2018-2036). The consultation period ran from 12th January until 23rd February 2017. It is intended that the new SGLP will be a development plan document (DPD) covering the whole of South Gloucestershire and the plan period will be 2018-2036. It will review, and eventually replace, the above mentioned South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Core Strategy- 2006-2027 (adopted 2013) and the South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Policies, Sites and Places Plan (yet to be adopted). The published programme envisages the publication of an informal Draft (Reg. 18) for consultation in the autumn this year and a Proposed – Submission Draft (Reg. 19) in the autumn of 2018.

Retail Evidence Base

3.36 The South Gloucestershire Retail Study Update and Impact Assessment (December 2011)6, referred to as the Study, provides an update to the South Gloucestershire Town Centres and Retail Study (April 2010). It provides the evidence base for retail policies in the South Gloucestershire Core Strategy and draft Policies, Sites and Places DPD.

3.37 The Study provides revised net retail floorspace requirements to 2026 based on updated population and expenditure forecasts. It is estimated that there is an oversupply of comparison floorspace until after 2016, but then the quantitative need increases to 18,298 sqm net by 2021, increasing further to 34,094 sqm net by 2026. In contrast, there is an estimated oversupply in terms of quantitative need of convenience floorspace until 2026 when there is a limited need of only 292 sqm net.

3.38 The Study provides an indicative comparison floorspace distribution by location until 2026. It proposes a split of floor space of 3,000 sqm net each for Yate/Chipping Sodbury

6

Page | 18

and Emersons Green. In addition, it proposes a split of 3,000 sqm net across the remaining town centres, 3,000 sqm across the district centres and 2,000 sqm at M32/Filton new centre. The study proposes that the remainder (20,000 sqm net) is provided at Cribbs Causeway. This indicative spread of floorspace, which has not been taken forward to the Core Strategy, ‘represented a theoretical breakdown of need in percentage terms and that further detailed analysis needs to be undertaken to establish whether each of these centres can accommodate these requirements for retail floorspace’ 3

3.39 Policy CS14 of the adopted Core Strategy is informed by the South Gloucestershire Town Centres and Retail Study 2009 and the 2011 update. These studies were Based on an extensive telephone survey of catchment area residents to ascertain existing spending patterns across 18 zones, of which 14 were in South Gloucestershire. It was found that zone 5, which includes Cribbs Causeway and The Mall, captures more than 30% of the available £1,141.6m of catchment area resident expenditure, and is a dominant draw for all zones in South Gloucestershire. This results in many vehicular trips across the district, including from the East Fringe areas. Longwell Green (zones 16 and 17) in contrast, only captures a 10.3% share of available resident spend from the South Gloucestershire catchment area. Furthermore, the level of resident comparison expenditure retention in zones 16 and 17 is low at 26.6% (£39.6m out of an available £148.4m), compared to a zone 5 retention level of 67.4%. This indicates that the retail offer at Longwell Green does not meet the range and offer of other retail destinations, adding to more trips from the East Fringe to Cribbs Causeway/The Mall and other retail parks.

3.40 In total, these trends result in a comparison turnover of £343.1m in zone 5 (including £205.6m at Cribbs Causeway and £132.3m at the Mall) compared to only £117.2m at Longwell Green (including the Ads). These figures emphasise the dominance of Cribbs Causeway/The Mall compared to Longwell Green, even in the absence of any approved expansion to The Mall.

Summary

3.41 The NPPF states that it is important that needs for retail, leisure, office and other town centre uses are met in full and are not compromised by limited site availability.

Page | 19

3.42 Although adopted South Gloucestershire Core Strategy Policy CS14 recognises the need to provide 34,000 sqm net of comparison floorspace, the Policies, Sites and Places DPD Policy PSP31 identifies that there is only potential to meet 16,000 sqm net of the requirements in existing and planned centres. Therefore, in its current form the Policies, Sites and Places DPD does not provide space to meet the estimated comparison retail floorspace requirements for the plan period. That said the Council has historically supported significant new comparison goods floorspace at The Mall which is an out of centre location. That scheme following the Secretary of State’s decision in October 2018, will not proceed and the need for additional comparison goods floorspace in South Gloucestershire will not therefore be delivered.

3.43 Although relatively limited housing growth is proposed for the Eastern Fringe the Inspector has encouraged an early review of the Core Strategy as the area represents a significant opportunity for growth. Long term growth is likely to be focused on the eastern fringe, the needs of this new population will need to be met in sustainable and established locations. Development at Longwell Green would help meet these currently unmet needs at an established location which is accessible to where future growth is planned.

3.44 As the Council has accepted in relation to the Council’s support for expansion of The Mall, Policies CS14, RT5 and PSP31 do not preclude development of main town centre uses in out-of-centre locations. Rather they make provision for how such proposals should be determined in requiring that they satisfy the impact test as well as the sequential test. The NPPF explains that such a test should include an assessment of existing, committed or planned public and private expenditure and the effect on town centre vitality and viability:

Page | 20

4.0 SATISFYING THE SEQUENTIAL APPROACH

1. Introduction and the adopted approach

4.1 Paragraph 87 of The Framework requires LPAs to apply the sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in existing centres or in accordance with an up to date development plan. Paragraph 010 of The Guidance7 sets the context for applying the sequential test. It states:

‘It is for the applicant to demonstrate compliance with the sequential test (and failure to undertake a sequential assessment could in itself constitute a reason for refusing permission). Wherever possible, the local planning authority should support the applicant in undertaking the sequential test, including sharing any relevant information. The application of the test should be proportionate and appropriate for the given proposal. Where appropriate, the potential suitability of alternative sites should be discussed between the developer and local planning authority at the earliest opportunity.’

4.2 Paragraph 010 also contains a checklist of considerations for the sequential test. The concluding third bullet at Paragraph 010 is clear: if there are no suitable sites in sequentially preferable locations then the sequential test is passed. Suitable sites must be sites that are available and appropriate for the given proposal. Appropriate sites include available sites that can accommodate the proposal with regard to flexibility being applied to the proposal concerned. The Guidance further advises at Paragraph 011 that use of the sequential test should recognise that certain main town centre uses have particular market and location requirements. Therefore, there is an inherent acceptance that the sequential test needs to have regard to the economic factors that influence locational decisions of businesses.

4.3 In summary, applying the sequential test means:

1. First assessing whether there are any available sites that are suitable in sequentially preferable locations 2. Acknowledging the market and locational requirements of the uses concerned 3. Ensuring the assessment is proportionate and appropriate to the given proposal 4. Being flexible to demonstrate whether more central site have been fully considered

7 Which is being subject to revision.

Page | 21

4.4 In interpreting the need for flexibility8 the Supreme Court in Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 139 (see Appendix [2]), held that where it was held that in defining the term ‘suitable’ reference should be made to the design of the developer’s proposal subject to the demonstration of flexibility and realism. It was held that the issue of suitability must be directed at the developer’s proposals and not to some alternative scheme which might be suggested by the Local Planning Authority. In other words, any assessment must reflect the fact that a retail operator operates in the real world.

4.5 The principles underpinning the suitability of an alternative site was also discussed in the case of R (on the application of Zurich Assurance Ltd T/A Threadneedle Property Investment v North Lincolnshire Council [2012]10. A copy is attached as Appendix [3]. At paragraph 62 of the judgement11 the Court12 held:

“Working in the real world, the committee were entitled (and indeed, bound) to take into account the evidence that any arrangement in which Marks and Spencer used the TJ Hughes unit (the only available unit in Scunthorpe town centre) would not be commercially viable, and that, because of that lack of viability, Marks and Spencer would not locate to Scunthorpe town centre in the event that this Application for the site was refused.”

4.6 These judgments established two principles when interpreting and applying planning policy.

1. Decision makers cannot interpret planning policy in any way they choose, subject only to the limits of rationality. Interpretation of planning policy is a matter of law and policy statements should be interpreted objectively in accordance with the language used, read always in its proper context (Lord Reed, paragraph 18 in Tesco Stores Ltd).

8 The judgment remains relevant since it deals with the concept of flexibility which is retained within NPPF 2018. 9 Although applying to a case in Scotland, Inspectors in England often refer to this judgment in assessing the suitability of alternative sites for retail development. 10 EWHC 3708 (Admin). 11 20th December 2012. 12 Justice Higginbottom.

Page | 22

2. In assessing whether a town centre site was ‘suitable’ this refers to the suitability of sites for the development specifically proposed (paragraph 25 of Tesco Stores Ltd).

4.7 We attach as Appendix [4] an appeal decision in Newport, Shropshire (August 2012) which provides guidance on both sequential and impact test. In respect of the sequential approach the Inspector followed the approach in Dundee in concluding that the suitability of sites should be assessed against the proposed development rather than ‘need’. At paragraph 18 the Inspector stated:

“…even allowing for some flexibility it is difficult to see how either site would be suitable in terms of its configuration and size for the type of foodstore being proposed in the present appeal”.

(Our emphasis)

4.8 The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (‘SoS’) allowed an appeal for an out-of-centre retail proposal that he called in for his determination13. The appeal raised matters similar to those raised in this application and provides the Government’s view on how it expects the sequential test should be applied. Paragraph 24 of The Framework14 which applied at the time, required LPAs to apply the sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in existing centres or in accordance with an up to date development plan. Paragraph 24 advised that applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale15. Unlike its predecessor, Planning Policy Statement 4, there is no requirement within the NPPF for applicants to demonstrate scope for disaggregation. This change in policy was confirmed by the Secretary of State in agreeing with the Inspector’s reasoning in the case at Skew Bridge Ski Slope, Northampton Road, Rushden and is retained within the recent revised version of the NPPF. In this decision the Inspector stated and the Secretary of State agreed that:

“A related submission concerns the difference between national policy as now stated in the NPPF and as previously stated in PPS4. The last sentence of NPPF [24] states that “Applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale”. This contrasts strikingly with what was said previously in PPS4 in Policy EC15.1 at (d) (iv) and 15.2 which contained an explicit requirement for disaggregation. There

13 Appeal Reference APP/G2815/V/12/2190175 14 Now contained within paragraph 87. 15 This is retained within paragraph 87 of the NPPG 2018.

Page | 23

is no longer any such requirement stated in NPPF [24]. These words cannot be read so as to imply that a major, and extremely controversial, part of previously stated national policy lives on by implication in the NPPF. Had the Government intended to retain disaggregation as a requirement it would and should have explicitly stated this in the NPPF. If it had been intended to carry on with the requirement then all that would have been required is the addition of the word “disaggregation” at the end of NPPF [24].”

4.9 The effect of the decision is that the Government’s view on the sequential test is:

1. It relates entirely what is proposed by the application, and whether it can be accommodated on an actual alternative site. 2. The Dundee case is legally binding. 3. The question is whether an alternative site is suitable for the proposed development, not whether a proposal could be altered or reduced to be made to fit the alternative site. 4. The proposal as a whole should be considered and should not be disaggregated. 5. The sequential test is only concerned with sites that are available within a reasonable period of time.

4.10 Therefore, the principal issue is whether there are there any suitable sites in established centres that are available within a reasonable period and can meet the same market and locational requirements to provide floorspace for the scheme as proposed. It is clear from the above Secretary of State and other recent appeal decisions together with the judgment in Aldergate Properties Ltd (Appendix [5]), that with or without named retailers, there is no requirement for the applicant to consider the disaggregation of the individual retail floorspace elements of the scheme. The sequential test relates entirely to the application proposal as a whole; it is not a question of whether a materially reduced or otherwise different scheme can in theory be pursued on other sites. Provided that an element of flexibility is exercised on issues such as format and scale, any potential sequential sites should be considered only in terms of whether they could accommodate the complete application proposal.

4.11 An extension to the Longwell Green retail park is proposed to address capacity constraints of existing centres on the Eastern Fringe. Longwell Green is promoted as the most accessible, suitable and available site on the Eastern Fringe. It therefore represents the most sequentially preferable site to meet identified some of the comparison floorspace requirements over the plan period. This could as necessary be accompanied

Page | 24

by a new hotel within Zone 4, a preference which emerged after discussions with officers after the pre-application advice was received.

1. Applied Methodology

4.12 Our approach to assessing the capacity of the area to take additional retail space is informed by the PPG which highlights that the sequential approach requires a thorough assessment of the suitability, viability and availability of locations for town centre uses. It states that in undertaking sequential assessments local authorities should consider:

• Has the need for main town centre uses been assessed? – the assessment should consider the current situation, recent take-up of land for main town centre uses, forecast future need and the type of land needed for main town centre uses • Can the identified need for main town centre uses be accommodated on town centre sites? • If the additional main town centre uses required cannot be accommodated in town centre sites, what are the next sequentially preferable sites that it can be accommodated on?

4.13 The PPG goes on to state that ‘use of the sequential test should recognise that certain main town centre uses have particular market and locational requirements which mean that they may only be accommodated in specific locations. Furthermore, local planning authorities should recognise that promoting new development on town centre locations can be more expensive and complicated than building elsewhere and that they therefore need to be realistic and flexible in terms of their expectations’. In addition the amount of Class E (retail) space proposed within the application broadly equates to the lawful retail uses within the site. The assessment focuses on the retail space proposed under Option B with the hotel considered to occupy a sustainable location in the East Fringe and which would be focused on meeting business needs.

(b) Area of Search

4.14 Policy PSP31 which was informed by the South Gloucestershire Retail Capacity Study, does not identify specific locations for new floorspace within or adjacent to existing centres and viability assessments on the delivery of schemes have not been undertaken. For example, the Council proposes that 5,000 sqm of comparison floor space should be

Page | 25

provided at Stoke Gifford through the remodelling and extension of Fox Den Road retail offer to provide a new town centre. The location is not considered to be viable for such uses, and the site has not been market tested to prove otherwise.

4.15 We have also been guided in part by the agreed position between the Council and the Applicants in respect of the proposed extension to the Mall (App. No. PT14/4894/O) and Site 20, Merlin Road, Cribbs Causeway (App. No. PT15/5319/O). Both proposals were supported by detailed sequential assessments. In respect of The Mall, an assessment of sites was undertaken based on a maximum of 24,863 sq.m. net of comparison goods floorspace with a catchment which extended beyond the confines of South Gloucestershire. The assessment of alternative sites was based on a plot ratio of 3:1, and the minimum site area required to accommodate this scale of development was estimated to be around 2.2 hectares with no car parking, or around 3.2 hectares with car parking. Adopting 100% site coverage with a three-level development represents a very robust approach.

4.16 In respect of Site 20, two alternative approaches were applied. First based on the entirety of the scheme and secondly based on accommodating just the retail and leisure uses. On this basis, a ‘flexible’ but minimum site area of 3.4ha was assessed.

4.17 Our sequential assessment focusses on the PCA of Longwell Green which in turn falls within the primary catchment area of The Mall and the proposal at Site 20. In other words, these previous schemes should have already assessed the suitability and availability of sites within the PCA of the Longwell Green development based on the parameters set out above. The immediate catchment area for Longwell Green has been determined to include centres, including those on the Eastern Fringe, that have easy access to the Bristol Ring Road (A4174). The PCA of the Longwell Green proposal is defined by Zones 1, 2, 5, 8 and 10 as shown in Appendix [6].

Table 4.1: Primary Catchment area of proposed development

Zone General geographic area 1 Longwell Green 2 Wick, Warmley, North Common 5 Keynsham 8 Hanham 10 Emersons Green/Downend

Page | 26

4.18 Our assessment of alternative sites is based on the following objectives

1. Comprehensive redevelopment of the application site to provide a range of new retail, commercial and employment space. 2. Optimising the retail space to meet the requirements of modern day retailers. 3. Providing modern Class B8 (trade/warehousing) space. 4. Enhancing the quality and character of the area including high quality buildings. 5. Improving access and movement including better integration with adjoining land uses including the two adjoining retail parks. 6. Tailoring the planned floorspace to confirmed retailer and operator interest in the site.

4.19 Site specific characteristics have as to the suitability of sites include:

- The overall size and configuration of sites - Accessibility by a choice of means of transport (which is also covered in the Transport Assessment) - Existing uses - Environmental or other sites constraints - Policy restrictions

4.20 The centres which have been examined include:

South Gloucestershire Centres

• Downend – defined as a town centre in the South Gloucestershire Core Strategy • Emersons Green – defined as a town centre in the South Gloucestershire Core Strategy • Hanham – defined in the South Gloucestershire Core Strategy as a ‘High Street, Shopping and Service Centre’ • Kingswood – defined as a town centre in the South Gloucestershire Core Strategy • Staple Hill – defined as a town centre in the South Gloucestershire Core Strategy

Bath and North-East Somerset Centres

• Keynsham – defined as a town centre in the Bath and North-East Somerset Core

Page | 27

Strategy 4.21 In addition to these centres, there are several Local Centres and Parades in the immediate catchment area including:

• Brislington • Ellacombe Road, Longwell Green • Gilda Parade • Longwell Green Parade, Bath Road • Memorial Road, Hanham • Oldland Common Village • Stockwood.

4.22 These local centres/parades are described in both the South Gloucestershire and Bristol Core Strategies as being important for meeting the needs of residents for everyday convenience goods and basic services with walking distance. As the Longwell Green retail park provides a different retail function to the local centres/parades, and no boundaries have been proposed for these centres, they have not been considered in the sequential sites assessment. Instead we focus purely on the 8-defined town and district centres listed above.

(c) Sequential Capacity Assessment

4.23 This section discusses the performance and capacity of each of the centres and draws upon the existing evidence base, including commissioned retail studies, and has been informed by site visits undertaken by MWA. It also draws upon information agreed between the principal parties in relation to the planned extension to The Mall.

Longwell Green

4.24 Longwell Green was established as a retail destination in 1984 when, the first phase of non- food retail development (80,000 sq.ft. GIA) was delivered. The retail offer at the site was expanded further by phase 2, which added 120,000 sq.ft of non-food retail floorspace. The third phase, which included 91,000 sq.ft. of non-food retail space, opened in 2006. In total, there is now 313,882 sq.ft (29,160 sqm) of retail space at Longwell Green.

Page | 28

4.25 Given the length of time that Longwell Green has been a retail destination, and considering the scale of existing floorspace provision, the location is a very well- established shopping destination that is embedded into the retail infrastructure on the eastern fringe of Bristol. The additional retail floorspace provision that is proposed would not therefore alter established shopping patterns in the area or undermine the vitality and viability of centres.

4.26 The location of the site on the junction of the A431 and A4174, and close to the A4 means that it is easily accessible to residents of the eastern fringes of Bristol, Keynsham and Bath, both by car and 10 local bus services. As is discussed in the following sections, the town and district centres in these areas are constrained and may not be able to accommodate additional comparison retail floorspace to meet the area’s needs without large scale regeneration. The provision of additional retail floor space at Longwell Green will help to increase the numbers of linked shopping trips to the area. Furthermore, it would help to improve the self-sufficiency of the area, by reducing the numbers of cross- city shopping trips to Cribbs Causeway/The Mall, which amount to up to 25% of all trips for zones 1 to 3.

South Gloucestershire Centres

4.27 As discussed in Section 3.0, the most recent Retail Capacity Assessment concluded that across the area there will be a requirement for 34,094 sqm net comparison and 292 sqm net convenience floor space by 2026. The Core Strategy has included this comparison floorspace requirement in policy CS14 of the Core Strategy and the intention is to meet this requirement in centres identified in Draft Policy PSP28 of the Policies, Sites and Places Plan. Policy PSP31 currently only identifies that South Gloucestershire’s centres can accommodate 17,000sqm of the 34,094sqm comparison floorspace requirement. The following centres in proximity to Longwell Green or just on the edge of the PCA, have been assessed for their potential to meet the proposed floorspace in Option B. A summary is set out in Appendix [7].

Bradley Stoke (identified as having capacity for 4,000 sq.m. within draft Policy PSP31)

4.28 This centre lies outside the PCA but has been included for the sake of robustness given that an indicative area of 0.4ha has been identified as being suitable to accommodate

Page | 29

4,000 sq.m. of new retail space. The draft PSP states that the sites lies within the primary shopping area. However, at 0.4ha in extent it is too small to accommodate the proposed development. It also lies outside the PCA for either comparison or convenience goods retailers which may locate under Option B.

4.29 Other sites have been considered as set out in Appendix [7]. These were judged by the Council in respect of App. No. PT15/5319/O, not to be suitable or available.

Downend (identified as having no capacity in draft policy PSP31)

4.30 The most recent South Gloucestershire Council centres survey5 identified that Downend centre has 31 units with an A1 use class, with a total of 3,486 sq.m. of floor space. Approximately 26% of floorspace is used to sell comparison goods, whilst 60% is used for convenience goods. The Co-op acts as the anchor for the centre, which has proved attractive to investors in recent years with stores like Kustom Floors and Cycle Route Downend opening.

4.31 Despite recent investments, both the South Gloucestershire Retail Study Update (PBA) and the Retail Capacity Study 2014 (DPDS) conclude that Downend has a limited comparison offer. Furthermore, in their consideration of growth potential, DPDS conclude that ‘there are no obvious sites for an expansion of the centre even if there were retail demand’.

4.32 We agree with DPDS that there is little or no scope to increase the retail offer in Downend centre as it is constrained by surrounding uses. The centre cannot therefore provide expansion space to help to meet the quantified 34,094 sq.m. net comparison floor space requirement for the area.

Page | 30

Emersons Green (identified as having capacity to deliver 1,000 sqm net in PSP31)

4.33 Emersons Green centre is made up of 21 retail units, totaling 11,543 sqm net. The centre is anchored by a Sainsbury’s foodstore, which is supported by a range of multiples including Boots, Argos, Pets at Home and Lidl. There are no vacancies, indicating that the centre is performing well. This is supported by the findings of this retail assessment, which shows that the centre is overtrading by up to 40%. Policy PSP31 seeks the delivery of 1,000 sq.m. net of additional retail space by intensifying development within the Primary Shopping Area. However, how this will be achieved is not described.

4.34 DPDS, in their assessment of capacity, considered that there was scope for accommodating an additional 2,000 sqm net of comparison floorspace in the centre. They recommend a range of options for achieving this, including extending the centre across the Ring Road onto a site with a lapsed planning permission for a David Lloyd centre on it; redeveloping the open land to the north east of the centre with a skate park on it; and intensifying the existing centre.

4.35 The Council, in the Policies, Sites & Places Plan Town Centre profile for Emersons Green, has ruled out the option of expanding the town centre across the Ring Road due to the degree of severance of the site from the existing centre. Furthermore, the Council has also discounted the option of redeveloping the leisure allocation to the north east of the centre for alternative uses. Therefore, the only remaining option is to intensify the uses within the existing centre.

4.36 MWA consider that that there is some scope for intensifying uses at Emersons Green. However, it is considered that this could only be achieved through either the insertion of mezzanines to existing units, which would represent significant re-modelling and may not be viable, or the significant loss of car parking spaces on site. Therefore, unless expansion across the Ring Road is permitted we are of the view that the provision of 1,000 sqm net is probably more realistic. However, no development has come forward and the large format town centre units are all occupied.

Page | 31

Hanham (identified as having no capacity in Policy PSP31)

4.37 Hanham is small compared to other catchment area centres, with 37 units covering a total of 2,486 sqm of floor space. Of this total, 583 sqm of floor space is currently taken up for the sale of comparison goods, and there are relatively few vacancies. Given the size of the units on offer there are very few multiple retailers in the centre.

4.38 The centre offer will be extended considerably by the proposed development of a 2,918 sqm gross internal floor space Tesco foodstore (Application reference PK12/1619/F) on the adjoining former Kleeneze industrial site. The foodstore will have a net sales floor area of 1,550 sqm, of which just 195 sqm net will be used for the sale of comparison goods.

4.39 As the centre is surrounded by residential units and it is proposed that the remainder of the Kleeneze site will be redeveloped for new employment units, it is not considered that there is any scope for providing additional comparison floorspace in or close to the centre over and above that proposed in the new Tesco foodstore. Furthermore, if the Tesco scheme were not to come forward, DPDS conclude that ‘it is unlikely that the site would become available for comparison goods shopping – residential use would attract higher land values’. DPDS go on to state that ‘in view of the proximity of Longwell Green, the centre’s small size and local function, we consider it unlikely that Hanham could attract any significant comparison goods retail investment and conclude that it would be unrealistic to allocate land for such development in this centre’.

4.40 In Hanham, there is a 3.2ha edge of centre site with planning permission for a Tesco food store. This site is above the minimum site area we have tested and in theory could accommodate the scale of floorspace proposed. A high density (3-storey) development would not be suitable on this site in terms of residential amenity and the character of the area. We understand Tesco is unlikely to implement the food store permission and the site will be sold for residential development. The site is also not available to accommodate the application proposal.

Kingswood (identified as having capacity for 3,000 sq.m. net in Policy PSP31)

4.41 Kingswood is a substantial centre comprising a range of terraced predominantly Victorian units as well as the Kings Chase Shopping Centre, which was developed in the 1970s.

Page | 32

There is a total of 88 units, comprising 10,651 sqm of floor space. Of this total, 41 units (6,180 sqm) are currently used for the sale of comparison goods. Kings Chase Shopping Centre, which has the largest units in the centre, has proved attractive to national multiples including Sainsbury’s, Wilkinson and Boots. There are relatively few vacant stores in the primary shopping area, although some of the secondary areas have more vacant units and suffer from a poor public realm.

4.42 There was a previously extant permission (PK11/1951/F) for the redevelopment of part of the Kings Chase Shopping Centre to provide 2,108 sqm of new retail floorspace and apartments.

4.43 In Kingswood, the PSP DPD Policies Map (June 2017) identifies an area of around 2.3ha for retail development, which is above the minimum site area we have tested (2.2ha). This site is in active use and is not available for development. It the site could be assembled it would involve the redevelopment of the Kings Chase shopping centre, the Sainsbury’s store and car park. The acquisition costs are likely to be prohibitive.

4.44 The PSP DPD assumes that the Kingswood site could only accommodate up to an additional 3,000 sq.m net of comparison goods floorspace, and the redevelopment of this area would not achieve a significant uplift in retail floorspace. This site is too small to accommodate the application proposal because, considering existing retail floorspace on the site, the site is not large enough to achieve the uplift in floorspace proposed at Emersons Green. Planning permission (PK11/1951/F) for the redevelopment of part of the Kings Chase Shopping Centre to provide 2,108 sqm of new retail floorspace and apartments, has expired. Beyond the proposal under Option B, we consider that there is no scope for providing additional comparison retail space unless a similar largescale redevelopment of existing retail space is pursued.

4.45 A more recent application approved on 1st December 2017 involves the demolition of the existing multi-storey car park to facilitate the erection of a three-storey extension to the Kings Chase Shopping Centre, comprising 1,425 sq.m of leisure (Class D2, gym), 984 sq.m of flexible uses (Class A1, A2, A3, B1 and D1), 1,849 sq.m. gross of A1 space and replacement multi storey car park (App. No. PK17/2550/F). The scheme proposes a range of small scale retail uses the largest being 469 sq.m. gross. The retail and leisure space is proposed over lower ground, ground and first floor levels. The 9 Class A1 units range from 120-469 sq.m. gross and the planning permission suggests that the site is

Page | 33

not available to accommodate the proposed development at Longwell Green. It is too small and is focused on the provision of a maximum of 1,849 sq.m. of Class A1 space with the largest unit extending to 469 sq.m. gross. There is no indication that this scheme has progressed or will progress. The Lidl at Hall Road on the edge of the town centre, has also removed any scope to expand the core towards the west.

Staple Hill (identified as having no capacity in Policy PSP31)

4.46 Staple Hill centre has a total of 82 units, providing 6,949 sqm of retail floor space. Of this total, approximately 50% of floorspace is used for the sale of comparison goods. There are relatively few vacant units. There is a notable absence of multiples apart from an Iceland, Tesco Metro and The Original Factory Shop. The shortage of larger units and car parking provision could be one of the reasons behind this.

4.47 In their assessment of capacity, DPDS concluded in paragraph 2.9.3 of their report that the scope for expansion ‘is mainly limited to conversions and the re-use of existing underused floorspace’. They go on to highlight that ‘former units in Soundwell Road and Victoria Street could be brought back into use’. In addition, DPDS stated that, whilst there are larger premises towards the edge of the centre that might come forward during the Plan period, these are unlikely to be viable for pure retail development.

Bath and North-East Somerset Centres

4.48 Keynsham is the only town centre within the defined catchment area for Longwell Green that lies within Bath and North-East Somerset (BANES). There is no quantified retail floorspace requirement for either the area or Keynsham itself set out in the BANES Core Strategy (adopted July 2014). However, Policy KE2 sets out the regeneration objectives for the town, including providing some larger retail units in the town centre.

4.49 The town centre has a good range of comparison and convenience shops, most of which are independents. The offer will soon be bolstered by the opening of the redeveloped Town Hall site, which will include some retail space, as well as a library and office space.

4.50 The Cadbury’s Somerdale site, located to the north of the town centre across the A4, is also identified in Core Strategy Policy KE2 for a high quality mixed-use quarter ‘providing significant employment floorspace, new homes, leisure, open space, sport and

Page | 34

recreational uses’.

4.51 The Keynsham Town Centre Economic Regeneration Plan identifies that the western side of the High Street has the potential to be comprehensively redeveloped to provide larger units, potentially delivering approximately 4,500 sqm of additional retail floorspace. Based on the BANES Place Making Plan Launch Document the Ashton Way Car Park site (SK3) could provide additional space to the rear of the High Street to accommodate this quantum of space. In addition, the Plan identifies that there is scope to redevelop the Riverside/Fire Station site (SK4) to provide up to 3,000 sqm of residential accommodation, 3,000 sqm of office space and the retention of leisure and retail space facilities. MWA consider that both of these schemes would be expensive to deliver and, if they can be delivered, will most likely come forward at the back end of the Plan period or beyond.

4.52 In total, therefore, it is difficult to assess how much retail space could be accommodated in Keynsham town centre as retail will likely be delivered as part of comprehensive mixed -use regeneration schemes. However, based on the high-level assessments undertaken by BANES Council, it is apparent that there is potential to deliver up to 4,500 sqm of retail space as part of the regeneration of the western side of the centre and potentially some additional space, if viable, within the redevelopment of the Riverside/Fire Station site. It is important to note however that the delivery of additional floor space in Keynsham town centre would not contribute towards South Gloucestershire’s quantified comparison floorspace requirements, including the need for floorspace on the Eastern Fringe of Bristol.

4.53 BANES has secured £1.5m towards town centre enhancements which will be focused on the High Street but this does not involve the construction of any new space. Rather, it is targeted on improving signage, and enhanced cycling and bus stop facilities.

Summary

4.54 Local Plan defined town and district centres within the immediate catchment for Longwell Green have been appraised for their potential to provide additional retail floorspace to meet projected requirements. It has been concluded that there is very limited scope to take additional floorspace in and around existing centres without comprehensive regeneration. Furthermore, even if there are opportunities the market may not consider

Page | 35

the delivery of such schemes viable.

4.55 Within South Gloucestershire there is a 34,094 sqm net comparison floor space requirement to the end of the Plan period (2026). It is likely that a proportion of this requirement will be met at Cribbs Causeway/The Mall, which performs a materially different retail role in the retail hierarchy to Longwell Green. Within the immediate catchment for Longwell Green only Emersons Green is considered to offer potential for meeting any of this projected requirement, albeit a relatively modest level of floorspace. The remaining centres, namely Downend, Hanham, Kingswood and Staple Hill, offer little or no room for expansion and it is considered that retail floorspace in these centres may more likely contract rather than expand over the plan period through changes of use in secondary shopping areas as existing unit sizes are unattractive to modern retailers. Unless considerably more comparison floorspace is allocated on the eastern fringe of Bristol there will be a significant shortfall in floorspace to meet resident needs and cross city shopping trips to Cribbs Causeway/The Mall will increase further.

Table 4.1 MWA assessment of capacity of centres in Longwell Green immediate catchment

Capacity for growth Centre Comment (sqm) Downend 0 No room for expansion due to surrounding uses Emersons Green 1,000 Potential room for expansion on fringes of car park No room for expansion due to surrounding Hanham 0 uses/commitments The application for redeveloping Kings Chase within the town centre involves large scale regeneration. However, Kingswood 1,500-2,000 it will provide only limited additional retail space and not all of this will be within comparison goods. Staple Hill 0 No room for expansion due to surrounding uses

4.56 Given the capacity constraints of the town and district centres on the eastern fringe of Bristol it is considered that the proposed extension of Longwell Green represents the most suitable and sustainable option for meeting South Gloucestershire’s significant quantified comparison retail floorspace requirement. It is an established retail destination, it is highly accessible, and would help to meet the retail needs of residents on the Eastern fringes of Bristol.

Page | 36

5.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT

(i) Introduction

5.1 Paragraphs 2b-016 of the NPPG provides advice on the assessment of the effect on planned investment. Confirmation of how the retail impact test should be used in decision taking is set out in paragraphs 16 of the ‘Ensuring the Vitality of Town Centres’ section. The guidance states that the impact test should be undertaken in a proportionate and locally appropriate way, drawing on existing information where possible. In this regard it is only within Zone 1 under Option B, that any Class E(a) i.e. retail space is proposed at a level commensurate with the current retail space the site.

5.2 Paragraph 17 notes that as a guiding principle impact should be assessed on a like-for- like basis in respect of that particular sector. Retail uses tend to compete with their most comparable competitive facilities. It also notes that where wider town centre developments or investments are in progress, it will be appropriate to assess the impact of relevant applications on that investment. Key considerations are identified as including:

• The policy status of the investment (i.e. whether it is outlined in the Development Plan). • The progress made towards securing the investment (for example if contracts are established). • The extent to which an application is likely to undermine planned development or investments based on the effect on current/forecast turnovers, operator demand and investor confidence.

5.3 Paragraph 2b 017-018 of the NPPG prescribe a step by step approach to assessing and measuring impacts arising from a proposed retail development.

5.4 When assessing the potential trading effects, it is important to note that the NPPF (paragraph 90) advises that permission should be denied only where there is a ‘significant adverse impact on one of more of the considerations set out in paragraph 89 i.e.

a) The impact of a proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of a proposal; and b) The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and the wider retail catchment.

Page | 37

5.5 In assessing whether a scheme is likely to have a significant adverse effect it is necessary for such a decision, to be based on evidence. In relation to an appeal in Derby (APP/C1055/A/11/2161815), the Inspector at paragraph 116 of the DL opined that:

“To justify an objection to the proposal it is not sufficient to simply suggest that there will be an impact. There is no persuasive evidence of such a significant impact that would be likely to undermine the vitality and viability of the city centre trade/turnover and trade in the wider area, arising from the appeal proposal.”

5.6 In relation to impact on planned investment, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (‘SoS’) allowed an appeal for an out-of-centre retail proposal that he called in for his determination16. Paragraph 8.60 of the Inspector’s report stated:

“NPPF [26] requires an assessment of the impact (if any) of the proposal on ‘existing, committed and planned public and private sector investment’ in a centre. That requirement is quite straightforward, only investment that has been made, and been committed or is planned warrants considerations. There appears to be general agreement that ‘existing’ investment is to be taken as a reference to investment that has already been made and that ‘committed’ investment is that which is contractually committed (private) or subject to resolution (public)’.

5.7 In terms of the town’s vitality and viability we set out below the steps we have undertaken to provide an indication of the likely trading effects.

(ii) Methodology: Comparison Goods

5.8 The quantitative approach to assessing trade impact uses a well-established step by step approach and is consistent with the practice guidance. This is a simple approach that involves a six-step process for comparison trade impact, as follows:

1. Stage 1: Identification of study area and scope for new development 2. Stage 2: Household survey of shopping patterns 3. Stage 3: Turnover of existing retail floorspace in catchment area 4. Stage 4: Turnover of proposed floorspace 5. Stage 5: Calculation of impact.

16 Appeal Reference APP/G2815/V/12/2190175

Page | 38

Stage 1 – Study Area

5.9 We expect the study area for the trade draw to the site to be concentrated on sections of south and east Bristol and taking in more rural areas to the south and east. This area has been determined based on analysis of shopping patterns derived from household surveys undertaken to inform retail capacity assessments for South Gloucestershire, BANES and Bristol, drive times and the location of competing retail parks like Cribbs Causeway/The Mall. The area was split up into 10 zones for surveying purposes.

Population

5.10 The population for these study area zones is derived from Experian (2016), which utilises ONS projections. The catchment area in 2016 has a total of 461,195 residents. The total population is forecast to grow to 479,835 in 2021 and 498,474 in 2026. Relevant tables are set out in Appendix [8].

Expenditure

5.11 The comparison retail expenditure per head for the study area and its zones is also derived from Experian. The total spend per head is grown from 2016 to 2021 and then to 2026. In total, the available comparison expenditure across the study area is forecast to grow from £1,374m in 2016 to £1,562m in 2021 increasing to £1,848m in 2026.

5.12 It should be noted that these figures exclude expenditure on Special Forms of Trading (SFT). SFT largely comprises spend on online purchases and is forecast to grow from capturing 13.2% of total comparison expenditure in 2016 to 15.6% in 2021 and 16.1% in 2026. These are excluded from the figures in paragraph 5.6

Design year

5.13 A design year of 2021 has been set consistent with other retail assessments associated with The Mall and Site 20 used 2021 for testing impact on a ‘worse case’ basis. However, in reality the retail units are unlikely to reach a settled trading pattern until 2026.

Page | 39

Stage 2 – Household Survey

5.14 A household survey of approximately 1,000 households across the study area was undertaken by NEMs Market Research in July and August 2014. While this is of some age, it still represents the most up to date information for this part of South Gloucestershire. In summary, the approach was as follows:

1. Questions were asked on comparison (non-food) shopping habits 2. Weightings were applied to answers to achieve a composite market share for spending on comparison goods.

5.15 The potential impact on comparison goods is based on the survey information contained within this questionnaire. However, it did not include any questions relating to food/convenience goods shopping patterns. While at present it seems unlikely that there will be any demand from food/grocery stores for space within the development under Option B, we have nonetheless provided an indication of the potential impact assuming that all the space was devoted to food/convenience goods.

Stage 3 – Turnover of Existing Retail Floorspace

5.16 The market share outputs of the household survey are converted to a monetary value in 2016 by applying catchment area resident expenditure6 (derived from Experian) to the percentage market shares. This exercise enables an understanding of where residents of the study area are spending their money in 2016. This was then extrapolated to 2021 and 2026. Tables 4, 5A and 5B provide information on comparison goods expenditure flows.

5.17 The results of the survey show that Longwell Retail Park captures 30.5% of zone 1 resident spend on comparison goods and attracts large proportions of spend from residents of zones 2 (25.3%), 5 (23.9%) and 8 (23.9%). At the same time Longwell Green Retail Park receives relatively little trade from residents of zones 9, who favour Bristol City Centre and Imperial Retail Park, and zone 4, who favour Bath City Centre.

5.18 In monetary terms, Longwell Green Retail Park captures £123.2m of turnover from the

Page | 40

study area, particularly from zones 8 (£33.4m), 10 (£31.0m), 5 (£16.3m), 1 (£15.6m) and 2 (£14.6m). The ASDA at Craven Way, which is also in zone 1, attracts £8.5m in comparison spend from the study area, particularly from residents of zones 8 (£3.6m) and 1 (£3.4m).

5.19 In terms of immediate catchment area town and district centres, Emerson’s Green derives the largest turnover from the study area (£6.15m), followed by Keynsham (£14.7m), Kingswood (£14.0m), Whitchurch (£12.0m), Downend (£6.7m) and Hanham (£3.8m).

5.20 The influence of Cribbs Causeway/The Mall is clear. Even though it lies outside the study area and has a significantly wider catchment area than Longwell Green, it still draws £148.1m from the study area. This is mainly drawn from zone 10 (£74.6m), as well as other Bristol based zones. Yate to the north draws approximately £10.9m and Bath City Centre £112.7m

Stage 4 – Turnover of Proposed Floorspace

5.21 The indicative site layout indicates a total maximum retail space of 3,685 sq.m. GIA. We have assumed a net sales area of 2,948 sq.m. (80%) for comparison goods. However, assuming that all the space was used for convenience goods, we have assumed that potentially 2,200 sq.m. net would be used for retail trading (60%)

5.22 In terms of convenience goods turnover we have applied a generic sales density of £10,000 sq.m. This would generate a turnover of £22m.

5.23 For the comparison goods we have assumed as a worst case that the space will trade at the UK average for all comparison goods retail space of £5,304 sq.m. in 2021. This would generate a maximum non-food turnover of £15.64m.

5.24 Thus the total comparison goods design year turnover is estimated at £15.64m.

Stage 5: Assessment of impact – Comparison Goods

5.25 The estimated comparison goods impact of the proposal in the design year (2021) is set out in Table 7 (in Appendix [8]). This identifies the 2021 turnover levels for the existing

Page | 41

stores, centres and retail parks across the study area calculated by ‘rolling forward’ current market shares to available expenditure. An allowance is also made for inflow of expenditure to Bristol and Bath City Centres, Cribbs Causeway and edge of study area centres. The turnover for each of these locations is derived from the South Gloucestershire Retail Study Update 2011.These may differ slightly from those used in the Joint Retail Assessment undertaken as part of the examination of the planned extension to the Mall. However, as we comment below the comparison goods turnover of centres used in that assessment are on the whole greater than those used in our assessment.

5.26 The impact assessment is based on weightings that are applied to each zone and to different types of shopping location. The zone by zone weightings are based on the existing market shares that are captured by Longwell Green.

5.27 Regarding the shopping location weightings, the bulk of the proposal’s turnover is anticipated to be diverted from Longwell Green (Gallagher/Longwell Green Retail Parks) and other retail parks. This is in accordance with the PPG, which notes ‘as a guiding principle impact should be assessed on a like-for-like basis in respect of that particular sector’ and that ‘retail uses tend to compete with their most comparable competitive facilities’. Lesser weightings are attributed to the city centres, and then town and district centres, because their comparison retail offers differ more from out-of-town retail operations. The smaller weightings attributed to town and district centres are justified by the fact that the comparison offer of such centres is different to the types of retailer that will be attracted to the proposed development. In addition, the shopping patterns in the study area, which includes a range of retail parks, are well established and are not likely to alter due to expansion at Longwell Green.

5.28 It should be noted that a separate weighting has been applied to Emersons Green as, although it is classified in the South Gloucestershire Core Strategy as a town centre, its retail offer and function are like that of a retail park.

Comparison Goods Impact Assessment

5.29 The impact assessment at Table 9, and Table 5.2, shows that the largest impact will be on Longwell Green (Gallagher and Longwell Green Retail Parks) itself at 4.1%. It should

Page | 42

be noted that despite this, the turnover of the stores in the existing Longwell Green retail allocation will still experience a net rise between 2016 and 2021 when the proposal is built and operational. Generally, the impacts on town centres are below 2%. Like Gallagher/ Longwell Green Retail Parks, all of these will still experience growth in turnover over the five-year period despite the opening of new retail space at the site. Emersons Green District Centre is predicted to experience an impact of under 2.6% and trade in excess of £12m higher in 2021 compared with 2016.

5.30 Unlike retail parks and out-of-town supermarkets, city, town and district centres are afforded policy protection by the Local Plans and the NPPF. The estimated impacts on Bristol and Bath city centres are minimal and will not have a significant effect on vitality and viability. While Keynsham town centre could experience an impact of 1.0%, it should be noted that the turnover of the centre will still grow by £4.1m between 2014 and 2021 and therefore the effect will also be minimal. The nearest centres to Longwell Green, Hanham (1.6%) and Kingswood (1.8%), will also experience minimal impact from the opening of the proposed scheme at Longwell Green, whilst impact on Staple Hill (0.2%) is considered negligible.

5.31 Emersons Green centre is healthy and was shown to be overtrading considerably against benchmark sales performance in the South Gloucestershire Town Centres and Retail Study8, it is considered that a small impact would have little effect on the ongoing vitality and viability of the centre.

Table 5.2 Summary of Comparison Goods Impacts on selected centres

Impact at 2021 Centre %

Longwell Green Retail Park -4.08% Keynsham -1.00% Hanham -1.62% Kingswood -1.75% Downend -0.06% Emersons Green -2.56% Staple Hill -0.21% Bristol City Centre -0.80% Bath City Centre -1.12% Cribbs Causeway/The Mall -0.80%

Page | 43

5.32 To assess the likely impact on the health of existing centres and whether it would deter or inhibit public or private sector investment, we set out as Appendix [9], a series of ‘Health Check’s based on information submitted in support of the extension to The Mall (Appendix [10]).

Convenience Goods Impact Assessment

5.33 Appendix [11], summarises the impact of associated with the provision of convenience goods retailing within Zone 1 under Option B. This assumes that the entire space is used for food retailing.

5.34 The catchment area is predicted to be more restricted compared to the trade draw associated with a wholly comparison goods development reflecting in part the proximity of large food stores such as Asda and Sainsbury’s the latter within Emersons Green Town Centre.

5.34 South Gloucestershire Council commissioned Roger Tym and Partners to prepare a ‘Retail Study Update and Impact Assessment’ (December 2011). While this was primarily aimed at examining the potential implications for expanding the Mall at Cribbs Causeway, it did provide updated information on convenience goods shopping patterns. While of some age, it remains part of the Council’s evidence base and we have used information within this study to assess the anticipated trade draw should the floorspace be wholly occupied for convenience goods retailing.

Stage 1: Design and price years

5.35 The Design Year is 2021. All prices are at a 2008 base.

Stage 2: Population and expenditure

5.36 Table 1 at Appendix [11] sets out the convenience goods expenditure by zone. Table 2 provides the per capita convenience goods expenditure with Table 3 providing the total in 2011.

Page | 44

Stage 3: Turnover of existing floorspace

5.37 Table 4 provides convenience goods spending patterns in 2011 based on market share while Table 5 provides the monetary values per centre/store.

5.38 Table 5 provides the predicted turnover in 2021 focused on the primary catchment of the proposal which is located within Zone 17 (Longwell Green) but close to Zone 16 (Hanham) and Zone 18 (Hanham). Trade is also likely to be drawn from Zones 7 (Emersons Green), Zone 8 (Boyd Valley), Zone 13 (Staple Hill), Zone 14 (Hillfield), Zone 15 (Kingswood). Collectively these zones define the primary (Zones 7, 15-18) and secondary catchment areas for the proposal. The table also includes the Aldi store at Bath Road, Longwell Green together with Lidl store on the Gallagher Retail Park.

Stage 4: Trade draw

5.39 Table 6 sets out the trade draw by zones within the PCA. The assessment predicts that the majority of the trade will be derived from the two nearest food stores: Asda at Craven Way and Lidl under construction at Aldermoor Lane17. The Asda store in particular is predicted to be trading extremely well and attracts customers from throughout the east fringe and beyond. Similarly, the Sainsbury’s store within Emersons Green Town Centre trades very well and in excess of company levels.

5.40 The Aldi at Bath Road is predicted to lose approximately £0.44m equating to an impact of 8.6%. The Sainsbury’s store in Kingswood Town Centre is predicted to experience an impact of 5.2% (£0/66m) and the edge of centre Lidl 10% (£0.44m). Similarly, the Sainsbury’s at Emersons Green is predicted to experience a diversion of £4.62m.

5.41 The principal impacts are summarized in Table 5.3.

17 On the former Homebase.

Page | 45

Table 5.3: Primary convenience goods impacts 2021 (£ms)

Centre/store Trade diversion Impact (2021) £ms %

Emersons Green Town Centre 5.06 7.2 Kingswood Town Centre 1.10 4.5 Hanham Town Centre 0.44 4.5 Asda, Craven Way 7.70 9.4 Lidl, Aldermoor Lane 0.33 8.3 Aldi, Bath Road 0.44 8.6

5.42 The quantum of convenience goods floorspace proposed will compete on a like with like basis i.e. primarily against larger, food stores and superstores. The two main stores within the PCA, Sainsbury’s at Emersons Green and Asda at Longwell Green, are popular and well supported. Both trade well in excess of company average turnovers levels and are more than capable of withstanding the likely impact.

5.43 Overall, we do not identify any significant adverse effects on any town centre in terms of their vitality and viability or any risk to future public or private sector investment. Summary

5.44 An impact assessment of a ‘maximum’ floorspace comparison retail scheme being developed at the site has been undertaken. This has been informed by a survey of 1,000 households from across a defined study area.

5.45 The assessment demonstrates that the impacts will be spread across the whole area, with the main impact being on existing retailers at Longwell Green, as well as other out- of-centre retail parks and supermarkets.

5.46 Of the centres, Emersons Green is forecast experience the largest impact. This however, is considered to have minimal effect on on-going vitality and viability of the centre as it is shown to be significantly over trading by the South Gloucestershire Town Centres and Retail Study. Similarly, the impacts for each of the remaining study area centres are

Page | 46

perceived to be negligible to minimal and will not undermine centre vitality and viability. All centres without exception would experience significant, double digit increases in their comparison goods turnover between 2016 and 2026 as accepted by the Council in relation to its consideration of the planned extension to The Mall.

5.47 In the unlikely event that the floorspace is occupied entirely by convenience goods retailers, the bulk of the impact on a like for like basis would fall upon out of centre stores closest to the site: Asda and Lidl. While the Sainsbury’s at Emersons Green would be impacted this store is trading well and there is no risk of closure. Similarly the Aldi at Bath Road would not be at any risk of closure .

Page | 47

6.0 CONCLUSIONS

6.1 This Retail Assessment has assessed the implications of providing under Option B additional retail space at Longwell Green against the NPPF, the PPG and other relevant development plan policies. The assessment has considered the sequential merits of the site and its likely impact.

The Proposal

6.2 The site being promoted comprises Kingswood Industrial Estate and the Saville’s Freights Limited premises at Longwell Green.

6.3 The site is approximately 4.2 ha in total and is accessed via Aldermoor Way. Existing uses on the site include a range of Class E, B2 and B8 uses.

6.4 Given the length of time that Longwell Green has been a retail destination, and considering the scale of existing floorspace provision, the location is a very well- established shopping destination that is embedded into the retail infrastructure on the Eastern fringe of Bristol. The additional retail floorspace provision that is proposed under Option B would not therefore alter established shopping patterns in the area or undermine the vitality and viability of centres.

6.5 The location of the site on the junction of the A431 and A4174, and close to the A4 means that it is easily accessible to residents of the eastern fringes of Bristol, Keynsham and Bath, both by car and 10 local bus services.

Background

6.6 South Gloucestershire Council originally proposed, in the Gloucestershire Core Strategy Incorporating Post Submission Changes (December 2010), that 17,000 sqm of its 34,094 sqm comparison floorspace requirement should be met by the expansion of The Mall. However, following concerns about compliance with the NPPF raised by the Inspector, Policy CS14 of the adopted Core Strategy did not identify any floorspace being delivered at Cribbs Causeway/The Mall.

6.7 The NPPF advises that Councils should allocate a range of suitable sites to ensure that

Page | 48

the need for town centre uses are met in full.

6.8 The wider needs of potential growth on the Eastern Fringe, as envisaged by the Inspector at the Core Strategy Examination, is a material consideration. The proposal provides the opportunity to meet this growth by ensuring that sites are made deliverable to meet all the needs. The extension to an established retail destination at Longwell Green represents such an opportunity and this will also deliver other employment generating development.

Capacity of centres

6.9 MWA based on the work initially undertaken by PBA and having regard to more recent information, has undertaken a comprehensive review of centres in the immediate catchment area of Longwell Green to assess their ability to accommodate the identified 34,094 sq.m. net comparison floorspace requirement for South Gloucestershire to 2026. It has been found that the centres on the Eastern fringe of Bristol are very constrained and only Emersons Green has the capacity to accommodate additional floorspace.

Impact Assessment

6.10 In terms of retail impact, as is expected it is inevitable that there will be some impact because of the proposal. However, it has been clearly demonstrated that most of impact will be in relation to ‘like for like’ retail parks and out-of-centre supermarkets, which are not afforded policy protection in either the South Gloucestershire Core Strategy or the NPPF. This applies to whether the floorspace is occupied primarily for comparison goods or convenience goods retailing.

6.11 The greatest scrutiny has been given to the catchment area town and district centres of Hanham, Kingswood, Staple Hill, Emersons Green, Downend, and Keynsham. There is an expected trade draw from these centres and a consequent impact. However, the impact assessments that have been undertaken demonstrate that the effects will be minimal and will not undermine centre vitality and viability. Indeed, the centre that is estimated to experience the greatest impact, namely Emersons Green (2%) has been shown in the South Gloucestershire Town Centres and Retail Study to be considerably overtrading and will therefore experience a negligible effect.

Page | 49

Summary

6.12 In summary, it has been demonstrated that there are very few sites in and around existing centres that could help meet South Gloucestershire’s demonstrated comparison retail floorspace requirement. The extension of the Longwell Green retail allocation boundary to include the site would help the Council to comply with the NPPF, with regard to meeting needs, and this retail assessment has demonstrated that it would not have any significant adverse impacts on the vitality or viability of catchment area centres. An allocation here would also help meet the long-term needs of growth on the Eastern Fringe.

6.13 The site occupies an accessible and sustainable location and the development would have positive impacts in terms of consumer choice, economic development and job creation. Furthermore, the provision of additional retail floorspace at Longwell Green would provide for local resident shopping requirements, thereby reducing their need to travel across Bristol to Cribbs Causeway/The Mall.

6.14 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the NPPF. state that the starting point for the determination of this planning application is the Development Plan. Insofar as the dominant component of the application is concerned i.e. the proposed additional main town centre uses, the development plan is neither absent nor silent, and nor are the relevant policies, in particular CS14 and PSP31, out-of-date. In these circumstances,

6.15 The presumption in favour of sustainable development, is the correct approach to the determination of this application is that which is set out in the first bullet point of paragraph 11 of the NPPF i.e. “approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay.”

6.16 Policies CS14 and PSP31 seek to direct new investment in main town centre uses into existing defined centres. However, they do not preclude development of main town centre uses in out-of-centre locations such as the application site. Rather, they make provision for how such proposals should be determined in requiring that they satisfy the sequential and impact tests prescribed in the NPPF. It is by requiring that those tests be met in respect of applications for out-of-centre locations that the vitality and viability of existing centres are protected, and that new investment is directed into existing centres.

Page | 50

6.17 We conclude as follows:

The ‘Sequential Test’ is passed and the proposal would thereby be in accordance with SGLPCS Policy CS14 and PSPP Policy PSP31.

The ‘Impact Test’ is passed and the proposal would thereby be in accordance with SGLPCS Policy CS14, SGLP Policy RT5, and PSPP Policy PSP31.

6.19 The proposal represents a sustainable form of development which is consistent with the retail strategy for the area and will deliver strong economic growth, an improvement in choice and improved retention of locally generated expenditure.

Page | 51