Submission Document 13.0
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016 Liverpool City Council
September 2016
Prepared by
GL Hearn Limited Vantage Point Hardman Street Spinningfields Manchester M3 3HF
T +44 (0)161 829 7800 glhearn.com Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
Contents
Section Page
1 INTRODUCTION 6
2 RETAIL AND LEISURE TRENDS 8
3 NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY 16
4 OVERVIEW OF LIVERPOOL CENTRES 20
5 EXISTING SHOPPING AND LEISURE PATTERNS 35
6 THE NEED FOR RETAIL FACILITIES 41
7 INTERPRETING THE RETAIL NEED ANALYSIS 57
8 THE NEED FOR COMMERCIAL LEISURE USERS 70
9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 78
List of Figures
FIGURE 1: TOTAL RETAIL SALES VOLUME GROWTH 9
FIGURE 2: TOTAL FLOORSPACE IN DISTRICT CENTRES 23
FIGURE 3: A1 CONVENIENCE RETAIL FLOORSPACE IN DISTRICT CENTRES 23
FIGURE 4: COMPARISON FLOORSPACE IN DISTRICT CENTRES 24
FIGURE 5: DISTRICT CENTRES A1 CONVENIENCE AND COMPARISON FLOORSPACE 24
FIGURE 6: A3-A4-A5 FLOORSPACE IN DISTRICT CENTRES 25
FIGURE 7: OCCUPIED DISTRICT CENTRE FLOORSPACE BY USE CLASS 26
FIGURE 8: DISTRICT CENTRE VACANT FLOORSPACE WITH GB AVERAGE SHOWN. 27
FIGURE 9: TOTAL FLOORSPACE IN LOCAL CENTRES 28
FIGURE 10: CONVENIENCE FLOORSPACE IN LOCAL CENTRES 29
FIGURE 11: COMPARISON FLOORSPACE IN LOCAL CENTRES 29
FIGURE 12: LOCAL CENTRES CONVENIENCE AND COMPARISON FLOORSPACE 30
FIGURE 13: LOCAL CENTRES A3, A4, A5 FLOORSPACE 30
FIGURE 14: OCCUPIED LOCAL CENTRE FLOORSPACE BY USE CLASS 32
GL Hearn Page 2 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
FIGURE 15: LOCAL CENTRE VACANT FLOORSPACE WITH GB AVERAGE SHOWN. 32
FIGURE 16: STUDY AREA MAP 43
List of Tables
TABLE 1: AVERAGE UNIT SIZE IN THE DISTRICT CENTRES 25
TABLE 2: AVERAGE UNIT SIZES IN THE LOCAL CENTRES 31
TABLE 3: MAIN FOOD SHOPPING PATTERNS 2011 AND 2015 37
TABLE 4: AVERAGE MAIN FOOD SPEND 2011 AND 2015 37
TABLE 5: TOP UP SHOPPING FREQUENCY 2011 AND 2015 38
TABLE 6: LEISURE PARTICIPATION RATES 2011 AND 2015 39
TABLE 7: CAPACITY PRE AND POST COMMITMENTS 48
TABLE 8: LIVERPOOL CONVENIENCE PROVISION – MARKET SHARES BY ZONE 48
TABLE 9: CITY CENTRE CAPACITY PRE AND POST COMMITMENTS 49
TABLE 10: CENTRAL ZONE CAPACITY PRE AND POST COMMITMENTS 50
TABLE 11: SOUTH ZONE CAPACITY PRE AND POST COMMITMENTS 51
TABLE 12: NORTH ZONE CAPACITY PRE AND POST COMMITMENTS 51
TABLE 13: LIVERPOOL COMPARISON PROVISION – MARKET SHARES BY ZONE 53
TABLE 14: CITY ZONE CAPACITY 53
TABLE 15: CENTRAL ZONE CAPACITY 54
TABLE 16: SOUTH ZONE CAPACITY 54
TABLE 17: NORTH ZONE CAPACITY 55
TABLE 18: CONVENIENCE UNDERTRADING IN CENTRES AND STORES (£M) 58
TABLE 19: COMPARISON UNDERTRADING IN CENTRES AND RETAIL PARKS (£M) 59
TABLE 20: CONVENIENCE OVERTRADING IN CENTRES AND STORES (£M) 60
TABLE 21: COMPARISON OVERTRADING TRADING IN CENTRES (£M) 61
TABLE 22: LIVERPOOL CONVENIENCE PROVISION – MARKET SHARES BY ZONE 62
TABLE 23: CITY CENTRE MARKET SHARE ADJUSTMENT IN 2033 63
GL Hearn Page 3 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
TABLE 24: NORTHERN MARKET SHARE ADJUSTMENT IN 2033 64
TABLE 25: LIVERPOOL COMPARISON PROVISION – MARKET SHARES BY ZONE 66
TABLE 26: NEW MERSEY TRADE DRAW 66
TABLE 27: NORTHERN MARKET SHARE ADJUSTMENT IN 2033 67
TABLE 28: LEISURE PARTICIPATION RATES 2015 70
TABLE 29: CINEMA POPULATION IN 2033 72
TABLE 30: LIVERPOOL CAPACITY PRE AND POST COMMITMENTS 83
TABLE 31: LIVERPOOL COMPARISON PROVISION – MARKET SHARES BY ZONE 83
TABLE 32: LIVERPOOL CONVENIENCE SUB SECTOR CAPACITY PRE AND POST COMMITMENTS IN 2033 84
TABLE 33: LIVERPOOL COMPARISON SUB SECTOR CAPACITY PRE AND POST COMMITMENTS IN 2033 88
TABLE 34: SUGGESTED DISTRICT CENTRES 96
TABLE 35: SUGGESTED LOCAL CENTRES 97
Appendices
APPENDIX 1: DISTRICT AND LOCAL CENTRES MAP & SHOPPER SURVEY ZONES
APPENDIX 2: HOUSEHOLD SHOPPER SURVEYS
APPENDIX 3: LIVERPOOL CITY CENTRE GOAD
APPENDIX 4: VITALITY AND VIABILITY ASSESSMENTS
APPENDIX 5: QUANTITATIVE CONVENIENCE NEED
APPENDIX 6: QUANTITATIVE COMPARISON NEED
APPENDIX 7: LEISURE NEED
GL Hearn Page 4 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
Quality Standards Control
The signatories below verify that this document has been prepared in accordance wi th our quality control requirements. These procedures do not affect the content and views expressed by the originator.
This document must only be treated as a draft unless it is has been signed by the Originators and approved by a Business or Associate Director.
DATE ORIGINATORS APPROVED September 2016 Phil Robinson Nick Ireland Planning Associate Director Planning Director
Limitations This document has been prepared for the stated objective and should not be used for any other purpose without the prior written authority of GL Hearn; we accept no responsibility or liability for the consequences of this document being used for a purpose other than for which it was commissioned.
GL Hearn Page 5 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 GL Hearn has been commissioned by Liverpool City Council to undertake a review of the future retail and commercial leisure needs of the City Council’s administrative area up to 2033. The study is to understand how the existing facilities serve the City’s residents and what potential there is to plan for any additional facilities over the study period.
1.2 This Retail and Commercial Leisure Study has as its evidence base a 3,000 household telephone interview survey which sought to establish residents shopping and leisure usage patterns.
1.3 The results of the household survey are applied to current and projected population and consumer spending to establish current and future retail and leisure provision. This analysis is provided on an overall Liverpool wide basis and on a more local ‘sectoral’ basis, examining trade retention levels currently achieved by the City Centre and within the North, Central and South Liverpool areas.
1.4 This information is supported by a series of vitality and viability assessments undertaken in each of the district and local centres identified within the Local Plan. These studies allow the analysis of the role and function of each of the City’s centres and their ability to serve the local community in which they are located.
1.5 With regard to commercial leisure uses (cinema’s, pubs, bars and restaurants, ten pin bowling, health and fitness centres, bingo and night clubs) we have considered existing usage of facilities in the Liverpool area and participation generally and then considered the potential which exists for improving that existing provision.
Purpose of Study
1.6 The Study is to provide a quantitative assessment of comparison and convenience goods shopping and leisure uses in Liverpool to meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework. The primary purpose of the Study is to provide the evidence base for the Local Plan. The Study will also assist in making informed decisions on retail development proposals within Liverpool and will inform the Council’s response to any retail applications which come forward.
1.7 The Study is to provide a robust assessment of needs across the City and provide sufficient information to ensure that:
• Strategic choices about where retail and leisure investment and growth should go can be made • The Local Plan policies comply with the requirements of NPPF • Sites can be allocated to meet any identified needs in accordance with NPPF • Where development proposals come forward, the Study is a material element against which an informed decision can be made regarding the need and appropriateness of the scheme with regard to the established retail and leisure strategy for the City
GL Hearn Page 6 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
1.8 The purpose of the study is to:
• Identify current retail and leisure trends and the implications for Liverpool • Analyse and Interpret existing Policy at national level and consider the existing Local Policy and evidential studies • Consider spatial implications of current and expected changes in shopping patterns both within and outside the City • Identify the potential for growth in convenience and comparison retail facilities within different parts of the City and test scenarios reflecting alternative expenditure retention targets to be agreed with the City Council • Identify the potential requirement for further leisure facilities and what broad locations should any need be located within • Consider the role, function, vitality and viability, mix and potential scope to accommodate development of the City Centre, District Centres and Local Centres and identify an appropriate hierarchy based on these finding and the extent of town centre, primary shopping areas and primary/secondary retail frontages • Identify the appropriate policy approach to managing retail development within centres and consider whether it is appropriate to set a local threshold for the application of the impact assessment • Consider the future role of out of centre facilities within the City and whether there is any justification for their expansion
GL Hearn Page 7 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
2 RETAIL AND LEISURE TRENDS
2.1 This section briefly considerers the main drivers and trends in retail and commercial leisure within the UK. The analysis draws upon a number of published data sources including; Goad Plan data, Experian, BCSC, Family Expenditure Survey and Mintel.
2.2 An assessment of future retail or leisure demand or need should have regard to emerging trends within the industry as these may influence the conclusions of the assessment. The retail sector is one of the most dynamic sectors of the UK economy and is constantly evolving and adapting in response to consumer and lifestyle trends and other market influences. These trends and influences could alter the face of domestic retailing and commercial leisure development during the course of the Local Plan for Liverpool City through to 2033. Therefore these projected changes in patterns could have fundamental implications for the way in which the City Centre and the District and Local Centres within the City are used and how they will need to adapt and respond.
Expenditure Growth
2.3 Historic retail trends indicate that expenditure has consistently grown in real terms in the past, generally following a cyclical growth trend. The underlying trend shows consistent growth and this trend is expected to continue in the future.
2.4 Experian identify that a strong UK recovery from a lengthy period of negative or weak growth began in early 2013. The upturn has gathered momentum with GDP growth of 2.9% in 2014 and an expected 2.5% in 2015. Fiscal restraint and weak exports remain key drags on growth, but extremely low inflation, strong employment growth and high levels of consumer and business confidence have sustained expansion.
2.5 Household finances have been boosted over the past few quarters by the decline in inflation to near zero as oil price falls, discount wars among retailers and the strong pound have subdued inflationary pressure. At the same time earnings growth has accelerated from little over 1% in 2012-14 to almost 3% in 2015. As a result of this favourable combination of prices and earnings, real disposable income growth this year is expected to reach 3.4%, the strongest since 2001.
2.6 Mintel has been tracking what people have been spending on and what they want to spend money on. The results are not quite as one would expect. In fact most of the numbers have hardly changed.
• The biggest difference is in saving plans and not spending • Changes in spending plans are much smaller but are focussed on cars and the home
2.7 Mintel conclude that while consumer confidence has recovered, consumers are still in a cautious, recessionary frame of mind. They are not yet in the mood to embark on another consumer boom.
GL Hearn Page 8 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
2.8 In the past, expenditure growth has fuelled growth in retail floorspace, including major out-of-centre development, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s. Experian expect conditions to become rather less favourable for household finances in 2016 as real income growth moderates to 1.9% amid higher inflation, the impact of welfare cuts and the beginning of the upward cycle in interest rates. Real consumer spending growth is expected to ease to 2.3%, followed by an advance at a similar pace in 2017 as fiscal tightness and gradually tightening monetary policy weigh on household finances. This suggests that past rates of growth are unlikely to be achieved in the short term (next 5 years), but the underlying trend over the medium (5 to 10 years) and long terms (beyond 10 years) is expected to lead to a need for further retail floorspace.
2.9 Low expenditure growth and deflationary pressures in the non-food sector have had an impact on the high street in the last four to five years. Retail sales have prospered in the past two years given the exceptional buoyancy of consumer spending, as household finances responded to low inflation and stronger earnings growth. But this buoyancy is true only in sales volume terms. Values have been depressed by heavy discounting and persistent deflation of goods prices. Non-food stores have out- performed predominantly food stores in recent times. Experian’s latest Retail Planner Briefing Note identifies that volume growth in 2015q3 compared with a year earlier was 5.1% for comparison goods. The equivalent figure was 2.0% for food stores.
Figure 1: Total Retail Sales Volume Growth
2.10 As a result of these trends, the national shop vacancy rate (based on Goad Plan data) increased from around 10% in 2005, to around 14% during the recession, but has now settled at around 11%.
Internet Shopping
2.11 New forms of retailing have continued to grow as an alternative to more traditional shopping facilities. Home/electronic shopping has increased with the increasing growth in the use of personal computers,
GL Hearn Page 9 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
smart phones and the internet. The growth of multi-channel retailing including home computing, internet connections and interactive TV may lead to continued growth in home shopping and may have effects on retailing in the high street.
2.12 Internet spending and other forms of retailing that are not derived from physical floorspace need to be taken into account when undertaking retail studies. SFT driven by the increasing use of the internet has significantly outpaced traditional retail sales in recent years and Experian expect this pattern to persist for several more years.
2.13 Online is growing, but it is worth getting it in perspective. In 2014 it took some 11.2% of all retail sales. Under half of that, 5.4%, was through internet-only retailers – so called pureplayers.
2.14 Mintel note that there is one other factor that affects both store-based and pureplay online retailers – online shoppers tend to spend less. The reason is simple – the internet is still hard to browse. Shoppers tend to know what they are looking for and they buy it if they find it. It is hard to make opportunistic sales online – there is minimal passing trade.
2.15 Expectations of how demand for retail floorspace will be affected by the expansion of SFT remain a key issue. Special Forms of Trading (SFT) include internet shopping and spending in non-retail stores such as at markets, vending machines, mail order doorstep and party sales are commonly excluded from consumer spending per head estimates when undertaking retail planning studies.
2.16 While it is undeniable that the challenge to traditional store-based shopping will continue to grow strongly, a number of crucial factors temper the threat.
2.17 The internet and advances in mobile technology are increasingly affecting shopping behaviour. The pace of growth in non-store retailing is starting to slow but is still expected to outpace the growth in traditional retail expenditure in the short to medium-term.
2.18 Home delivery (or ‘store-to door’) has become very common in the convenience sector, where goods are sourced from stores with a physical presence. While the spend might end up as turnover in the same store, such transactions do not translate to activity on the high street and remove the potential for linked shopping, this trend is undermining the anchoring role that large foodstore operators traditionally fulfil in well-configured centres.
2.19 Home delivery of comparison goods are commonly sourced from far afield (possibly even abroad), the steepening of this trend results in increased leakage and reduces the volume of available expenditure that can support local traders on the high street.
GL Hearn Page 10 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
2.20 Mintel identify that retailers are keen to give online customers a reason to visit a store. This is where click and collect comes in and it is also one of the advantages of the Drive through services. At least customers have to visit the store and while there they might just pop in as well. Convenience operators and some comparison retailers, such as John Lewis, now offer a click-and-collect (C&C) service where shoppers make their selection and purchase on-line but travel to a bricks-and-mortar store to collect their goods. This form of shopping has the potential to contribute to the levels of vitality on the high street and the consequent opportunities for incidental shopping help underpin the viability of smaller operators who rely on pass-by trade.
2.21 Technological advancements and the ability to scan barcodes in-store and instantly research where the same item can be bought cheaper is driving competition and eroding retailers’ profit margins. The rise of tablet and mobile technology is improving the browsing experience and facilitating on-line transactions. The distinction between on-line and in-store shopping channels is becoming less clear cut. The advent of click-and-collect and multi-channelling has meant that bricks-and-mortar stores will continue to play an important role in enhancing the shopping experience. There is evidence that more people are researching items on-line before making a purchase. Such multi-channelling, where the ultimate transaction is carried out in-store, or in cases where people touch and feel the goods in-store before buying on-line, mark an instance where the rise of the internet can bolster the performance of traditional bricks-and-mortar shops and the activity on the high street.
Convenience Shopping
2.22 The pace of expansion of convenience operator representation has slowed dramatically with major foodstores effectively stopping their drive for large format stores. Small convenience stores have proliferated more recently with Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Morrisons and Co-op all competing for suitable sites in town centres and accessible out-of-centre locations.
2.23 The changing UK demographics are also having a major impact on the food and grocery sector. There is a move back to City Centres, especially among younger people who are ‘time poor’ and relatively ‘cash rich’. These City Centre dwellers are much less likely to own a car and so also much less likely to use a food superstore on a regular basis
2.24 Elsewhere, an ageing population profile is leading to a rise in time rich consumers who are likely to make more frequent small trips rather than do large weekly shops. The contrasting requirements of these markets means that retailers are seeking to open a variety of stores with a particular current focus on small convenience stores.
2.25 The role of supermarkets also continues to develop, with the large operators now offering a greater diversity of goods and services, via a larger number of formats and locations. Food and non-food
GL Hearn Page 11 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
sales are also increasingly being driven by large supermarket growth, with half of town centres now competing with five or more supermarkets within a two mile radius.
2.26 Mintel identifies that the recession – allied with a period of higher inflation – has had an impact on consumer behaviour and the wider dynamics of grocery retailing. Price, or specifically value, is now identified as the key issue for consumers, and more shoppers are assessing whether purchases represent value for money. Shoppers now realise that they are able to ‘trade down’ and switch to own- label ranges to save money without sacrificing on quality. Indeed, customers are mixing value and premium in the same basket. It is noted that as weekly food budgets fall and consumers alter their shopping habits, growth will be limited and the battle for market share will intensify further. Winning a share of consumer spend will require more than low prices, with shoppers increasingly seeking to source high-quality, good value food.
2.27 This change in customer behaviour is fuelling the growth in ‘discounts’ namely Aldi, Lidl and Netto. These stores are gaining share because they have made a small, but significant move to the middle ground of food retailing, with wider ranges, much better fresh foods, some branded products and some premium lines. Their main attraction remains value for money (and not just low prices).
Comparison Shopping
2.28 Comparison retailing has been greatly affected by the economic cycle in recent years. A number of high street retailers have folded over recent years (Comet, Jessops, Blockbuster, HMV, Borders, JJB Sports, Woolworths, Game, Peacocks, Firetrap, Habitat, Barratts, Past Times and Clinton Cards) leaving vacancies in town centres across the country. However comparison expenditure is set to improve over the coming years as the UK advances further out of recession; e.g. the departure of national multiple retailers has created opportunities for independent retailers by removing strong competition and freeing up well situated premises for occupation.
2.29 The number of shops units within town centres has declined consistently since the early 1970’s. The Centre for Retail Research’s figures show that total store numbers will fall by 22%, from 281,930 today to 220,000 in 2018
2.30 The Retail Futures 2018 report notes that, since 2008, 148 large and medium-scale retailers, which collectively employed 110,000 staff, have gone into administration. It also expects that there will be a further 164 major or medium-sized companies going into administration, involving the loss of 22,600 stores and 140,000 employees. Many of these companies will survive but at the cost of closing more than half their stores. In addition, in spite of the Portas Pilots, the High Street will continue to suffer: around 41% of town centres will lose 27,638 stores in the next five years.
GL Hearn Page 12 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
2.31 Despite the difficulties outlined above and the general decline in the comparison goods sector, other specific types of goods continue to perform well. The market for recreational goods has, on the whole, performed well in recent years, with healthy growth attributed to supermarket sales together with the growing popularity of online shopping, which continues to see an increase in sales year-on-year. However, the manner in which such purchases are made has changed considerably, with the increasing popularity of the internet to purchase books and music having a notable impact on the composition of town centres, with such stores all but disappearing from the high street. Other businesses have experienced growth in the last two years, with a +12.4% increase (over 1,100 stores) in ‘value-related retailing’ outlets, including second-hand, discount and charity shops
2.32 Experian do note that nationally high streets are benefiting from an increasing number of service outlets, with increased demand for space from units such as cafes, restaurants, betting shops and nail parlours.
2.33 This decline in the number of shops hides structural trends towards fewer but larger retail stores, store extensions and significant out of centre development. Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note October 2015 indicated a 1.1% increase in floorspace per year 2016 -2025 and suggests that the current vacancy rate will be removed by the mid -2020s.
2.34 Comparison retailers have also responded to market conditions. The bulky goods warehouse sector has rationalised, including a number of mergers and failures, and scaled down store sizes. Other traditional high street retailers often seek large out-of-centre stores, for example Boots, TK Maxx and Poundstretcher. Matalan has also opened numerous discount clothing stores across the UK. Sports clothing retail warehouses including Decathlon and Sports Direct have also expanded out-of-centre.
2.35 The charity shop sector has grown steadily over the past 20 years and there is no sign this trend will halt. The discount comparison sector has also grown significantly in recent years e.g. pound shops.
2.36 Within town centres, many high street multiple comparison retailers have changed their format. High street national multiples have increasingly sought larger modern shop units (over 200 sqm) with an increasing polarisation of activity into the larger regional and sub-regional centres.
2.37 Operator demands for space have decreased and of those national multiples looking for space many prefer to locate in larger centres. Demand from multiples within smaller centres is likely to be weaker, which will affect the appropriate strategies for individual centres.
Leisure Trends
2.38 The demand for commercial leisure facilities has increased significantly during the last 25 years. The growth in the commercial leisure sector was particularly strong during the late 1980s and again in the
GL Hearn Page 13 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
mid-1990s. Average household expenditure on leisure services increased in real terms by 93% between 1984 and 1995 (source: Family Expenditure Survey), and by a further 48% between 1995 and 2005. The sector has experienced more limited growth during the recession, but it is expected that the leisure sector will secure an increasing share of the growth in expenditure.
2.39 Since the late 1990s the high street has seen a significant increase in the number of cafés, coffee shops and sandwich emporia. This includes the Caffé Nero, Costa Coffee and Starbucks coffee shop chains and sandwich providers Eat, Pret a Manger and Subway, alongside a growth in high-end independent retailers.
2.40 A trend for ‘posh’ fast food, started by the likes of Gourmet Burger Kitchen, has extended into the independent sector and is delivering new vibrancy to some high streets, but may be short-lived.
2.41 Eating and drinking out of home has proven to be the most popular leisure activity that most people undertake on a regular basis. The ‘eating out’ market grew by 5.2% over the period 2014-2015 (Restaurants and Bars Report 2015 BDO).
2.42 The cinema sector is performing well, with the most recent data indicating that there were 171.9 million UK cinema admissions in 2015 an increase of 9.2% since 2014. This sector is generally going through a period of change with less growth in Multiplex Cinema and an increase in smaller screen cinemas with an advanced viewing experience. The demographics are also changing for cinema visits with admissions for 55+ increasing from 8% in 2008 to 12% in 2014 (BFI).
2.43 Digital projection has driven a trend towards development of cinemas with fewer screens, and town centre locations are back in vogue. Town centre cinemas tend to occupy a smaller footprint and are typically developed alongside other commercial businesses, including cafés, bars and restaurants.
2.44 In response to this, Odeon is continuing investment to improve and expand its estate, which has recently included a new food and drink partnership, with Costa Coffee opening outlets in cinema foyers. Cineworld has introduced Starbucks outlets at a number of sites.
2.45 The number of leisure centres and swimming pools has increased in the past five years and whilst there has been a demand on public finances due to budget constraints and in some cases Councils have had to scale back services, The Leisure Database Company notes the health and fitness private sector had a market value of approximately £4.2 billion in 2015, with an increase of 5.4% in market value. 1 in every 8 people in the UK are members of a gym, an all-time penetration rate high of 13.7%.
2.46 The health and fitness sector is generally split into three sectors premium, such as Virgin active and David Lloyd, mid-range including Fitness First, Esporta and DW Sports and budget operators such as Pure Gym and total fitness. There has been some consolidation in this market recently with Pure
GL Hearn Page 14 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
Gym’s acquisition of LA Fitness. Mintel identifies that there has been a growth in the popularity of innovative exercise classes and technological features to attract additional people to these clubs, with many of the higher end clubs also adding spa facilities to their offer.
Summary
2.47 The national trend analysis illustrates how adaptive and innovative the retail sector has been in responding to changing market conditions and how quickly new formats are introduced to capitalise on opportunities. The retail market is generally entering a period of significant change where the potential of the internet and e-retailing will be realised and given the polarisation in the retail sector with national multiples dominating, larger centres with critical mass will become more dominant at the expense of smaller town centres.
2.48 These national trends in retailing will have implications for shopping within Liverpool City Centre and the City’s local and district centres. For example, the dominance of Liverpool City Centre for comparison goods shopping will continue as it is a major retail (and leisure destination) attracting strong national multiple retail representation across the quality spectrum from value to premium brands. However the success of the City Centre for comparison goods retailing will continue to be at the expense of Liverpool’s District and Local Centres where the potential for attracting multiple comparison goods traders is limited. How the District and Local Centres respond to this will be critical for their future health over the plan period.
2.49 The growing attraction of retail park locations to major retailers with lower overall rents, larger stores and convenient car parking also places limitations upon Liverpool’s District and Local Centres. Retail Parks have been a focus of owners to enhance their portfolio by varying conditions and sub-dividing units to make these more attractive to previously main town centre occupiers in order to attract the likes of Boots, Wilkinsons, B & M stores etc.
2.50 Convenience/food based retailing in the form of convenience stores and supermarkets in our view still provide the best and most realistic prospect for securing improvements to and anchoring the retail function of established local and district centres .
2.51 In this context, a strategy to protect and enhance and where appropriate and justified regeneration of existing local and district centres in Liverpool will ensure the City is seeking to provide residents with sustainable shopping options whilst also seeking to generally reduce the dominance of out of centre retailing.
2.52 However as this brief analysis has illustrated, the retail and leisure market is a dynamic and constantly evolving sector. It is important that trends and emerging formats are reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that planning strategy is alive to the market and can adapt and respond to changes.
GL Hearn Page 15 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
3 NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY
3.1 This section provides a summary of the national planning policy context relevant to future retail and commercial leisure development within the Liverpool area.
NPPF
3.2 National Planning Policy is contained with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) adopted on 27 March 2012 and replaced all previous national planning guidance in Planning Policy Statements and Planning Policy Guidance documents.
3.3 The main aim of the NPPF to help achieve sustainable development defined within the NPPF as 'ensuring that better lives for ourselves don't mean worse lives for future generations' and where development means 'growth. . . we must house a rising population, which is living longer and wants to make new choices'.
3.4 There is a general presumption in favour of sustainable development outlined in paragraph 14, in decision making this means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless there are any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against policies in the NPPF or specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted.
3.5 Paragraph 17 outlines the core planning principles, these state that planning should proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver homes, business and industrial units and thriving local places. Good design and good standards of amenity should be secured in all new developments and account should be taken of the different roles and character of different areas and should promote the vitality of our main urban areas. Effective use of previously developed land will be encouraged as will mixed use developments and the conservation of heritage assets.
3.6 The government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity, paragraph 18 states that the planning system should do anything it can to support sustainable economic growth, planning should therefore encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth.
3.7 The NPPF indicates that investment in business should not be over burdened by the planning system. Local Planning Authorities should set out a strategic economic vision and identify sites for both local and inward investment.
3.8 Paragraph 23 of the NPPF ensures that planning policies promote competitive town centre environments. In order to achieve this, local planning authorities should recognise town centres as the
GL Hearn Page 16 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
heart of their communities and should support their viability and vitality. Council’s should define a network and hierarchy of centres that is resilient to anticipated economic changes. The extent of town centre and primary shopping areas should be based on a clear definition of primary and secondary frontages in designated centres and make it clear which uses will be permitted in each location.
3.9 It goes on to state that competitive town centres should be promoted and that these centres should provide customer choice and a diverse retail offer, existing markets should be maintained and where possible further markets introduced.
3.10 Paragraph 23 states that sites should be allocated to meet the needs of the centre including the allocation of edge of centre sites where suitable sites within the centre are not available. Main town centre uses do include residential development and this can play an important role in the vitality of centres.
3.11 Paragraph 26 of the NPPF introduces the impact test and identifies the national threshold of 2,500sqm. It also identifies the potential to consider a local impact threshold. The PPG at paragraph: 016 Reference ID: 2b-016-20140306 provides further information on setting a locally appropriate threshold.
3.12 Paragraph 69 outlines the government’s intentions of using the planning system to play an important role in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy and inclusive communities. Places should promote opportunities for contact between members of the community including through mixed use developments, strong neighbourhood centres and active street frontages.
Planning Practice Guidance
3.13 The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) was published in March 2014. It replaced a number of older guidance notes and complements the National Planning Policy Framework.
3.14 The guidance covers the preparation of a Local Plan. Paragraph 12-006-20140306 states that Local Authorities responsible for ‘district matters’ should prepare and maintain an up to date Local Plan for their area. In order to be effective these plans need to be kept up to date. The rate in which policies age will differ from area to area and as stated in paragraph 12-008-20140306 the Local Planning Authority should review the relevance of the Local Plan at regular intervals to assess whether some or all of it may need updating.
3.15 The guidance acknowledges in paragraph 12-009-20140306 that the content of Local Plans will vary depending on the nature of the area and the issues to be addressed; however they should concentrate on the critical issues facing the area including its development needs.
GL Hearn Page 17 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
3.16 Paragraph 12-010-20140306 discusses the appropriate and proportionate evidence that is essential for producing a sound Local Plan, this evidence needs to inform what is contained within the plan and shape its development. These documents that form the evidence base should be published as they are completed rather than waiting until options are published or the Local Plan is published for representations. This evidence accompanying the Local Plan should show how the policies in the plan have been tested.
3.17 The Guidance places importance on ensuring the vitality and viability of town centres and paragraph 2b-001-20140306 states that Local Authorities should plan positively for town centres to generate local employment, promote beneficial competition within and between town centres and create attractive, diverse places where people want to live and work. To ensure town centres are planned for positively, Local Planning Authorities should assess and plan to meet the needs of main town centre uses in full.
3.18 Paragraph 2b-002-20140306 states that the local plan is a key tool in ensuring that a strategic vision is established for town centres. Local Authorities should work with the private sector, town centre teams, neighbourhood planning groups, town centre management organisations and other relevant groups when developing such strategies.
3.19 Market signals should be an important aspect of planning for town centres and Local Planning Authorities should keep their retail land allocations under regular review. Paragraph 2b-004-20140306 goes on to say that market signals should be identified and analysed in terms of their impacts on town centres, this information should then be used to inform policies and ensure that these policies are responsive to changes in the market as well as the changing needs of local businesses.
Local Planning Policy
3.20 Liverpool City Council is currently preparing their Local Plan which will provide an overarching strategy and development principles for the City until at least 2033. Below are the relevant retail policies from the UDP which will remain in force until replaced.
• Policy S5 states that the vitality and viability of district centres will be maintained and enhanced in order to secure the best access for the City’s residents to shopping and other related facilities. The will be the primary focus for retail development and investment outside of the City Centre • Policy S6 promotes retail development within district centres and highlights that shopping provision and investment is essential to vitality and viability. Edge of centre development will only be permitted in accordance with the sequential approach where is will not adversely impact on vitality and viability of other nearby centres and is appropriately designed. The policy identifies a number of edge of centre development sites • Policy S7 promotes the enhancement and maintenance of District Centre to secure; • Refurbishment and expansion and redevelopment of existing retail premises; • Maintenance of shopping function and primary retail frontages; • Environmental improvements including improvement to the quality of shopping frontages; the safety, security, comfort and convenience of pedestrians; and enhancement of open spaces;
GL Hearn Page 18 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
• Improvements to the transport infrastructure – in particular to public transport and cycling facilities – and improvements to the quality and quantity of parking provision; • The reuse of vacant upper floors, particularly for residential use; • Provision of additional social, leisure and community facilities; and • The retention of larger development sites, where possible, for retail development. • Policy S8 promotes the enhancement and maintenance of local centres and development proposals for new shops change of use to shops or for complimentary Local Centre uses
Summary
3.21 This section has provided and overview of the national and local planning policy context material to plan-making and the determination of new retail and town centre uses.
3.22 In summary, the underlying objective of policy at all levels is to maintain and enhance the vitality and viability of town centres and to promote new sustainable development in town centre locations in accordance with the sequential approach.
3.23 The NPPF, PPG and the Council’s development plan provide an important context for the Retail and Leisure Study.
GL Hearn Page 19 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
4 OVERVIEW OF LIVERPOOL CENTRES
4.1 The NPPF and PPG state that LPA’s should identify a network and hierarchy of centres which is resistant to change. The UDP identifies the existing hierarchy of centres which includes the City Centre as well as each of the Local and District centres. In order to create a clear picture of the current state of Liverpool’s centres vitality and viability studies were undertaken and the full assessments are set out in Appendix 4.
4.2 The hierarchy of centres in Liverpool has been established in the 2002 Liverpool UDP. This consists of Liverpool City Centre along with 29 District and Local Centres.
4.3 GL Hearn was commissioned by Liverpool Council in 2009 to complete a District and Local Centres Study to assess the health of the City’s centres and make recommendations for their improvement. The study found that the health of district and local shopping centres across Liverpool varies and with a few exceptions the majority of the centres have deteriorated over time. It was felt that a number of the centres across the City were too large and dissipated and required consolidation. Some centres would benefit from improvements to the public realm and environmental quality of place and shopping experience.
4.4 The study recommended that a strategic approach was required to investment in district and local centres across the City. This should seek to focus investment to deliver a sustainable hierarchy of centres across the City which effectively serve their local catchment, draw together opportunities for public and private sector investments and coordinated the management and marketing of the district and local centres to support trading prospects.
4.5 The study suggested a four tier structure; City Centre, District Centre, Local Centre and Neighbourhood Centres. The study recommended that several current local centres be reclassified as neighbourhood centres. Further to this the study identified a series of local parades of shops which the council may decide are appropriate to identify as neighbourhood centres.
4.6 These changes to the centre hierarchy have not been adopted by the City Council since the District and Local Centres Study was published. The current vitality and viability assessment builds upon this previous work.
Objectives and Methodology
4.7 The vitality and viability assessments undertaken seek to;
• Analyse the role and function of each of the City’s district and local centres including their position in the retail hierarchy and ability to serve the local community in which they are located; • Recommend what the overall key priorities for the centres in order to secure their long term vitality and viability;
GL Hearn Page 20 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
• Recommend alterations to centre boundaries and suggest potential development sites.
4.8 Upon the completion of the assessments recommendations have been made regarding the future status of the centre within the retail hierarchy and the level of intervention and investment necessary to support the centres and deliver a sustainable pattern of retailing and services for the local community.
Liverpool City Centre
4.9 The assessment for the City Centre is a comprehensive vitality and viability assessment containing a detailed breakdown of the City Centre uses and assessment of the City Centre environment.
4.10 The assessment of Liverpool City Centre covers the following indicators identified in the PPG:
• diversity of uses • proportion of vacant street level property • commercial yields on non-domestic property • customers’ views and behaviour • retailer representation and intentions to change representation • commercial rents • pedestrian flows • accessibility • perception of safety and occurrence of crime • state of town centre environmental quality
4.11 Liverpool City Centre is split into several sub-areas and this vitality and viability assessment is focused on the Main Retail Area. The Main Retail Area within Liverpool City Centre is the principal retail destination within the City and the City Region for comparison shopping. It is a regional shopping centre which was ranked in the top 5 retail destinations in the UK. The area has been transformed by the 1.6msqft Liverpool ONE, which has created a vibrant, high-quality shopping and leisure area and reconnected the retail core of the City Centre to the Waterfront.
4.12 Liverpool City Centre has a wide range and choice of convenience, comparison and service uses including restaurants and cafes.
4.13 It is performing its Regional Centre role well as evidenced in particular by the strength of its comparison goods shopping offer. The GOAD Report for the City Centre has been used within the study to assess the centre against national averages to create a picture of how the centre is performing nationally. It performs well above the UK average in terms of representation in many comparison goods shopping categories and is particularly strong in terms of its clothing and footwear offer which is a key driver of footfall.
GL Hearn Page 21 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
4.14 The City Centre also has a strong food and drink offer with over 112 restaurants/cafes comprising 10.96% of the total number of outlets in the Centre which is above the UK average figure of 8.54%.
4.15 The centre has 440 national multiple occupiers including 241 comparison goods multiple retailers. The proportion of national comparison multiple units in the Centre (54.77%) is well above the UK average (42.85%).
4.16 There are encouraging levels of investment in the City Centre including not just in the retail and leisure sectors but also in office and residential sectors which add to the diversity of uses. The Liverpool Development Update (October 2015, Mayor of Liverpool) identifies that the level of development activity completed in the City Centre was expected to reach £600m by the end of 2015, which would exceed the £333million achieved in 2014.
4.17 Overall Liverpool is performing well as its role as the sub-regional centre.
District and Local Centres
4.18 For the Local and District Centres a reduced health check assessment has been undertaken. This is reflective of the limited information which is available for some centres. As a minimum the health check for the Local and District Centres covers:
• diversity of uses • proportion of vacant street level property • observations on pedestrian flows • accessibility • perception of safety and occurrence of crime • state of town centre environmental quality
4.19 The assessments were undertaken to analyse the role and function of each of the centres and their ability to serve the local community in which they are located. In turn this allows recommendations to be made as to the key priorities for these centres in order to secure their long term vitality and viability.
4.20 These assessments also make a qualitative assessment of each of these centres however the studies do not include a detailed assessment of shopping rents or yields, footfall or consumer preferences. Some elements of this is covered by the telephone shopper survey discussed later in this report.
District Centres
4.21 The current network of district centres in Liverpool is identified on the Plan in Appendix 1.
4.22 Figure 2 indicates the level of floorspace in each of the District Centres. The largest District Centres in floorspace terms are Allerton Road, County Road and Old Swan, all exceeding 25,000sqm, with Allerton exceeding 35,000sqm. Aigburth Road, Edge Hill and Garston are the smallest centres, all less
GL Hearn Page 22 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
than 7,500sqm with Garston notably low at less than 5,000sqm. Only stores within the currently defined town centre boundaries have been included within the floorspace data, e.g. Morrisons, Belle Vale, unless otherwise identified in Appendix 4.
Figure 2: Total floorspace in District Centres
40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 - Speke Garston Woolton Edge Hill Edge Old Swan Old Broadway Belle Vale Belle Wavertree Breck Road Breck Walton Vale Walton County Road County London Road London Allerton Road Allerton Aigburth Road Aigburth Smithdown Road South Road Smithdown
Total Floorspace (m2)
4.23 A1 convenience floorspace is highest in Allerton Road, Old Swan and Speke. These all have a significant foodstore within the centre. Belle Vale has the lowest amount of convenience retail floorspace, followed by Aigburth Road and Walton Vale, which all have less than 2,000sqm of convenience floorspace.
Figure 3: A1 Convenience Retail Floorspace in District Centres
14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 - Speke Garston Woolton Edge Hill Edge Old Swan Old Broadway Belle Vale Belle Wavertree Breck Road Breck Walton Vale Walton County Road County London Road London Allerton Road Allerton Aigburth Road Aigburth Smithdown Road South Road Smithdown
Convenience Floorspace
GL Hearn Page 23 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
4.24 In terms of A1 comparison, floorspace is largest provision in Allerton Road, Belle Vale and County Road, all around 10,000sqm. The lowest amount of retail floorspace is at Walton Vale and Woolton, both of which are less than 2,000sqm.
Figure 4: Comparison Floorspace in District Centres
12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Speke Garston Woolton Edge Hill Edge Old Swan Old Broadway Belle Vale Belle Wavertree Breck Road Breck Walton Vale Walton County Road County London Road London Allerton Road Allerton Aigburth Road Aigburth Smithdown Road South Road Smithdown
Comparison floorspace
4.25 Allerton Road is the largest district centre in terms of both convenience and comparison floorspace. Thereafter a number of the District Centres have a similar level of comparison and convenience A1 floorspace. The centres with the lowest level of floorspace include Aigburth Vale and Walton Vale.
Figure 5: District Centres A1 Convenience and Comparison Floorspace
14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Speke Garston Woolton Edge Hill Edge Old Swan Old Broadway Belle Vale Belle Wavertree Breck Road Breck Walton Vale Walton County Road County London Road London Allerton Road Allerton Aigburth Road Aigburth Smithdown Road South Road Smithdown
Convenience Floorspace Comparison floorspace
GL Hearn Page 24 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
4.26 The level of A3-A4-A5 floorspace (comprising restaurants, cafes, bars, pubs and takeaways) within the District Centres varies significantly. At one end of the spectrum, there is virtually no floorspace in these use classes in Speke and Belle Vale District Centres. However there are a number of centres which have a vibrant evening economy which include Walton Vale, Smithdown Road South, County Road and Allerton Road.
Figure 6: A3-A4-A5 Floorspace in District Centres
A3, A4, A5 Floorspace 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 - Speke Garston Woolton Edge Hill Edge Old Swan Old Broadway Belle Vale Belle Wavertree South Breck Road Breck Walton Vale Walton County Road County London Road London Allerton Road Allerton Aigburth Road Aigburth Smithdown Road Smithdown
A3, A4, A5 Floorspace
4.27 From the information above, a further interrogation of the data reveals the average size of units within the centres. This is identified in the tables below:
Table 1: Average unit size in the district centres Average Unit District Centre Size (sqm) Aigburth Road 118 Allerton Road 192 Belle Vale 245 Breck Road 135 Broadway 259 County Road 124 Edge Hill 187 Garston 156 London Road 358 Old Swan 243 Smithdown Road South 114 Speke 796 Walton Vale 144
GL Hearn Page 25 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
Wavertree 141 Woolton 152 Average 135
4.28 The average size of a unit within a District Centres is 135sqm. Just to provide some context for convenience stores the overall average is 326sqm and comparison goods units have an overall average of 134sqm.
Figure 7: Occupied District Centre Floorspace by Use Class
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Speke Garston Woolton Edge Hill Edge Old Swan Old Broadway Belle Vale Belle Wavertree Breck Road Breck Walton Vale Walton County Road County London Road London Allerton Road Allerton Aigburth Road Aigburth Smithdown Road South Road Smithdown
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5
4.29 Figure 7 profiles the overall mix of town centre floorspace by use class. On average over 50% of occupied town centre floorspace is in A1 retail use and in only 4 of the 15 District Centres does the percentage of A1 fall below 70%. For Speke, Belle Vale and Edge Hill, this is in excess of 90% of each centre.
4.30 Vacancy levels within the District Centres provide an indication of their vitality. The GB average is around 11% and 10 of the 15 District Centres exceed this level. It is noted that there are very high levels of vacancy in Garston, Edge Hill and Breck Road.
GL Hearn Page 26 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
Figure 8: District Centre Vacant Floorspace with GB average shown.
35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Speke Garston Woolton Edge Hill Edge Old Swan Old Broadway Belle Vale Belle Wavertree Breck Road Breck Walton Vale Walton County Road County London Road London Allerton Road Allerton Aigburth Road Aigburth Smithdown Road South Road Smithdown
Vacant
Local Centres
4.31 The current network of Local Centres in Liverpool is identified at Appendix 4 as part of the vitality and viability assessments
4.32 Figure 8 indicates the level of floorspace in each of the Local Centres. Four of the centres, Kensington, Knotty Ash, Park Road and Tuebrook, have a level of floorspace which exceeds any other centres, indeed some of these exceed the level of floorspace in District Centres.
4.33 The average size of a retail unit in a local centre is slightly larger than those within district centres at 145sqm. For convenience shops the overall average is 256sqm. Comparison goods units have an overall average of 67sqm.
GL Hearn Page 27 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
Figure 9: Total Floorspace in Local Centres
30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 - Tuebrook Rice Lane Rice Park Road Park Knotty Ash Knotty Lane Rose Kensington West Derby West Lodge Lane Lodge Hunts Cross Hunts Aigburth Vale Aigburth Prescot Road Prescot Great Homer Street Homer Great Muirhead Avenue East Avenue Muirhead Smithdown Road North Road Smithdown
Total Floorspace (m2)
4.34 The level of A1 convenience floorspace is highest in Knotty Ash and Park Road which both contain large food stores within the current centre boundary. At the other end of the spectrum there are a number of centres which contain significantly less than 1,000sqm of convenience floorspace such as Great Homer Street and Rose Lane. However it is noted that St Modwen and Sainsburys are in the process of delivering a large retail development at Great Homer Street which is intended to spearhead regeneration of the centre and will increase the amount of convenience floorspace.
4.35 It should be noted that only stores within the currently defined town centre boundaries have been included within the floorspace data, therefore stores such as the Sainsburys at Rice Lane are excluded from the vitality and viability assessments.
GL Hearn Page 28 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
Figure 10: Convenience Floorspace in Local Centres
10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 - Tuebrook Rice Lane Rice Park Road Park Knotty Ash Knotty Lane Rose Kensington West Derby West Lodge Lane Lodge Hunts Cross Hunts Aigburth Vale Aigburth Prescot Road Prescot Great Homer Street Homer Great Muirhead Avenue East Avenue Muirhead Smithdown Road North Road Smithdown
Convenience Floorspace
4.36 In terms of comparison floorspace the highest levels are found in Knotty Ash, Park Road and Tuebrook. Hunts Cross has the lowest level of comparison floorspace of any of the local centres. Again, similar to the convenience floorspace there are a number of centres which contain significantly less than 1,000 sqm of comparison floorspace such as Great Homer Street and Rice Lane.
Figure 11: Comparison Floorspace in Local Centres
4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 - Tuebrook Rice Lane Rice Park Road Park Knotty Ash Knotty Lane Rose Kensington West Derby West Lodge Lane Lodge Hunts Cross Hunts Aigburth Vale Aigburth Prescot Road Prescot Great Homer Street Homer Great Muirhead Avenue East Avenue Muirhead Smithdown Road North Road Smithdown
Comparison floorspace
4.37 The comparison and convenience provision varies greatly across the Local Centres. Park Road and Knotty Ash have a distinctly greater amount of convenience provision. These along with Kensington
GL Hearn Page 29 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
are also the largest district centres. Tuebrook, Rice Lane, Muirhead Avenue East, Great Homer Street and Aigburth Vale all have a larger amount of comparison floorspace than convenience.
Figure 12: Local Centres Convenience and Comparison Floorspace
10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 - Tuebrook Rice Lane Rice Park Road Park Knotty Ash Knotty Rose Lane Rose Kensington West Derby West Lodge Lane Lodge Hunts Cross Hunts Aigburth Vale Aigburth Prescot Road Prescot Great Homer Street Homer Great Muirhead Avenue East Avenue Muirhead Smithdown Road North Road Smithdown
Convenience Floorspace Comparison floorspace
4.38 The level of A3-A4-A5 floorspace (comprising restaurants, cafes, bars, pubs and takeaways) within the Local Centres varies significantly. At one end of the spectrum, there is virtually no floorspace in these use classes in Great Homer Street and Hunts Cross (both less than 250sqm). Kensington far exceeds any other local centre and the majority of the district centres. In addition Rose Lane and West Derby all boast a vibrant night time economy.
Figure 13: Local Centres A3, A4, A5 Floorspace
2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 - Tuebrook Rice Lane Rice Park Road Park Knotty Ash Knotty Lane Rose Kensington West Derby West Lodge Lane Lodge Hunts Cross Hunts Aigburth Vale Aigburth Prescot Road Prescot Great Homer Street Homer Great Muirhead Avenue East Avenue Muirhead Smithdown Road North Road Smithdown
A3, A4, A5 Floorspace
GL Hearn Page 30 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
4.39 Again a further interrogation of the floorspace figures reveals the average size of the units within the local centres:
Table 2: Average unit sizes in the local centres Average Unit Local Centres Size (sqm) Aigburth Vale 82 Great Homer Street 240 Hunts Cross 112 Kensington 166 Knotty Ash 285 Lodge Lane 95 Muirhead Avenue East 101 Park Road 261 Prescot Road 159 Rice Lane 85 Rose Lane 186 Smithdown Road North 105 Tuebrook 160 West Derby 125 Average 154
4.40 The average size of a unit in the local centres is 145sqm, slightly larger than those within district centres at 135sqm. For convenience stores in local centres the overall average is 256sqm. Comparison goods units have an overall average of 67sqm. It is also noted that Knotty Ash and Park Road have relatively large average unit sizes, some in excess of the average size of a number of the district centres.
4.41 Figure 14 below provides a breakdown of local centre floorspace by use class. In general over 60% of floorspace within Local Centres falls within A1 use. This is higher than in the District Centres.
GL Hearn Page 31 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
Figure 14: Occupied Local Centre Floorspace by Use Class
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Tuebrook Rice Lane Rice Park Road Park Knotty Ash Knotty Rose Lane Rose Kensington West Derby West Lodge Lane Lodge Hunts Cross Hunts Aigburth Vale Aigburth Prescot Road Prescot Great Homer Street Homer Great Muirhead Avenue East Avenue Muirhead Smithdown Road North Road Smithdown
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5
4.42 Vacancy levels within the Local Centres provide an indication of their vitality. Again when compared to the GB vacancy rates, Hunts Cross, Knotty Ash and West Derby are below the average. Vacancy levels are highest at Great Homer Street, at nearly 6 times the GB average. However the planned investment by St Modwens and Sainsburys is intended to transform the centre and as such vacancy rates are expected to fall dramatically. Smithdown Road North at over 4 times the GB average and Prescott Road and Rice Lane in excess of 3 times the GB average.
Figure 15: Local Centre Vacant Floorspace with GB average shown.
70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Tuebrook Rice Lane Rice Park Road Park Knotty Ash Knotty Lane Rose Kensington West Derby West Lodge Lane Lodge Hunts Cross Hunts Aigburth Vale Aigburth Prescot Road Prescot Great Homer Street Homer Great Muirhead Avenue East Avenue Muirhead Smithdown Road North Road Smithdown
Vacant
GL Hearn Page 32 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
Summary
4.43 The results from the vitality and viability surveys have been drawn together and using the assessments of individual centres the study seeks to provide a framework for development and investment within the City.
4.44 It is considered overall that the findings of the 2009 District and Local Centre study are still valid such that the health of district and local shopping centres across Liverpool varies and with a few exceptions majority of the centres have deteriorated over time. Key reoccurring themes include poor environmental quality, high numbers of vacant units, limited retail diversity and a lack of services. It was felt then and it remains our conclusion that a number of the centres across the City are too large and dissipated and require consolidation.
4.45 In terms of the direct implications of the wider retail market, Liverpool City Centre will continue to dominate comparison goods shopping and given the consolidation of national retailers portfolios in to larger units in higher order centres, this will inevitably be at the expense of Liverpool’s District and Local Centres where the potential for attracting multiple comparison goods traders is limited.
4.46 Elsewhere retail park locations will continue to compete with local and district centres, as they will typically be able to accommodate larger footplate units with additional flexibility in terms of ground and first floor layout. They can also provide convenient car parking which can be a significant advantage over the local and district centres. Larger retail parks could also provide some ‘adjacencies’ where complimentary retailers trade alongside and in combination with one another to enhance the local offering of the park
4.47 Previously convenience/food based retailing in the form of convenience stores and supermarkets provided the best and most realistic prospect for securing improvements to and anchoring the retail function of established local and district centres. Activity in the current market is dominated by ‘discounter’ fascia. Typically these are below the NPPF threshold of 2,500sqm where supporting retail impact information does not need to be submitted in support of applications unless a local threshold is set in a Local Plan. There is however some appetite from the national operators, albeit less than in recent years, for smaller convenience stores, typically less than 280sqm (net).
4.48 In this respect and to be able to protect local and district centres from edge and out of centre of centre retail proposals, details of average unit sizes within the centres have been identified. In combination with the overall vitality and viability assessments and the typical scale of proposals coming forwards in Liverpool, this assists in identifying a potential local impact threshold and this is considered further in the conclusions at Section 9.
GL Hearn Page 33 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
4.49 The results of the vitality and viability analysis identify the overall health of the district and local centres in Liverpool. Although the health of some centres is generally poor, overall they provide a general level of services required to be retained as per their current classification. There are a number of development opportunities identified, alterations suggested to the boundaries and in some situations there are recommendations to change the status of district and local centres in Liverpool in order to remedy some of the issues identified above.
4.50 The overall results of our assessment are set out in section 9 “Recommendations and Conclusions”:
GL Hearn Page 34 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
5 EXISTING SHOPPING AND LEISURE PATTERNS
5.1 In this section we review the headline results of the household telephone survey which was undertaken to provide the background evidence base detailing existing shopping and leisure patterns within the Study Area.
Survey Area
5.2 The study area, study zones and study sectors are shown on the Map at Appendix 1. This Study Area Plan also identifies centres as currently designated in the Adopted UDP.
5.3 The overall study area has been divided into 14 Study Zones. Study Zones 1-10 broadly comprise the Liverpool City Council administrative area: Zones 11 to 14 comprise the fringe areas to Liverpool City and are an area across which the City Centre exerts a shopping influence.
5.4 The study area used in the current Retail Study broadly reflects the City’s geography and its attraction and there have not been any significant developments either within or out of the catchment since 2011 which would change the catchment of Liverpool. In addition using the same catchment allows some comparison to be undertaken with the previous retail study.
Household Survey
5.5 In February 2015, NEMS market research undertook a 3,007 interview household telephone survey across the Study Area (Appendix 2). The telephone survey was based upon the questionnaire used in the previous Liverpool Retail Study (2011) undertaken by GL Hearn. The survey was sampled on the basis of residents within postcode sectors and the number of interviews in each postcode reflects the number of households and population in each of the 14 study zones.
5.6 The study zones are defined to understand shopping patterns of residents from similar areas. The zones seek to group residents from similar locations together, rather than seeking to reconcile shopping patterns of residents which have no obvious locational choices. Given the spread of zones and location of shopping facilities the existing zones are still considered valid. In terms of the survey questions, there were some minor adjustments but this was mainly to understand the implications of online and click and collect shopping patterns.
5.7 The main purpose of the household survey was to establish usage patterns for the following broad convenience, comparison and commercial leisure sectors:
• Main food shopping • Top up food and grocery shopping • Non food shopping (comparison goods), including • Clothing and footwear
GL Hearn Page 35 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
• Furniture floor coverings • Books, stationery, CDs, DVDs, and recorded media • Glassware, tableware and jewellery • Electrical goods • Toys, sports and leisure goods • Leisure activities, including: • Health and fitness • Cinemas and theatres • Ten pin bowling • Visiting restaurants • Visiting pubs and bars • Playing bingo • Visiting casinos • Visiting night clubs
5.8 The survey includes a comprehensive set of questions designed to understand shopping patterns across a range of goods and services. it also sought to establish on a zone by zone basis which was the nearest shopping centre, high street, or retail park to the respondent’s home and the positive and negative characteristics of that centre / location.
5.9 In connection with main food and grocery shopping, respondents were also asked how they travelled to do their shopping, approximately how much they spend on their main food shopping and whether on their main food shopping trip they linked a trip with another activity such as going to the bank, post office, building society, getting petrol, shopping for other food items, shopping for non-food items or using leisure or other service.
Food and Grocery Shopping Patterns Main Food Shopping (Question 1 and Question 9)
5.10 Large foodstores are the main destinations for respondents undertaking main food shopping trips across the study area. The most popular stores used within the Liverpool City Council’s area include Tesco Superstore, Allerton Road (5.01%), Asda at Utting Avenue, Walton (5.83%), Asda, Hunts Cross (5.33%), Asda, Smithdown Road (4.65%), Tesco Superstore, Old Swan (3.03%) and Asda, Breck Road (3.82%). Outside the Liverpool City area, stores which have a significant attraction for main food shopping include Asda, Ormskirk (5.38%), Asda, Huyton (6.26%) and Asda, Bootle (2.72%).
GL Hearn Page 36 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
Table 3: Main food shopping patterns 2011 and 2015 2011 2015 Tesco, Allerton Road 3.75% 5.01% Asda, Walton 6.47% 5.83% Asda, Hunts Cross 6.10% 5.33% Asda, Smithdown Road 4.78% 4.65% Tesco, Old Swan 5.77% 3.02% Asda, Breck Road 3.38% 3.82% Asda, Ormskirk 8.53% 5.38% Asda, Huyton 6.50% 6.26% Asda, Bootle 1.36% 2.72%
Mode of Travel for Main Food Shopping (Question 3)
5.11 Across the whole of the study area, use of private car is the most popular mode of travel when undertaking main food shopping (53%) and walking second highest at 18%. 13% of people used the car as a passenger and 10% used the bus.
Frequency of Main Food Shopping and Average Spend (Question 4 and Question 5)
5.12 Across the study area 60% of participants undertook a main food shop one a week with 17% answering with 2 or 3 times a week. Just under 3% went every day. The average spend on a main food shop varied, with the largest amount of people (12%) spending between £41 -£50 a week. 9% spent between £91 -£100.
Table 4: Average main food spend 2011 and 2015 2011 2015 Average Spend £41- £50 13.37% 12% Average Spend £91-£100 6.01% 9%
Top up Food Shopping (Questions 10, 13, 14 and 15)
5.13 Top up food shopping trips are normally made to supplement main food shopping trips and are therefore undertaken on a more frequent basis and will include the purchase of everyday staples such as bread and milk.
5.14 There is no one single stand out destination for top up shopping as this generally is undertaken at the nearest and most locally convenient location. The survey also identified some use of the main foodstores for top up shopping, although this was on a par with the use of some of the district and local centres within Liverpool.
5.15 40% of respondents undertook a top up food shop 2 or 3 times a week with 30% doing one once a week. 36% of people spend under £10 on these trips with 30% spending between £11 and £20.
GL Hearn Page 37 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
Table 5: Top up shopping frequency 2011 and 2015
2011 2015
Once a week 31.99% 30% Two or three times a week 41.22% 40%
Non Food Shopping Patterns (Questions 16 to 24a)
5.16 Respondents were asked which location is closest and what they liked and disliked about this place. For the study area as a whole Liverpool City Centre (25.7%) was the most popular destination and was most the most popular answer in each category; clothing and footwear (63.4%) and furniture and floorings (16.1%).
5.17 In addition to Liverpool City Centre, other popular shopping destination choices include the main retail parks serving the City namely New Mersey Retail Park, Aintree Retail Park also to a lesser extent Edge Lane Retail Park and Hunts Cross Shopping Park.
5.18 Of the existing established district and local centres within Liverpool, Old Swan, Belle Vale, Walton Vale, and Speke have reasonable comparison shopping attractions but the other centres do not feature particularly strongly for comparison goods shopping trips and this is borne out in the later analysis on market share turnovers and comparative benchmark trading analysis in Section 5.
5.19 The use of the internet and mail order is strong for certain components of the comparison goods shopping sector. In particular the use of the internet for the purchase of books and stationery, CDs, DVDs, and recorded media (Appendix 2, Question 21) is high at around 22.6% overall for the study area and this is reflected across all of the study zones. It is interesting to note that since the 2011 Study, this has increased from around 15%. This is as increase of around 150% and reflects the decline in bookstores and CD shops over a relatively short period of time.
5.20 The use of the internet for the purchase of clothing and footwear items (Appendix 2, Question 19) is less significant than for recorded media etc, however it is still a reasonably substantial proportion compared for example to the use of Liverpool’s district and local centre facilities.
5.21 Majority of those using internet shopping had their shopping delivered home rather than using click and collect in store. For example 7.3% of clothing and footwear purchases are done online with 0.15% of these purchases being picked up in store.
5.22 Generally the reasons given by respondents for their choice of comparison shopping destinations highlights that range and availability of shops is the most important consideration with convenience to home and general accessibility also important considerations.
GL Hearn Page 38 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
Leisure Activities
5.23 The survey investigated the use of facilities for leisure and entertainment activities, to establish overall participation rates for the various commercial leisure categories analysed. The table below sets out the overall study area participation rates.
Study Area Participation (Question 25)
5.24 Comparisons with the 2011 figures are notable as they show a substantial rise in participation of leisure activities across the City. The greatest rises are noted in visiting restaurants and pubs and bars which have both increased by over 100%. In planning policy terms this shows an increased confidence in the leisure market and as such policy should allow for further increases in leisure provision.
Table 6: Leisure Participation Rates 2011 and 2015 2011 2015 Health and Fitness 9% 20% Cinema 22% 37% Ten Pin bowling 5% 9% Restaurants 29% 65% Pubs / Bars 21% 43% Bingo 3% 7% Casinos 1% 2% Night Clubs 4% 5%
5.25 With regard to health and fitness, the main commercial gym operators were the most popular choices including David Lloyd at Speke (3%) and DW Fitness at Hunts Cross (3%). Outside of the study are Knowsley Leisure Centre attracted 6% of respondents.
5.26 With regard to cinema visits, there are four main cinema facilities being used including the Odeon multiplex at Liverpool One in the City Centre and the Cineworld multiplex at the Edge Lane Retail Park. Of the smaller non multiplex cinemas, the Woolton Picture House, Woolton and Picture House in the City Centre are popular locations. For ten pin bowling the Hollywood Bowl at Edge Lane Retail Park is the standout choice (and only ten pin bowling facility in Liverpool) capturing over 68% of household visits from the study area up from 65% in 2011.
5.27 For restaurant, pub and bar visits, Liverpool City Centre is the main location of choice. Of the district and local centres within Liverpool City Council’s area Allerton Road is a popular choice as too are Woolton and West Derby Village. All of the district and local centres attract at least some A3-A5 use class visits from within their own local zones.
5.28 Participation in bingo is low across the study area with 6% of respondents playing bingo. However this is double the 2011 figure which reflects an increased participation in all leisure activities across the
GL Hearn Page 39 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
City. Bingo facilities operated by Mecca Bingo and Gala Bingo are the most popular choices and they have a wide spread of clubs across Liverpool and surrounding competing centres.
5.29 Participation in casino activity is similarly low, with just over 2% of respondent households visiting Casino’s again this is double the 2011 results highlighting a general increase leisure participation. Those Casino’s visited include the Circus Casino, the Gala Leo Casino and the Mint Casino all in Liverpool.
5.30 When visiting a nightclub, the household survey results indicate that Liverpool City Centre is the main destination of choice.
GL Hearn Page 40 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
6 THE NEED FOR RETAIL FACILITIES
Introduction
6.1 In this section we consider the quantitative need for additional floor space in Liverpool up to 2033.
6.2 The detailed retail capacity calculations are provided within Appendix 5. The methodology, data input and results of the analysis are explained and summarised below. This analysis is a theoretical exercise and the following section provides an interpretation of the theoretical analysis to provide practical application of the capacity results.
6.3 The quantitative retail need work has considered the following matters:
• Existing and projected population within the study area • Consumer retail expenditure per head and total retail expenditure within the defined study area • Analysis of shopping market shares being claimed by centres and facilities within the City (and outside the City) based upon household survey shopping patterns in 2015 • An estimate of available consumer expenditure on convenience and comparison goods and the growth in expenditure up to 2033 (and for the intervening years 2015, 2020 and 2025) • Quantification of the convenience and comparison goods expenditure which is claimed by the City Centre, district and local centres and other retail facilities within and beyond the City • A comparison between the expenditure claimed by centres and facilities within the City and the estimated benchmark turnovers of these facilities assuming they trade at acceptable levels • Retail capacity (quantitative need) results are expressed as theoretical expenditure and floorspace shortfalls and surpluses, providing indicative estimates for the amount of additional convenience and comparison goods shopping turnover which can be supported during the study period to 2033
6.4 These retail capacity forecasts are provided on the basis of information and available evidence. We consider that the data adopted and assumptions made provide a robust basis for the preparation of short and medium term forecasting of retail floor space requirements. Whilst the development plan documents which the City Council are currently preparing have an end date of 2033, we consider that the quantitative retail capacity estimates for 2025 and, in particular, 2033, should be regarded as providing only a very broad indication of potential growth and turnover capacity over that time horizon.
6.5 In accordance with best practice and to ensure that the Council have an up to date and robust estimate and forecasts upon which to make policy and development decisions, we consider that the calculations should be monitored and updated periodically over the Local Plan period to take account of updated data inputs when they become available and to include any implemented commitments and new permissions which will alter current shopping patterns.
GL Hearn Page 41 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
Study Area and Zones
6.6 In preparing this quantitative retail need assessment for Liverpool City Council we have adopted a study area which broadly reflects the City’s geography and its attraction. The overall study area has been divided into 14 Study Zones. Study Zones 1-10 broadly comprise the Liverpool City Council administrative area: Zones 11 to 14 comprise the fringe areas to Liverpool City and are an area across which the City Centre exerts a shopping influence.
6.7 These Zones are aggregated into four study sectors which comprise the City Centre (Zone 1), North (Zones 2, 3, 5 and 6), Central (Zones 4, 7 and 8) and South (Zones 9 and 10). These four study sectors have been analysed to provide a finer grain understanding of localised shopping patterns and needs compared to the overall global retail capacity position that is provided for the City as a whole (Zones 1 to 10).
6.8 The study area and study zones are similar to the areas analysed by the previous 2011 Liverpool Quantitative Retail Study, although some minor changes were however required to reflect amended postcode geography boundaries.
6.9 The study area and study zones are shown on the Map at Appendix 1 and below at Figure 16. This Study Area Plan identifies the centres as currently designated in the Adopted UDP.
GL Hearn Page 42 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
Figure 16: Study Area Map
Population
6.10 The population of the study zones and study area for 2015 through to 2033 are set out in Table 1, Appendix 5. This base population and the population projections for 2020, 2025, and 2033 have been obtained from Experian. These projections are based upon the 2011 Census and ONS mid-year estimates and projections. The projections take account of demographic trends, including migration, mortality and fertility rates and general local housing forecasts.
6.11 The Experian projection based population figures show relatively modest population growth across the study zones over the study period rising from 681,075 to 702,593.
Expenditure
6.12 The expenditure data we have used in our model is derived from Experian Micromarketer which provides information on average convenience and comparison expenditure per head by zone. The base year for the retail model is 2014. Annual expenditure growth rates were then applied to these figures (derived from Experian’s Retail Planner Briefing Note 13) to produce expenditure per capita
GL Hearn Page 43 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
figures for 2015 (when the survey was undertaken) and the various assessment years (2020, 2025 and 2033).
6.13 All prices are set to a 2013 price base, being the year for which the latest expenditure per capita figures from Experian are available. These per capita expenditure figures were then applied, per zone, to the population projections to produce the total amount of available convenience and comparison expenditure in 2015 and future assessment years.
6.14 Our approach has been to take the forecast figures for annual growth in expenditure as it is considered that these take into account the predicted growth in expenditure rather than being based on the previous cyclical nature of the economy and the significant growth in convenience and comparison goods since the 1960’s and 70’s.
6.15 The product of study area population and expenditure per head provides an estimate of total consumer expenditure available within the study area. The available expenditure for 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2033 is calculated within Table 3 (convenience goods) and Tables B1 to B7 (comparison goods).
Adjustments for Special Forms of Trading (SFT)
6.16 The household survey recorded residents’ use of the internet, mail order and markets for both convenience and comparison goods shopping. This provides a current estimate of locally based SFT but does not take into account future changes.
6.17 Expectations as to how demand for retail floorspace will be affected by the rapid expansion of SFT remains a key issue. Rather than remove SFT as a base position, given that it is likely that increase in the near future, we therefore removed SFT at the appropriate levels at 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2033 as per the forecasts from Experian (Figure 5 of RPBN 13).
6.18 The identified expenditure per capita (EPC) levels for convenience are flat with some contraction in expenditure in the short term. Overall convenience expenditure will rise from £1,312.52 to £1,341.43 over the plan period. For Comparison goods expenditure should also rise from £1,703.52 to £2,966.91 by 2033.
Market Shares
6.19 Survey responses directly inform the market share calculations. The survey established inter alia, the locations which residents within the study area visited to undertake shopping for various broad categories of goods, comprising food shopping (convenience goods) and component elements of non- food (comparison goods) shopping .
GL Hearn Page 44 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
6.20 The full results of the household survey are reproduced as Appendix 2 and a brief summary of the shopping patterns are provided in Section 7.
6.21 For the retail capacity calculations the survey responses ‘varies’, ‘don’t know’ and ‘don’t buy’ have been removed from the survey results and the results re-based. This adjustment has been made as such responses do not enable all consumer expenditure to be allocated to retail centres or locations
6.22 With respect to convenience expenditure, an assumption of a 70:30% split has been adopted for main food and top-up shopping. This has been revised since the 2011 retail study (when an 75:25% split was used) to reflect retail trends and changing shopping behaviour whereby more people are undertaking a greater number of smaller shopping trips thereby increasing the proportion of ‘top-up’ shopping expenditure.
6.23 Table 4 (Appendix 5) sets out the main food shopping patterns informed by the household survey, indicating a percentage market share for each individual store/centre/location drawn from the study area. Table 6 (Appendix 5) provides percentage market share patterns for top-up food shopping.
6.24 For comparison shopping people were asked where they undertake various subcategories of comparison shopping and their responses were weighted by the proportion of total comparison spend in each subcategory. This is presented in the tables C1 to C6.
6.25 The overall market share for comparison goods is identified at Table E. These market share figures are used as a base to predict the trading position for stores and centres, using a constant market share for 2020, 2025 and 2033.
Retail Capacity Modelling
6.26 Having established the convenience and comparison shopping market shares of each of the retail locations, the available expenditure within the study area for each of the study years is distributed to centres/facilities on the basis of those market shares. This provides the implied or market share turnover of these centres and retailing locations. These shares are based upon the 2015 shopping patterns and in this theoretical capacity analysis those 2015 market share patterns are applied to subsequent study years without making adjustment to take account of future changes to market shares. This establishes the baseline position.
6.27 Given the difficulty in obtaining company average sales densities for all comparison stores in any given area (due to the number of separate businesses involved and wide divergence in the performance of individual operators), we assumed an equilibrium position at the base year (2015 in this case). This is a standard feature of quantitative comparison capacity modelling unless the retail provision is clearly overtrading.
GL Hearn Page 45 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
6.28 We have applied annual efficiency rates to benchmark sales densities, derived from Experian’s latest briefing note.
6.29 The expenditure attracted to each centre/location over the study years to 2033 is provided within Tables 7 to 10 for convenience shopping and Tables F to H for comparison goods shopping in Appendix 5, using constant Market Share.
6.30 Overall and sector analysis of convenience goods (Table 11) and comparison goods (Table J) is provided. This identifies the current Market Share, as well as inflows and outflow levels from the various sub-sectors for the various study years.
6.31 The capacity or need for additional convenience shopping is reviewed within Table 15 on a City wide basis and Table 16 on a sub-sector (City, North, Central and South) basis. The same City wide and sub-sector analysis is provided for comparison goods shopping within the Tables O and P (Appendix 5).
6.32 In order to consider current over/under trading tables 12 and K consider the market share turnover of a store or town centre compared with the expected benchmark turnover.
6.33 To assist with interpretation of these theoretical results, the next section provides a review of the level of market share; how planned commitments will affect market shares; and of the inflows and outflows of expenditure in order to determine how appropriate it is to seek to plan for any change to existing market shares and address outflow and inflow. This would be primarily through the introduction of additional retail floor space but could also be affected by qualitative improvements to existing centres or indeed re classifying centres to perform different roles in the future.
6.34 This capacity analysis has taken account of benchmark turnovers of existing floor space and has had regard to the share of turnover that committed developments will have in future years. These are analysed for both convenience (Tables 13 and 14) and comparison goods shopping (Tables M and N).
6.35 The benchmark turnovers are based upon published sales density figures for national multiple retailers and adjustments are made to reflect sales mix and local independent traders within the City Centre, district centres and local centres. It is noteworthy that the analysis for both convenience and comparison goods market shares compared to benchmark turnovers suggest that a number of the district and local centres trade poorly and have implied trading densities based upon market share turnovers which are extremely low and suggest that trading within those centres is at best marginal and of questionable viability. The implications of this are considered further at Section 7.
6.36 When considering the capacity calculations, a surplus of consumer expenditure (i.e. an implied (market share) turnover which is above benchmark turnover) points to overtrading and a potential
GL Hearn Page 46 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
need for additional floorspace whilst a deficit of consumer expenditure (i.e. implied turnover which is below benchmark turnover) suggests that either existing facilities are performing poorly (undertrading) or that there is too much retail floor space in a location. In either circumstance, there is no theoretical quantitative need for additional floorspace. However where centres are performing poorly this may be due to qualitative retail issues, which if addressed would improve trading performance.
Convenience Goods Capacity
Liverpool City Council Global Citywide Capacity
6.37 The market share analysis for the whole of the City (Table 15, Appendix 5) indicates that the City retains approximately 88% of all of the convenience goods turnover potential that is generated within the Study Area. This is a substantial rise from the 2011 of figure of 69% showing that convenience provision in the city has improved leading to the city retaining retail trade. The stores trading strongly within Liverpool are Tesco, Mather Ave; Asda, Utting Ave; Asda, Hunts Cross; Asda, Smithdown Ave; Tesco, Old Swan; Morrisons, Belle Vale and Asda, Breck Road. These stores are similar to those in the 2011 study with the addition of the Asda at Smithdown Road and the Tesco at Woolton dropping from being within the top stores.
6.38 Across the Study Area, outside Liverpool’s administrative area (Zones 1 to 10), principally larger stores exert influence and attract spending. The main stores doing this are:
• Asda, Huyton • Asda, Aintree • Asda, Bootle • Tesco Extra, Prescot
6.39 However, this retention is exclusive of committed convenience retail development which has been permitted within the Liverpool City Council area within recent years but not yet implemented and trading. The convenience goods commitments as at 2015 are set out in Table 13 (Appendix 5). These comprise:
• Cains Brewery Foodstore; • Foodstore at Liverpool Waters; • Sainsburys at Great Homer Street; • Aldi and Marks and Spencer at West Derby Road; • Aldi at Walton; • Lidl at Longmoor Lane; • Foodstore included in the redevelopment of Edge Lane Retail Park.
6.40 Overall, these committed convenience goods schemes within Liverpool are anticipated to have a turnover of some £246.87m. GL Hearn estimate around £207m will be drawn from the City itself given the location of these commitments. Experian Brief 13 identifies a reduction in the density growth rate
GL Hearn Page 47 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
for convenience goods to 2033, therefore for the purpose of this study, no convenience turnover efficiency is assumed.
6.41 Deducting the turnover of the committed floor space from the theoretical pre-commitment capacity provides the global Citywide capacity estimates for the study years. Based on a consistent market share and growth rate throughout the planned period and the successful development of all of the commitments included in the study, the sqm net surplus capacity figures equate to:
Table 7: Capacity pre and post commitments 2015 2020 2025 2033 Capacity Pre- 0.00 3.61 3.21 22.10 Commitments (£m) Capacity post -206.99 -203.38 -203.78 -184.89 commitments (£m) Floorspace capacity (sqm -18,531 -18,207 -18,243 -16,552 net)
Convenience Goods Sector Analysis
6.42 Table 14 (Appendix 5) provides a finer grain analysis of convenience shopping patterns across Liverpool City. The analysis is broken down into four study sectors, namely City, South, Central and North.
6.43 In order to provide some context, since the 2011 Retail Study there has been an increase in market share in the Central and Northern zones, a reduction in market shares in City Centre zone with the Southern zone remaining static. This is identified in Table 10 below:
Table 8: Liverpool convenience provision – market shares by zone
2011 Market 2011 2015 Market Zone Turnover (£m) Share Turnover (£m) Share
City Centre 56% £65.83 47% £91.70 Central 51% £208.39 60% £282.46 South 76% £168.34 76% £204.03 North 40% £200.42 67% £362.15
6.44 This sub-sector analysis is conducted in broadly the same way as the global Citywide analysis but has some necessary adjustments to take account of trade inflow and trade outflow from the composite study zones within the sub-sectors. This table also makes an apportionment of the turnover of the convenience commitments that are anticipated to be drawn from each of the study subsectors. The anticipated proportions of turnover that the commitments will draw from the four sub sectors are set out in Table 14 (Appendix 5).
GL Hearn Page 48 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
City Centre (Zone 1)
6.45 The City Centre sub-sector has a trade retention rate for its own locally generated convenience goods expenditure of 47% and there is a positive balance in terms of inflow of convenience goods spending into the City Centre. In comparison the 2011 Retail Study identified retention of 56%.
6.46 In Table 11, Appendix 5 we summarise the inflows and outflows of expenditure. This is presented on the basis of the flows from the Liverpool Authoritative area, the rest of the catchment as well as making an allowance of some inflows from outside the study area. This identifies that the inflow of expenditure from the rest of Liverpool to the City Centre sub-sector (£58.12m in 2015) exceeds the retained expenditure (£33.57) and with some inflow of expenditure from outside the study area (£3.75m).
6.47 The analysis in Table 14 at Appendix 5 considers that the City Centre is effectively in equilibrium pre- commitments. It is identified that there will be a small decline in convenience expenditure within the City Centre throughout the plan period, whereas the trading turnover (pre-commitments) remains constant).
6.48 When the anticipated trade draw of the convenience shopping commitments are taken into consideration (see Table 14, Appendix 5), there is negative capacity which indicates that there is no need for additional convenience goods floorspace to serve the City Centre over the study period to 2033 (-£44.90m or -3,831sqm).
6.49 This analysis assumes that the existing market share of the City Centre is held constant at 47% and does not take into account the likely significant increase in City Centre residents, above that considered by ONS, throughout the plan period. It is also likely that more of these will be younger, relatively ‘time poor’ and many may not benefit from their own private transport such that they will undertake more top up shopping visits at stores within the city centre rather than larger bulk shopping trips. It may also be reflective of less younger people using land lines, preferring only to have a mobile phone, such that they are more difficult for the shopper survey company to locate to a fixed address and contact to establish their shopping habits.
6.50 As such the study may have underestimated the actual trade retention of this zone.
Table 9: City Centre Capacity pre and post commitments 2015 2020 2025 2033 Capacity Pre- 0.00 0.52 0.44 2.11 Commitments (£m) Capacity post -44.90 -44.37 -44.46 -42.79 commitments (£m) Floorspace capacity (sqm -4,020 -3,973 -3,981 -3,831 net)
GL Hearn Page 49 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
6.51 In order to re-balance the retention rate to match the commitments, the retention of the City Sub Sector would need to increase to around 69% by 2033. Although this is a significant increase in the level of retention, any enhancement in the type and quantum of convenience provision within the city centre should be supported to seek to achieve this and to address the requirements of new and proposed residential in the City Centre.
Central Zone
6.52 The Central sub-sector has a trade retention for convenience goods turnover of 60%, which is up from 51% in 2011, of the available spending in the sector. The analysis at Tables 11 and 14, Appendix 5 demonstrates that the inflow of turnover from other study area zones is less than the outflow of expenditure which leaves the Central sub-sector. This is spent predominately at other centres and facilities in Liverpool with a lesser proportion being spent outside Liverpool within the Study Area (Zones 11 to 14) and beyond. There is a total outflow of some £139.63m in 2015.
6.53 The analysis of the Central Liverpool sub-sector’s trade retention plus inflow of expenditure compared within Central Liverpool indicates no growth in expenditure over the study period. There is negative turnover capacity (or in other words, no need for additional convenience goods floorspace) within the Central Zone over the study period to 2033 given the commitments already in place.
Table 10: Central Zone Capacity pre and post commitments 2015 2020 2025 2033 Capacity Pre- 0.00 1.32 2.15 7.81 Commitments (£m) Capacity post -32.41 -21.09 -30.26 -24.60 commitments (£m) Floorspace capacity (sqm -2,901 -2,784 -2,709 -2,202 net)
6.54 We consider in the next section the potential for the Central Zone to improve trade retention by clawing back spending which leaks outside the area primarily to South Liverpool.
South Zone
6.55 The analysis for the South sub-sector in Table 1 (Appendix 5) indicates that this sector retains some 76% of its own generated spending on convenience goods which is the same as in 2011. It is considered that is a reasonable retention level for this zone. In addition, there is a strong level of expenditure inflow into the area from other zones in Liverpool City Council area and more limited inflow from Zones 11 to 14, which are outside Liverpool City (see Table 11, Appendix 5). This inflow of expenditure equates to just over half of the convenience turnover within the zone.
GL Hearn Page 50 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
6.56 The Analysis identifies that there is limited growth in expenditure over the plan period to support additional convenience floorspace in the southern zone. Overall there is a negative capacity of £14.77m or 1,322sqm by 2033.
Table 11: South Zone Capacity pre and post commitments 2015 2020 2025 2033 Capacity Pre- 0.00 0.23 0.95 4.96 Commitments (£m) Capacity post -19.65 -19.44 -18.74 -14.77 commitments (£m) Floorspace capacity (sqm -1,759 -1,740 -1,678 -1,322 net)
North Zone
6.57 The convenience goods shopping provision in the North sub-sector is retaining 67% of the spending that residents in the North Liverpool generate. The North area also has some outflow of convenience goods spending (£133.29m in 2015). There is slightly more outflow of convenience spending from the North Liverpool sub-sector area to other facilities within Liverpool (£74.24m) than beyond the City boundary (£59.05m).
6.58 In the 2011 Retail Study the retention was only 40%. The main reason for the improvement in the level of retention is a series of incremental improvements in terms of the trading performance of the stores within the zone. The most notable increase in trading performance is at County Road where convenience turnover has increased from around £14m in the 2011 study to around £31m in the current study, with the Aldi itself increasing from around £8m to just over £17m.
6.59 The market share turnover of facilities within this sub-sector when compared to the theoretical benchmark turnover shows a negative capacity for additional convenience floorspace prior to the addition of the turnover of convenience shopping commitments. When these commitments are taken into account, there is a significant negative capacity which suggests theoretically at least that there is no need for additional convenience goods floorspace to serve the northern part of the City.
Table 12: North Zone Capacity pre and post commitments 2015 2020 2025 2033 Capacity Pre- 0.00 1.54 -0.33 7.22 Commitments (£m) Capacity post -110.03 -108.50 -110.36 -102.81 commitments (£m) Floorspace capacity (sqm -9,851 -9,713 -9.880 -9,204 net)
6.60 The Northern Zone is subject to a number of convenience proposals; therefore, there may be some justification for planning to improve the retention rate. We consider this further in the following section.
GL Hearn Page 51 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
Comparison Market Shares
6.61 Respondents were asked in which location they normally buy most of their households non-food shopping. For the study area as a whole Liverpool City Centre was the most popular destination.
6.62 In addition to Liverpool City Centre, other popular shopping destination choices include the main retail parks serving the City namely New Mersey Retail Park, Aintree Retail Park also to a lesser extent Edge Lane Retail Park and Hunts Cross Shopping Park.
6.63 Of the existing established district and local centres within Liverpool, Old Swan, Belle Vale, Walton Vale, and Speke have reasonable comparison shopping attractions but the other centres do not feature particularly strongly for comparison goods shopping trips and this is borne out in the later analysis on market share turnovers and comparative benchmark trading analysis in Section 5.
6.64 The market share retention of comparison goods expenditure by facilities within the City and primarily the City Centre is some 87% of available expenditure within the study area, which is an increase from the 71% identified in the 2011 study.
6.65 However, within the City Council area there are a number of committed developments for comparison goods shopping. These are set out in Table N (Appendix 6), as well as including the comparison goods floorspace element of a number of new food stores, it also includes substantial comparison goods shopping floor space that will be delivered as part of the Project Jennifer Scheme at Great Homer Street and also the redevelopment proposals for Edge Lane Retail Park.
6.66 When the comparison expenditure is considered in light of the approved commitments, there is negative capacity in 2015 and 2020. By 2025 the growth in expenditure is such that there is a residual expenditure of £145.92m, which would require an additional floorspace requirement of 14,647sqm (net). By 2033 this expenditure will grow to £723.52m, indicating an overall floorspace requirement of 71,544sqm (net).
Comparison Goods Capacity
6.67 Table P, (Appendix 6), sets out the sub-sector analysis for the City, South, Central and North sub- sectors. In preparing this analysis, and to reflect the importance and significant attraction of Liverpool City Centre within the study area, we have sought when analysing the South, Central and North sub- sectors to highlight those sub-sectors’ retention rates. The table below shows the market share for each zone.
GL Hearn Page 52 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
Table 13: Liverpool comparison provision – market shares by zone Market Share Turnover Market Share Turnover 2015 Zone 2011 2011 (£m) 2015 (£m) City 75% £721.07 76% £896.15 Central 6% £42.92 6% £43.35 South 56% £349.80 51% £340.60 North 18% £134.59 15% £121.69
6.68 In order to provide some context, the 2011 retail study identified the market shares for the sectors. This identifies that there has been an increase in market share in the City, but a slight reduction in market shares in Northern and Southern zones.
City Centre
6.69 The City Centre has a comparison goods shopping retention rate of 76% of the expenditure generated within its home zone. In addition, the City Centre also has a very substantial net inflow of turnover from other Sub-Sectors in Liverpool and from the outer study zones and facilities beyond. The retention rate and the net trade inflow attraction exhibited by Liverpool in respect of comparison goods shopping is high and is considered both appropriate and sustainable given the City Centre’s regional centre status and its high accessibility.
6.70 Comparing the market share turnover of the City Centre from the study zones plus inflows with the benchmark turnover of facilities within the City Centre indicates that in 2020 there is a turnover capacity of some £18.56m (1,891sqm of net floorspace). By 2025, given the growth in consumer spending on comparison goods, this increases to £183.00m (18,368sqm of net floorspace) of additional comparison goods, rising further to £551.06m (54,490 sqm net floorspace) by 2033. This means that some 80% of the need/capacity for additional comparison floorspace should be delivered in the City Centre.
Table 14: City Zone Capacity 2015 2020 2025 2033 Capacity pre £0.00 £108.55 £274.34 £643.79 commitments (£m) Capacity post- -£88.65 £18.56 £183.00 £551.06 commitments (£m) Floorspace -9,169sqm 1,891sqm 18,368sqm 54,490sqm Capacity (sqm net)
Central
6.71 The existing comparison shopping facilities within the Central sub-sector have a very low trade retention rate of 6% which is the same as the 2011 retention level. The Central area of Liverpool has a substantial net outflow of comparison goods turnover from it. Table J, Appendix 6 demonstrates that the outflow from Central Liverpool is substantially to other locations in Liverpool, with £458.10m
GL Hearn Page 53 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
leaving the Central area in 2015 rising to £804.96m in 2033. The main outflows are to the city centre and to facilities in South Liverpool such as New Mersey Retail Park and Speke District Centre
6.72 The trade retention of the Central sub-sector, including inflows, compared with the growth in the turnover of facilities within the Central sub-sector indicates that there is very limited floorspace capacity (3sqm) throughout the Plan Period.
Table 15: Central Zone Capacity
2015 2020 2025 2033
Capacity pre £0.00 £5.55 £14.04 £32.93 commitments (£m) Capacity post -£31.46 -£26.38 -£18.38 0.03 commitments (£m) Floorspace -3,254sqm -2,688sqm -1,845sqm 3sqm Capacity (sqm net)
South
6.73 The Liverpool South sub-sector has a trade retention rate within its home zones of 51% which is a fall from 56% in 2011. It is also noteworthy that the South sub-sector has a net inflow of turnover, this is attributable mainly to the attraction of New Mersey Retail Park which sits within the South subsector and draws trade from a wide area. Table J, Appendix 6 sets out a summary of the trade inflows, showing that South Liverpool attracts £207.41m (2015) which is expected to rise to £362.89 (2033) from the rest of Liverpool (Zones 1 to 8). This inflow is very substantial and is not indicative of sustainable, locally based shopping patterns.
6.74 The theoretical capacity for additional comparison goods shopping provision (Table M) within the South sub-sector is the largest of the subsectors outside of the City Centre. By 2033 there is a capacity of £136.46m or 13,493sqm of floorspace.
Table 16: South Zone Capacity 2015 2020 2025 2033 Capacity pre- £0.00 £40.95 £104.95 £245.46 commitments (£m) Capacity post -£106.62 -£66.36 -£3.46 £136.46 commitments (£m) Floorspace -11,027sqm -6,761sqm -348sqm 13,493sqm Capacity (sqm net)
6.75 The capacity figures shown for the South Liverpool area do not mean that it is appropriate to seek to allocate more floorspace to South Liverpool as this would potentially compound the already significant and unsustainable pattern of shopping trips originating from the Central and North sub-sectors to
GL Hearn Page 54 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
South Liverpool. If New Mersey Retail Park did not exert such a strong influence, trading patterns would be more balanced and the capacity shown to exist in South Liverpool arising from the overtrading success of the Retail Park would be more evenly spread across the whole of the City.
North
6.76 The turnover retention rate of the Northern Sector of Liverpool is 15% which is slightly below the 2011 rate of 18%. In terms of inflow and outflow, the North sector of Liverpool has large outflow of turnover (£437.29m), whilst a substantial part of this is to the City Centre, the attraction of facilities at Aintree and beyond are also significant. Table L, Appendix 6 summarises the outflows of expenditure, showing that some £333.52m is spent in other Liverpool sectors (excluding City Centre) but more significantly £103.77m of expenditure is flowing out of the City.
6.77 The comparison goods shopping capacity within the North sub-sector is small and commitments are taken into account in 2033. This is only £31.14m or 3,079sqm over the study period to 2033. However it is anticipated that outflow will still be significant given the geography of the area and in particular the proximity of North Liverpool area to the Retail parks at Aintree and Bootle.
Table 17: North Zone Capacity 2015 2020 2025 2033 Capacity pre £0.00 £14.57 £36.13 £86.33 commitments (£m) Capacity post -£52.76 -£53.55 -£18.23 £31.14 commitments (£m) Floorspace -5,457sqm -3,973sqm -1,830sqm 3,079sqm Capacity (sqm net)
Summary
6.78 Convenience floorspace within the study area retains almost all of its available expenditure in the core catchment. The in-centre foodstore provision within local and district centres is largely trading well.
6.79 The development of the commitments leads to negative capacity which will translate to some trade diversion. However as retail systems are dynamic, the reality is that the market share of the City and northern zones drawn from the study area will need to rise in order to balance the turnover of commitments.
6.80 With respect to comparison shopping, Liverpool City Centre is the dominant shopping destination in the study area. Liverpool has a large range and variety of retailers serving a wide spectrum of shoppers. Liverpool City Centre has a wide catchment drawing expenditure from across the extensive survey area. Together the overall comparison offer attains a 87% market share.
GL Hearn Page 55 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
6.81 In total, comparison goods shopping commitments have a substantial turnover and when these commitments are factored into the global citywide comparison capacity analysis, there is, in 2015, a negative capacity amounting to some £279.48m and there remains a negative capacity in 2020.
6.82 By 2025, as a result of the growth in population and increasing levels of consumer spending on comparison goods, the negative capacity situation is reversed and there is a theoretical requirement for comparison shopping floorspace to absorb some £145.92m of comparison goods shopping turnover. This would support around 14,647 sqm (net) of comparison goods floorspace assuming a trading density of £10,167/sqm (the existing turnover level of the City Centre).
6.83 The overall level of need in 2033 is some £723.52m, which would require 71,544sqm (net) of floorspace.
6.84 However, as we have previously stated, the estimates in 2025 and 2033 should be treated with a degree of caution.
GL Hearn Page 56 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
7 INTERPRETING THE RETAIL NEED ANALYSIS
7.1 Having established in the previous section the theoretical retail capacity for additional retail floorspace over the study period, in this section we seek to analyse and test the findings.
7.2 In particular, we briefly review the levels of under and over trading exhibited by centres within the City and then review the existing retention rates. In particular, how they would be affected by the development of commitments. Finally, we consider whether the trading performance and retention within the geographical sectors of Liverpool indicate whether it is appropriate to plan for additional floorspace to seek to rebalance trade to achieve more sustainable shopping patterns.
Under and Overtrading
7.3 In considering the overall capacity for additional retailing, our retail capacity model identifies under and over trading of existing floorspace as well as the future growth in retail spending.
7.4 Where overtrading is identified within a centre, this may suggest a need for additional floorspace to relieve trading pressure which can be manifest in stock shortages, overcrowding in store, pressure on car parking and excessive queuing at tills. The phenomenon of excessive overtrading is most common to food retailing and in particular main grocery retailers. Comparison goods traders and floorspace is more able to accommodate ‘overtrading’ as this is more likely to be described as strong trading and increased profitability.
7.5 The opposite of overtrading is undertrading where performance is considered poor relative to a benchmark level of trading. Undertrading or poor trading performance results from low levels of visitation to centres, limited use of existing facilities and low or no profitability, leading to store closures etc. Undertrading in centres can lead to a lack of investment in premises and a general run down feel to stores and locations.
7.6 In preparing this Study, we have used our experience of similar centres and trading densities and professional judgement to establish appropriate benchmark levels of trade for Liverpool’s district and local centres which are set at a relatively low level, reflective of the range and quality of traders generally present.
Undertrading – Convenience Goods
7.7 For convenience goods floorspace within existing district and local centres, there is some poor trading performances, significantly less than a reasonable trading density of £5,000 per sqm (for an independent or small scale trader). Table 12, Appendix 5 provides the convenience goods floorspace trading analysis. Generally, centres which contain national multiple foodstores, particularly larger stores trade most strongly. The centres not performing particularly well for convenience trade are:
GL Hearn Page 57 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
• Smithdown Road North (Local Centre) £0/m2 • Park Road £0/m2) • Walton (District Centre) £230/m2 • Great Homer Street (Local Centre) £254/m2 • Hunts Cross (Local Centre) £588/m2 • Lodge Lane (Local Centre) £612/m2 • Prescot Road (Local Centre) £1,169/m2 • Smithdown Road South (Local Centre) £1,844/m2
7.8 Although the shopper survey identified that no trade is drawn to Park Road and Smithdown Road North, this is clearly not the case as there are convenience stores trading within these centres. What the shopper survey does suggest is that their patronage is very low.
7.9 When the floorspace within a centre or store is compared to its benchmark and also the survey derived turnover, the overall trading position of the store and centre can be identified. Identifying an overall trading position, for those that registered a trading turnover, identifies under trading at the following centres and stores:
Table 18: Convenience undertrading in centres and stores (£m) Undertrading Undertrading Stores Centres (£m) (£m) Sainsburys, Rice Lane -7.95 Woolton -11.18 Tesco, Park Road -1.42 Breck Road -10.31 Edge Hill -9.47 Smithdown Road South -7.82
7.10 The effect of the undertrading of facilities is to drag down the retail capacity potential of the study area where floorspace exists but does not trade well. In assessing capacity, it is the normal approach to assume that this undertrading floorspace can absorb more turnover. However, there will be instances where the quality of floorspace is such that it is obsolete and unlikely to ever achieve a substantial uplift in turnover.
7.11 In respect of Smithdown Road South there is a recommendation to remove the centre from the hierarchy, given that it has very low levels of vitality and viability and the shopper survey identifies no convenience trade are attracted there.
7.12 The wider undertrading amongst the district and Local Centres needs to be carefully monitored and alongside the vitality and viability assessments, the future health of individual centres needs to be considered.
GL Hearn Page 58 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
Undertrading – Comparison Goods
7.13 Even adopting low benchmark trading densities (£4,000 per sqm for District Centres and £3,000 per sqm for Local Centres for comparison goods), our assessment shows levels of undertrading which are very low in certain centres. Table K, Appendix 6 sets out the trading analysis for existing centres and compares the benchmark estimates of trading potential with the implied market share turnovers. Specifically, Table K compares implied trading performance against benchmark, the final column of the table headed ‘over/undertrading’ shows in percentage terms the locations which are under and over performing. A percentage below 100% is undertrading (under performance) and percentages above 100% are overtrading. 100% is equilibrium or balanced trading.
7.14 The analysis in Table K shows some notable levels of poor comparison goods trading below £1,000/m2 for example:
• Kensington Fairfield (Local Centre) £0/m2 • Great Homer Street (Local Centre) £0/m2 • Tuebrook (Local Centre) £365/m2 • Muirhead Avenue East (Local Centre) £383/m2 • Lodge Lane (Local Centre) £454/m2 • Aigburth Road (District Centre) £520/m2 • Edge Hill (District Centre) £584/m2 • Aigburth Vale (Local Centre) £642/m2 • Smithdown Road South (District Centre) £803/m2
7.15 Notable undertrading was identified at the following stores and retail parks:
Table 19: Comparison undertrading in centres and retail parks (£m) Undertrading Undertrading Centres Retail parks (£m) (£m) Allerton Road -20.07 Edge Lane -32.84 Smithdown Road South -16.58 Hunts Cross -11.30 County Road -15.91 Edge Hill -14.62 Breck Road -13.67
7.16 There is a general correlation between the poorly performing centres identified above and centres which have lower levels of vitality and viability as identified in Appendix 4. For centres such as Breck Road and Edge Hill there are recommendations made to the Council to consolidate these centres to better reflect the actual centre ‘on the ground’, but this will also see a reduction in the level of floorspace. The identified trade attributed to the centre from the shopper may better reflect the ‘new centre’ such that the level of undertrading is reduced.
GL Hearn Page 59 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
Overtrading - Convenience
7.17 Within the Study Area, there is also some implied convenience overtrading, particularly at some of the main foodstores, both within centres and out of centre. There is also some strong convenience performance of centres, the notable overtrading includes the following stores and centres:
Table 20: Convenience overtrading in centres and stores (£m) Overtrading Overtrading Stores Centres (£m) (£m) Asda, Smithdown Road 38.07 Knotty Ash 16.22 South: Tesco, Allerton Road: 33.08 Walton Vale 6.63 Asda, Utting Avenue: 31.14 Belle Vale 5.42 Morrisons, Belle Vale: 30.73 Aigburth Vale 3.39 Asda, Hunts Cross: 28.94 Aldi, Old Swan: 27.35 Aldi, Gateacre: 24.44 Sainsburys, Woolton: 20.21 Tesco, Old Swan: 19.14 Asda, Breck Road: 18.65 Aldi, Salop Street: 13.84
7.18 The level of overtrading identified at the Aldi stores shows the progress that Aldi has made into the main food and also the top up shopping market. This is reflected not only in Liverpool but across the country as a whole. Although the overtrading figures above are likely to overstate the actual trading position of those stores, given that the results above are based on an equal basket/trolley size shop at every store and it is highly likely that the basket/trolley sizes will be smaller at the discounters than those at a main food shopping facilities, it is clear that they are having a significant trading effect on convenience shopping provision in Liverpool. The total overtrading at these Aldi stores is calculated to be in excess of £60m.
7.19 There are also substantial levels of overtrading at the larger superstores; of those approximately £160m of overtrading is within stores within and on the edge of centres. In addition, around £60m goes through out of centre stores.
7.20 In terms of the District and Local Centres, there are some strong trading performances when comparing the market share turnover with the benchmark. It is noted that not all centres with strong convenience performance are anchored by in or edge of centre supermarkets or superstores.
Overtrading – Comparison
7.21 For comparison goods, establishing benchmark turnovers and overtrading is in practice more difficult to assess. In addition, comparison goods retailers are unlikely to regard their turnovers as too high, with strong trading only becoming an issue when in-store congestion and stock shortages are regular occurrences.
GL Hearn Page 60 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
7.22 Analysis of the implied turnover of centres/facilities against the assumed benchmarks which range between £2,000 and £4,000 per sqm for the district and local centres is provided in Table K, Appendix 6 for comparison goods. Strong comparison goods trading is shown to exist in the following centres:
Table 21: Comparison overtrading trading in centres (£m) Centres Overtrading (£m) Speke £7.73 Hunts Cross £8.58 Woolton £6.24 Smithdown Road North £6.89
7.23 Although the level of overtrading in Speke is very high, this will be supported by the Morrisons foodstore which is the main anchor for the centre. Along with this, the centre has good levels of comparison provision, including a TK Maxx
7.24 Overtrading at defined centres is clearly not unacceptable, but should be monitored to ensure that other issues such as congestion in car parks etc do not undermine the potential for good levels of trade to be captured by centres.
7.25 In terms of the Retail Parks, the most significant comparison goods overtrading is exhibited by New Mersey Retail Park which trades at +58% over our estimated benchmark level. This equates to £94.45m of overtrading which, if market share is maintained, will grow substantially over the study period.
7.26 The household survey of shopping patterns shows that New Mersey draws comparison shopping trips from across the Study Area. As such it would not be appropriate to plan for further growth at this location as this is not an unmet need of the population of South Liverpool rather it is overtrading. In these circumstances, it would be appropriate to proactively plan to reinforce the offer of other existing centres in order for them to recapture market share from this less sustainable out of centre shopping location.
Trade Retention Rates
7.27 The retail analysis highlighted varying trade retention levels for the sub-sectors. Given that retail catchments are dynamic and influenced by facilities both within and surrounding them it is to be expected that retention rates across the City, North, Central and South Sectors of Liverpool should be different.
Convenience Retention Rates
7.28 In order to consider how retention rates have changed The table below sets out the existing market shares established by the household survey for convenience shopping in 2015 and compares it to the results from the 2011 study (based on a 2010 survey) and the retention rates from the 2006 study
GL Hearn Page 61 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
(based on a 2004 survey). It is noted that the results of the 2015 surveys closely reflect the results of the 2004 surveys.
Table 22: Liverpool convenience provision – market shares by zone Zone 2015 survey 2010 survey 2004 survey City Centre 47% 56% 48% Central 60% 51% 57% South 76% 76% 77% North 67% 40% 61%
7.29 Within the central and northern zones the market shares have increased since the 2011 study, with the southern zone remaining static at 76%. Although there has been a fall in the retention rates within the City Centre, this probably reflects the level of convenience provision, which is mainly small scale, top up shopping facilities such that residents will continue to leave this zone if they want to undertake a bulky goods shop at a large superstore.
7.30 There are no convenience trade retention rates which cause any particular concerns. However it should be noted that there are additional convenience retail proposals in the City Centre, including a foodstore at Cains Brewery along with provision at Liverpool Waters and potentially Little Chinatown and within the northern sector, including Great Homer Street and Edge Lane Retail Park will inevitably enhance their individual market shares of those zones.
7.31 An initial analysis of the potential for the city centre and northern zones to enhance their market share is presented below. There is also some commentary on the potential implications for the central zone.
City Centre Convenience Goods Capacity Potential
7.32 In terms of the city centre the largest commitment is at Liverpool Waters (7,800sqm) and it is unclear how and when this will be delivered including whether a number of smaller convenience stores are provided or whether a discounter, or even a larger food superstore may be delivered as part of the wider development. Whatever is implemented will have a bearing on the trade draw for this zone.
7.33 The overall increase in turnover of the City Centre zone is expected to be £116.62m from the current commitments, of which it is assumed that around £28m is already being spent in the city centre but will be reallocated within the city centre zone. Accordingly the total additional expenditure within the zone is around £88m of which it is assumed that around 25% would be clawed back from city centre residents’ current spending elsewhere and 75% of the new expenditure supported by the inflow of expenditure from outside of Zone 1. Typically this would be made up of visitors and workers within Liverpool City Centre.
GL Hearn Page 62 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
7.34 Based on these assumptions it is anticipated that the market share of the zone could potentially increase to around 77%. Alongside this the level of inflow of expenditure into the city centre would rise. The potential residual market share is presented below:
Table 23: City Centre market share adjustment in 2033 Zone 2033 Available Expenditure (£m) 73.37 Anticipated market share 77% Anticipated convenience turnover in the zone (£m) 56.58 Anticipated inflow of expenditure to support 125.69 existing and proposed floorspace (£m) Total anticipated convenience turnover in zone (£m) 182.57 Growth in trading turnover (existing and committed) 158.04 (£m) Residual expenditure (£m) 24.23 Benchmark sales density (per sqm) 11,170 Potential floorspace capacity (sqm) 2,169
7.35 This indicates that in order to maintain the potential 77% market share, post the implementation of all commitments, there is potential to require an additional 2,169sqm of floorspace over the plan period within the city centre.
Northern Convenience Goods Capacity Potential
7.36 The previous Retail Study advocated increasing the market share of the Northern zone from 40% to 75% (following the implementation of commitments) which indicated a requirement for additional retail floorspace.
7.37 Since the 2011 Study the market share of this zone has increased to 67%. In addition to this increase in market share the City Council has been successful in supporting additional convenience floorspace proposals within the northern zone, such that there are commitments in place with a potential turnover of around £130m. This includes a potential superstore at Edge Lane Retail Park and the supermarket at Great Homer Street along with a series of discount foodstores.
7.38 Of this additional turnover it is expected that around £92m is already being spent in the northern zone and this trade will be reallocated within the zone . Accordingly the total additional expenditure required to support these commitments is around £38m of which it is assumed that around 80% would be clawed back from residents’ in the northern zone being spent elsewhere with 20% of the new expenditure supported by inflow from zones elsewhere.
7.39 Based on these assumptions the market share of the zone could potentially increase to around 74%. The potential market share and residual calculation is presented below:
GL Hearn Page 63 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
Table 24: Northern Market share adjustment in 2033 Zone 2033 Available Expenditure (£m) 438.15 Anticipated market share post commitments 74% Anticipated convenience turnover in the zone (£m) 323.35 Anticipated inflow of expenditure to support 84.2 existing and proposed floorspace (£m) Total anticipated convenience turnover in zone (£m) 407.54 Growth in trading turnover (existing and committed) 377.42 (£m) Residual expenditure (£m) 20.12 Benchmark sales density (per sqm) 11,170 Potential floorspace capacity (sqm) 2,697
7.40 This indicates that in order to maintain the potential 74% market share, there is potential to require additional 2,697sqm of floorspace over the plan period within the northern zone.
7.41 The implementation of convenience commitments should be monitored in order to understand the strengthening of these zones which could potentially have implications for other zones elsewhere through the diversion of trade. Rather than rely on the above assumptions, it would be recommended that the shopping patterns are reassessed once these proposals have been implemented and stable patterns have been achieved in order to understand the full impact of the proposals.
Central Market Share
7.42 Notwithstanding the initial indicative assessments provided above, the market share of the central zone should be closely monitored. This is on the basis that there are no extant planning permissions or proposals within the central zone however there are a number of proposals in the northern zone and the city centre zone, both of which adjoin the central zone. Although there has been an ongoing enhancement in market share in the central zone since the 2006 study the enhancements in market share since the 2011 study could be lost through the enhancement of provision and therefore the changing shopping patterns in adjoining sectors.
7.43 In this respect it is assumed that the central zone would be subject of a trade diversion of around £32m from the existing commitments (Table 14, Appendix 5). Simply seeking to recoup this potential loss of expenditure in order to maintain its current market share would require additional floorspace to trade at the same level as the expenditure lost. In order to ‘bridge’ the potential £32m of expenditure which could be lost would require around 2,900sqm of convenience floorspace on the basis of a turnover of £11,170 per sqm.
7.44 If this maintenance of the market share of the central zone were pursued by the City, then the potential for larger format foodstores should be investigated in order to have the best opportunity to recapture market share, especially of bulk food shopping trips.
GL Hearn Page 64 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
7.45 However in light of the current retail climate and the investment activity of the larger national operators securing a larger scale foodstore may be difficult. Accordingly a series of smaller convenience stores should not be discounted, especially for the potential development sites identified in Allerton, Garston and Wavertree. Given that there are a number of discounter proposals in adjoining zones, recapturing some ‘discounter’ trade back to the zone would reduce the potential impact of the proposal in adjoining sectors.
7.46 As discounters typically trade at a lower company average level, there may be a need for additional floorspace above and beyond that indicated above to maintain market share in the central zone
7.47 Overall it is recommended that the Council continue to support convenience store proposals within centres, but given the existing retention levels, proposed commitments and no identified need on a constant market share basis no additional sites for convenience store proposals outside of centres should be identified.
Comparison Goods Shopping Retention Analysis
7.48 Unlike the more local nature of convenience (food) shopping, comparison goods shopping is generally undertaken in larger centres where shoppers have a range and choice of comparison goods and the ability to shop around and compare what is on offer in a number of shops, with safe convenient parking or public transport access and a pleasant environment.
7.49 The retention levels exhibited by the four sub areas of Liverpool in 2015 are set out in the table below. This table also provides as a comparison the retention rates from the previous 2010 and 2004 Surveys.
7.50 What can be drawn from the current and the previous results of the shopper survey is that:
• The City Centre is an attractive shopping destination drawing extensively across the Liverpool and the wider Study Area. • The role and attraction of the City Centre is important to the overall comparison shopping needs of Liverpool as the district and local centres have only limited influence on shopping patterns and at a local sectional level only. • New Mersey Retail Park with its extensive facilities dominates comparison shopping in South Liverpool and also draws trade from Central and North Liverpool and beyond. New Mersey Retail Park’s overall attraction is greater than any of the district and local centres. • Like New Mersey, Aintree Retail Park to the north, beyond the City Boundary has extensive attraction to shoppers in North Liverpool. • Edge Lane, in its current form has a lesser attraction than either New Mersey or Aintree Retail Parks.
GL Hearn Page 65 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
Table 25: Liverpool comparison provision – market shares by zone Zone 2015 2011 2004 City 78% 75% 74% Central 7% 6% 10% South 50% 56% 44% North 15% 18% 21%
7.51 The relative attraction of Liverpool City Centre is increasing and this zone is growing at the fastest rate across the survey. This has grown by 4% over the last 11 years. The central sector has grown recently, and it appears to be regaining some of the expenditure which was lost between 2004 and 2010.
7.52 Thereafter in the short term both the south and north sectors have reducing levels of market share and it is expected that this is mainly expenditure lost to the City Centre, with some going to new Mersey Retail Park.
7.53 The previous study identified issues with the relative trading position of New Mersey Retail Park from across Liverpool and especially having a disproportionate effect on the capacity for additional comparison goods in South Liverpool. The previous and existing breakdown of trade is as follows:
Table 26: New Mersey Trade Draw Zone 2015 2010 City 2% 2% Central 52% 55% South 20% 18% North 12% 10%
7.54 Although there has been an improvement in the retention of New Mersey Retail Park from the southern sector within which it is located, there has also been an increase in the level of trade from the northern sector. It should also be noted that the overall inflow of trade to the southern sector has reduced.
7.55 It was considered previously that the outflow of trade from north Liverpool to New Mersey Retail Park is considered wholly unsustainable. Given the increase in outflow from the north to the south of Liverpool, this remains an unsustainable situation.
7.56 However it is expected that the implementation of the Edge Lane Retail Park would stem some of the flow of expenditure from the northern to the southern areas of Liverpool by providing an enhanced retail park within the northern sector of Liverpool. The estimated future turnover of the Edge Lane expansion is over £140m and this is expected to substantially increase the level of retention in the northern zone and will claw back substantial amounts of trade currently being lost, especially to New Mersey Retail Park.
GL Hearn Page 66 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
Northern Comparison Goods Capacity Potential
7.57 The previous Retail Study advocated a trade equalisation scenario where the dominance of New Mersey Retail Park was reconsidered, in order that further trade could be retained within the city, central and northern zones.
7.58 The market share of the northern zone has been falling from 18% in the previous study to 15% and it is expected that this is due to Edge Lane Retail Park being readied for its redevelopment such that it is not trading at its expected levels. Since the 2011 Study the City Council have been successful in supporting additional comparison floorspace within the northern zone, such that there are commitments in place with a potential turnover of around £187m. This includes the redevelopment at Edge Lane Retail Park. The implementation of the commitments could assist the Council in delivering the previously identified trade equalisation strategy and this is considered further below.
7.59 Of the additional turnover within the northern zone, it is expected that around £40m will be redistributed within northern zone (Table L, Appendix 5). Accordingly the total additional expenditure within the Northern Zone expected to be around £147m, of which it is assumed that around 50% would be clawed back from residents’ in the northern zone but spending elsewhere with 50% of the new expenditure supported by inflow from zones elsewhere and out of the study area.
7.60 Based on these assumptions the market share of the zone could potentially increase to around 30%. The potential market share and residual calculation is presented below:
Table 27: Northern Market share adjustment in 2033 Zone 2033 Available Expenditure (£m) 896.52 Anticipated market share post commitments 30% Anticipated comparison turnover in the zone (£m) 266.53 Anticipated inflow of expenditure to support 151.53 existing and proposed floorspace (£m) Total anticipated comparison turnover in zone (£m) 418.07 Growth in trading turnover (existing and committed) 277.28 (£m) Residual expenditure (£m) 140.78 Benchmark sales density (per sqm) 10,113 Potential floorspace capacity (sqm) 13,921
7.61 This indicates that in order to maintain the potential 30% market share, there is potential to require additional 13,921sqm of floorspace over the plan period within the northern zone.
7.62 The implementation of commitments should be monitored in order to understand the strengthening of these zones which could potentially have implications for other zones elsewhere through the diversion of trade. Rather than rely on the above assumptions, it would be recommended that the shopping
GL Hearn Page 67 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
patterns are reassessed once these proposals have been implemented and stable patterns have been achieved in order to understand the full impact of the proposals.
7.63 The Northern Zone is adjacent to the City Centre and Southern Zones which contain Liverpool City Centre and New Mersey Retail Park respectively, which are the dominant retail locations in Liverpool. The effect that the improvements to Edge Lane have on shopping patterns should be monitored to understand the sustainability of future shopping patterns in Liverpool.
7.64 Comparison goods shopping patterns and the motivation to shop are more complex than convenience goods and subject to wider competitive influences as customers tend to buy these products on a less frequent basis as they are typically higher vale goods and normally shop around in numerous facilities in numerous locations to avail themselves of the best offers.
7.65 Furthermore the relative dominance of the City Centre as a highly accessible and sustainable focus for comparison shopping is appropriate and this should be supported as the key location for future comparison goods
Summary
7.66 The shopper survey identified that there are some very low levels of convenience trading performance for a number of centres, including ‘no trade’ drawn to Park Road and Smithdown Road North.
7.67 In terms of comparison goods there are centres which the shopper survey indicates a very low trading performance, including:
• Kensington Fairfield (Local Centre) £0/m2 • Great Homer Street (Local Centre) £0/m2 • Tuebrook (Local Centre) £365/m2 • Muirhead Avenue East (Local Centre) £383/m2 • Lodge Lane (Local Centre) £454/m2 • Aigburth Road (District Centre) £520/m2 • Edge Hill (District Centre) £584/m2 • Aigburth Vale (Local Centre) £642/m2 • Smithdown Road South (District Centre) £803/m2
7.68 There are four centres, namely Aigburth Vale, Knottty Ash, Belle Vale and Walton Vale which are overtrading from a convenience perspective. In terms of induvial stores, the overtrading when compared to benchmark turnovers are found in the Aldi stores across Liverpool. The total overtrading at these Aldi stores calculated to be in excess of £60m. There are also substantial levels of overtrading at the larger superstores, of those approximately £160m of overtrading is within stores within centres. In addition, £60m goes through out of centre stores.
GL Hearn Page 68 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
7.69 There are a number of convenience commitments approved across Liverpool. It is inevitable that these commitments, assuming they are implemented, will change convenience shopping patterns. The initial analysis above suggests a potential enhancement in the market share levels of both the city centre and northern zones. Assuming that the commitments trade as expected and the zones achieve the market shares identified, then there could be a requirement to provide additional convenience floorspace over the plan period. This would extend to 2,169sqm for the city centre zone and 2,679sqm for the northern zone by 2033.
7.70 It would however be recommended that the commitments are implemented and allowed to establish stable trading patterns before the retail implications are assessed and the future need for additional floorspace is considered.
7.71 In terms of comparison goods, there are a number of centres where overtrading occurs, including Speke, Hunts Cross, Walton and less so at West Derby Village. The most significant comparison goods overtrading at the retail parks in Liverpool is exhibited by New Mersey Retail Park which trades at +58% over our estimated benchmark level. This equates to just less than £95m of overtrading which, will grow substantially over the study period if its market share is maintained.
7.72 The overall relative attraction of Liverpool City Centre is increasing and this sector is growing at the fastest rate across the survey and has grown by 4% over the last 11 years.
7.73 Thereafter in the short term both the south and north sectors are seeing some reducing levels of market share and it is expected that this is mainly due to the City Centre, although there is some trade from the northern area lost to new Mersey Retail Park.
7.74 Although there has been an improvement in the retention of New Mersey Retail Park from the southern sector within which it is located, there has also been an increase in the level of trade from the northern sector. It was considered previously that the outflow of trade from north Liverpool to new Mersey Retail Park is considered wholly unsustainable. Given the increase in outflow from the north to the south of Liverpool, this remains an unsustainable situation.
7.75 However it is expected that the implementation of the Edge Lane Retail Park would stem some of the flow of expenditure from the northern to the southern area of Liverpool by providing an enhanced retail park within the northern sector of Liverpool.
7.76 Monitoring the retention of the central zone will be key to sustainable shopping patterns in Liverpool as this zone is in close proximity to Liverpool City and New Mersey Retail Park, which are the dominant retail locations in Liverpool, along with Edge Lane, once it has been enhanced.
GL Hearn Page 69 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
8 THE NEED FOR COMMERCIAL LEISURE USERS
Introduction
8.1 This section assesses the need and potential for commercial leisure uses within the Liverpool City Council area. We have considered the potential for improving the provision of a range of commercial leisure uses including cinema/multiplex, ten pin bowling, bingo, casinos, nightclubs, private health and fitness clubs, restaurants and pubs and bars.
8.2 As identified in section 5, there has been a substantial rise in participation of leisure activities across the City. The current levels of leisure participation are identified below:
Table 28: Leisure Participation Rates 2015 2015 Health and Fitness 20% Cinema 37% Ten Pin bowling 9% Restaurants 65% Pubs / Bars 43% Bingo 7% Casinos 2% Night Clubs 5%
8.3 With regard to health and fitness, the main commercial gym operators were the most popular choices
City Wide Catchment Potential
8.4 Liverpool City Centre’s role as a regional shopping centre means that it has a significant catchment area. The Study Area adopted for our retail and commercial leisure study has a population of around 681,000 people in 2015 rising to some 702,500 people by 2033 (Table 1 Appendix 5). The Study Area covers all of Liverpool City Council’s administrative area and in addition covers adjacent centres such as Huyton, Kirkby, Litherland and Bootle. Beyond the Study Area there are a number of other larger centres such as Widnes, Warrington, St Helens, Southport and further afield, other regional centres such as Manchester. In addition, Liverpool’s historic and entertainment attractions mean that it is a visitor and tourist destination.
8.5 In general, commercial leisure facilities will draw the main part of their trade from residents living within a twenty minute drive time of facilities. In addition, major leisure facilities such as multiplex cinemas and ten pin bowling centres, family entertainment centres etc. require large catchment populations and often benefit from locating in City Centre locations with significant customer draw or co-locating with retail facilities on out of centre parks.
8.6 Liverpool City Centre with its significant catchment area is already the main focus for a range of commercial leisure facilities.
GL Hearn Page 70 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
8.7 In general terms, whilst it is possible to assess the need for future requirements for commercial leisure facilities, the assessment criteria and methodologies are less sophisticated than the methodologies in place to assess retail capacity. As a consequence, whilst we explore in this section the potential need for additional commercial leisure facilities, we would stress that quantitative and qualitative need is very much demand led, with operators seeking out potential opportunities where there is a perceived shortfall or competitive advantage. We therefore consider that Liverpool City Council should be alive to and monitor operator demand.
The Cinema Market
8.8 Within Liverpool City Council’s administrative area there are three existing multiplex cinemas comprising:
• Cineworld at Edge Lane (8 screens) • The Odeon, Liverpool 1 (18 screens) • Showcase Cinema, Stonedale Retail Park (12 screens)
8.9 Coupled with the multiplex provision, there are two traditional cinema enterprises within Liverpool which comprise the Woolton Picture House (1 screen) and the Foundation for Art and Creative Technology (FACT) Cinema (3 screens). According to the results of the shopper survey popular cinemas outside of the City’s administrative area are the multiplex cinemas at Switch Island Retail Park, Bootle and facilities at St Helens, Birkenhead, Southport, Ellesmere Port and Runcorn.
8.10 In addition to these cinemas currently available, there are proposals for a new four screen Everyman cinema at the met Quarter, a four screen arthouse cinema at Cains Brewery and a 7 screen Cineworld cinema at New Mersey Retail park
8.11 The Household Telephone Interview Survey indicates that around 37% of respondents in the study area visit cinemas. With the highest proportion of respondents visiting the new Odeon cinema complex at Liverpool One in Liverpool City Centre (27%), the Cineworld multiplex cinema at Edge Lane Retail Park (18%) and the Showcase cinema at Stonedale Retail Park (8%). Other popular choices include the Picture House, Liverpool (10%) and Woolton Picture House (7%).
8.12 Overall, based on the results of the Household Survey, the retention rate for cinema visits within the study area is calculated to be 80%.
8.13 The approach taken by consultants to the assessment of quantitative need in the leisure sector is less well developed than the assessment of need in the retail sector. Accordingly there are a number of different assessment methodologies which could be used to assess the level of current cinema provision and also the need for further provision.
GL Hearn Page 71 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
8.14 The recent Competition Commission assessment of Cineworld’s takeover of City Screen considered the cinema industry including the types of cinema, economics, geography as well as competition.
8.15 Paragraph 7 of the Competition Commission report [1] identified that the market for a cinema is based on 20-minute isochrones; with paragraph 5.13 specifically stating that “the parties told us that outside London, a 20-minute drive-time broadly accorded with industry practice for multiplexes. In planning openings of new multiplexes, Cineworld often used a drive-time of 20 minutes to determine the optimal location of a site”.
8.16 The study area broadly accords with a 20-minute drivetime and Experian identify a population of 702,500 people by 2033. Currently there are 42 cinema screens, with another 15 screens currently approved. Based on the current number of screens, the catchment is currently providing 5.9 screens per 100,000 persons, which could rise to 8.1. Currently the screen density is around the UK average of 6.1 screens (Dodona research), but would exceed this if all of the approved cinemas are implemented.
8.17 The current cinema density within Liverpool is therefore broadly in line with the average screen density in the UK. Accordingly there is sufficient cinema provision in Liverpool and there is no need on this calculation to provide further cinema provision over that already approved.
8.18 Another method would consider the number of screens which would be supported by the catchment. This compares the catchment with the average cinema visits per person (2.7) to provide a ‘cinema population’. This is then divided by the average screen attendance in the UK of approximately 45,000.
Table 29: Cinema population in 2033 2033
20 mins Drive time Population 702,500
Average cinema attendance per person 2.7
Liverpool ‘cinema population’ 1,896,750
Average Screen Attendance 45,000
Number of screens required 42.2
8.19 Again this demonstrates that the current number of screens in Liverpool is commensurate with the number of screens which would be supported by the population in the catchment and this will be slightly exceeded if all cinema proposals are implemented.
Overview
8.20 The overall cinema provision within an 20-minute drive-time of Liverpool is considered to be good and there is no qualitative need to provide additional cinema screens in the catchment given the existing
1 - https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/cineworld-city-screen-merger-inquiry GL Hearn Page 72 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
and potential mix of both multiplexes and smaller ‘arthouse’ style cinemas.
8.21 Furthermore there is no quantitative requirement to actively seek new provision in Liverpool. Indeed there may be a potential ‘oversupply’ in cinemas in Liverpool, but this will simply equate to choice and competition and will be supported from trips from outside the catchment. Accordingly we would not expect there to be market demand for significant further cinema provision in or around Liverpool and there is no need to plan for any further cinema provision throughout the plan period.
Private Health and Fitness Clubs
8.22 Within Liverpool City Council area and the wider study area, there are a relatively small number of main commercial gym operators, these comprise David Lloyd centre at Speke, Nuffield Health, Riverside Drive, Ben Dunne, Edge Lane, LA Fitness, Liverpool Road, The Gym at Liverpool One and DW Sports, Hunts Cross. In addition, there are a number of smaller private gyms and community sports centres located throughout the City which provide alternative public choice.
8.23 The average national membership rates for gyms is currently around 12%, however the average participation rate in Liverpool is slightly higher at 20%, indicting around 136,200 active users against an average of 81,720 users.
8.24 Assuming the retention rate being maintained at 20% throughout the plan period, then there could be 140,500 gym users, or an additional 4,300 participants. On the basis of around 1,500 members per club, this could indicate somewhere between 2 or 3 additional gyms.
8.25 It is not possible to be clear as to where this need for health and fitness facilities arises spatially. Rather, gym operators seek locations with good accessibility (car and public transport), car parking, daytime working populations and evening/weekend custom. As such, the City Centre would be the prime locational choice, although it would be expected that some occupiers would seek alternative premises elsewhere in the city.
Ten Pin Bowling
8.26 Within Liverpool there is one ten-pin bowling centre, The Hollywood Bowl at Edge Lane Retail Park; this has 28 lanes. Just outside the study area at Switch Island Retail Park, Bootle, there is a Megabowl ten-pin bowling centre with 26 lanes. These two bowling centres are the primary choice for study area residents to choose to bowl at. Relatively low proportions of bowling visits are also made by study area residents to the ten-pin facility at Cheshire Oaks which has 28 lanes, the Premier Bowl at Southport (20 lanes), and the LA Bowl Centre at Warrington.
GL Hearn Page 73 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
8.27 The household survey indicates that participation within the Liverpool study area on ten-pin bowling is around 9%. Applying the existing participation rate to the study area population indicates that there are approximately 61,290 ten-pin bowlers within the study area.
8.28 Applying the benchmark UK average of approximately one lane per 12,000 people to the study area population by 2033, indicates the requirement for 58 lanes within the Liverpool study area to serve the anticipated population at an average level. In contrast, the study area has only the Hollywood Bowl at Edge Lane Retail Park which has 28 lanes, although the ten-pin centre at Switch Island, with 26 lanes, also has an influence and is used by residents of the study area. In combination, therefore, there are 54 ten-pin bowling lanes readily available to residents within the study area. This indicates that the Liverpool study area nearly meets the average provision of bowling lanes and does not necessarily suggest any deficiency that needs to be remedied over the study period.
Bingo
8.29 Liverpool has a range of both nationally operated and local regional bingo operators within the study area. The household survey indicates that popular choices for playing bingo are the Gala Club at the Wavertree Retail Park, Mecca Bingo, Paradise Island Bingo and Pavilion Bingo Club, Lodge Lane. Outside of Liverpool, but within the wider catchment the Buckingham Bingo clubs in Bootle and Huyton were popular.
8.30 The household telephone survey indicates that the playing of bingo has a participation rate of approximately 7% across the study area. The current UK visitation rate is around 5%. On the basis that the household survey will have recorded ‘normally’ or regular players of bingo, it suggests that bingo playing in the Liverpool study area is marginally above the level of regular bingo play in the UK.
8.31 Bingo venues are well spread throughout the Liverpool area and, based on participation rates and the level of provision within the study area, there does not appear to be a particular deficiency in existing provision .
Casinos
8.32 The household survey results indicate that casino participation within the Liverpool study area is around 2% and there are four main casinos that are used within Liverpool comprising Circus Casino, Genting Casino and Grosvenor Leo Casino.
8.33 Given the relatively low participation within the study area and the Gambling Act restrictions placed upon the development of new casinos, it is considered that there is limited scope for additional casino provision to serve the City over the study period. Indeed, the casino market is heavily regulated and controlled by the Gambling Act rather than the Planning Act.
GL Hearn Page 74 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
Nightclubs
8.34 Within the Liverpool study area, the household survey indicates that less than 5% of households will visit nightclubs. Around 90% of those visits will be to nightclub venues within the City Centre.
8.35 There is no prescribed formula to understand the future requirements for nightclubs within a study area. Rather it is a qualitative assessment and must have regard to the demand for new nightclub premises by nightclub operators. Our leisure demand analysis from both EGI and Focus do not indicate that there are any current requirements for nightclub uses within the Liverpool area.
Bars and Restaurants
8.36 Within the study area, the household survey indicates that approximately 65% of households regularly visit restaurants and around 43% of households also visit bars and pubs. The City Centre is the dominant location for both restaurant and pub bar visits within the study area with respondents also using facilities within their nearby district and local centres, in particular Allerton, Aigburth Road, Woolton and Walton.
8.37 Estimates of leisure based spending are provided by Experian. They estimate that the spend per head in restaurants, cafes and bars/pubs in Liverpool City Council’s administrative area varies dramatically between around £647 per annum to £2,033 depending on the survey zone.
8.38 In context, the national spend per head which is £1,097. Advice from Experian (Retail Planner Briefing Note 13) indicates that the long term trend growth in leisure spending is 1.8% per annum. The expenditure per head on the leisure sector plus annual growth can be applied to the projected population in Liverpool to establish the projected growth in spending on restaurants, cafes, bars and pubs over the study period.
8.39 As Liverpool City Centre is a focus for leisure and food and drink based activities, it is reasonable to assume that locally generated spend will be retained or at least outflow would balance inflow. As there is some growth in the population expected by ONS and the growth in expenditure is low, the additional expenditure generated by residents in the catchment is around £234.51m between 2015 and 2033 (Appendix 6).
8.40 There is no publicly available information on trading efficiency or the ability of food and drink operators to absorb expenditure growth. If it is assumed that existing facilities in Liverpool absorb 50% of the expenditure growth, this leaves around £117.26m of new expenditure generated in the catchment to support new food and drink businesses.
GL Hearn Page 75 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
8.41 As the food and drink sector has a diverse range of operators and turnovers it is necessary to take an approximate average turnover for the sector as a whole. Applying £0.9m as a sector average suggests the following potential outlet need in future years.
8.42 In very broad terms there is potential for around 130 new food and drink outlets in Liverpool by 2033, although this could be substantially higher when the inflow of trade is fully considered. However, class A3 to A5 operators are opportunistic and whilst they will have target towns and locations, they will take a commercial view on any opportunities arising and will compete for shop premises where they match their requirements.
8.43 Pertinent examples are the enhancement to the facilities at New Mersey Retail Park, where the development of a new cinema will be supported by six new restaurant units and the proposal at China Town, which includes a range of flexible retail and leisure floorspace to incorporate a range of A3-A5 floorspace.
8.44 Accordingly there will need to be a balance struck between A1 uses and the additional vibrancy and dwell times created by A3 to A5 uses within town centres. The Council should be aware that any town centre developments coming forward will be likely to include an element of A3 to A5 uses. The Council should monitor the content of schemes, but in terms of enhancing dwell times and facilitating an evening and night time economy, these uses should be supported in suitable locations.
Conclusions on Leisure and Other Town Centre Uses
8.45 Liverpool has a reasonable range and choice of commercial, leisure, entertainment and cultural facilities and this reflects its regional status and its historic and tourist attractions. Residents in the City area have relatively good access to leisure and entertainment facilities and, in addition, there are a number of out-of-centre facilities, both within and outside the general study area which are popular with residents.
8.46 The levels of participation across all areas of leisure are considered to be good and the participation rates have increased since the 2011 Study. However it should be remembered that leisure uses are usually operator led and the availability and improvement in the quality in facilities are likely to be driving the increase in the usage.
8.47 Notwithstanding the improvement in participation rates, the analysis above indicates that there is limited scope for additional cinema provision within the study area. There may be some additional need for private health and fitness facilities within the study area over the study period although it is clear that the City’s publicly funded gym and swimming facilities are popular and provide extensive choice. Ten-pin bowling provision appears to be at average levels within the study area and there are no obvious shortfalls which need to be addressed.
GL Hearn Page 76 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
8.48 In very broad terms there is potential for around 130 new food and drink outlets in Liverpool by 2033, although this could be substantially higher when the inflow of trade is fully considered. However, class A3 to A5 operators are opportunistic and whilst they will have target towns and locations, they will take a commercial view on any opportunities arising and will compete for shop premises where they match their requirements.
8.49 It is anticipated that future in-centre development could provide additional space for Class A3 to A5 uses. Other edge of centre locations is also likely to be attractive for these uses who may take advantage of the Governments relaxation in the permitted development rights. Furthermore Liverpool could actively encourage the reuse of edge of centre locations for these uses to ensure that buildings are occupied, maintained and vibrancy of these areas is supported.
8.50 It is also anticipated that the Council may well come under pressure to provide these uses in out-of- centre locations, particularly on existing retail parks. Although in isolation this may not be an issue, Liverpool should be aware of the cumulative and consequential impacts.
8.51 Those consequential impacts could include reduced footfall within a centre and a lower propensity for linked trips/spending; effect on vitality and viability; and the potential to attract investment into centres. It should also be recognised that impacts are cumulative and may gradually build up over a period of time.
GL Hearn Page 77 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 The Study brief set out a number of required recommendations which have been covered within the preceding sections of the Study. By way of summary and to bring the analysis together, we address each of these required recommendations in turn below.
Identify Current Retail and Leisure Trends and the Implications for Liverpool
9.2 The study has considered national trends and the analysis illustrates how adaptive and innovative the retail sector has been in responding to changing market conditions and how quickly new formats are introduced to capitalise on opportunities. The retail market is generally entering a period of significant change where the potential of the internet and e-retailing will be realised and given the polarisation in the retail sector with national multiples dominating, larger centres with critical mass will become more dominant at the expense of smaller town centres.
9.3 These national trends in retailing will have implications for shopping within Liverpool City Centre and the City’s local and district centres. For example, the dominance of Liverpool City Centre for comparison goods shopping will continue as it is a major retail (and leisure destination) attracting strong national multiple retail representation across the quality spectrum from value to premium brands. However the success of the City centre for comparison goods retailing will continue to be at the expense of Liverpool’s District and Local Centres where the potential for attracting multiple comparison goods traders is limited. How retailers in the District and Local Centres respond to this will be critical for their future health over the plan period.
9.4 Moreover, the growing attraction of retail park locations to major retailers with lower overall rents, larger stores and convenient car parking also places limitations upon Liverpool’s District and Local Centres. Retail Parks have been a focus of owners to enhance their portfolio by varying conditions and sub-dividing units to make these more attractive to previously main town centre occupiers in order to attract the likes of Boots, Wilkinsons, B & M stores etc. As a national planning policy backdrop to this LPAs should only resist these applications if they can show that there would be 'significant adverse impact' (NPPF paragraph 27). In practice this has proven to be very difficult to demonstrate.
9.5 The active convenience market is currently dominated by ‘discount’ fascia who are currently active in Liverpool securing and delivering new sites. The supermarket/superstore market across the country is generally slow as the retailers have scaled back significantly their development pipeline, although Sainsbury’s have committed to Great Homer Street, albeit on a smaller scale than initially envisaged. Elsewhere the superstore operators are looking at ways to repurpose their stores, typically seeking to attract concessions into stores with now excess floorspace, but they are also looking at ways to extract better value from other assets such as the car parks by introducing other uses such as dry cleaning, car sales, car hire and smaller restaurants/take away.
GL Hearn Page 78 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
9.6 Nevertheless convenience/food based retailing in the form of convenience stores and supermarkets in our view still provide the best and most realistic prospect for securing improvements to and anchoring the retail function of established local and district centres.
9.7 The results from the vitality and viability surveys have been drawn together and using the assessments of individual centres we have sought to provide a framework for development and investment within the City.
9.8 However as this brief analysis has illustrated, the retail and leisure market is a dynamic and constantly evolving sector. It is important that trends and emerging formats are reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that planning strategy is alive to the market and can adapt and respond to changes.
Analyse and Interpret Existing Policy at National Level and Consider the Existing Local Policy and Evidential Studies
9.9 The hierarchy of shopping facilities are currently identified in the UDP and consist of the City Centre along with 29 District and Local Centres. Liverpool is currently preparing their Local Plan which will provide an overarching strategy and development principles for the City until at least 2033. The evidence base is currently being prepared and includes this Retail Study.
9.10 Overall, the underlying objective of policy at all levels is to maintain and enhance the vitality and viability of town centres and to promote new sustainable development in town centre locations in accordance with the sequential approach. The starting point for this is the existing hierarchy of centres identified in the UDP.
9.11 Paragraph 23 of the NPPF seeks to ensure that planning policies promote competitive town centre environments. In order to achieve this, local planning authorities should recognise town centres as the heart of their communities and should support their viability and vitality. This study defines a network and hierarchy of centres that is resilient to anticipated economic changes. This Study also identifies the extent of the City Centre’s primary shopping areas.
9.12 It goes on to state that competitive town centres should be promoted and that these centres should provide customer choice and a diverse retail offer, existing market should be maintained and where possible further market introduced.
9.13 Sites should be allocated to meet the needs of the centre including the allocation of edge of centre sites where suitable sites within the centre are not available. Main town centre uses do include residential development and this can play an important role in the vitality of centres. In this situation a series of potential town centre development sites have been identified, but Liverpool does not need to identify any sites outside of the defined centres to accommodate a significant level of retail need.
GL Hearn Page 79 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
9.14 The Guidance places importance on ensuring the vitality and town centres and paragraph 2b-001- 20140306 states that Local Authorities should plan positively for town centres to generate local employment, promote beneficial competition within and between town centres and create attractive, diverse places where people want to live and work. To ensure town centres are planned positively for, Local Planning Authorities should assess and plan to meet the needs of main town centre uses in full.
9.15 It is considered overall that the findings of background evidence in the form of the 2009 District and Local Centre study are still valid such that the health of district and local shopping centres across Liverpool varies and with a few exceptions majority of the centres have deteriorated over time. It was felt then and it remains our conclusion that a number of the centres across the City are too large and dissipated and require consolidation.
9.16 As part of this study a series of vitality and viability studies have been undertaken to identify the overall health of the district and local centres in Liverpool. The majority of centres are fit for purpose and adequately reflect the level of services and general services required to be retained as per the current classification, although some are not considered healthy.
9.17 In response to this, there are a number of development opportunities identified which should be supported, where possible, to enhance the vitality and viability of the centres within which they are located. There are some alterations suggested to the boundaries, mainly to include edge of centre stores which are clearly contributing to the overall vitality and viability of the centres, but there are occasions where elements are removed to focus retailing into an area which has a vital and viable future.
9.18 In some situations there are recommendations to change the status of district and local centres in Liverpool. The overall analysis of the vitality and viability of the centres has cumulated in a number of revisions to the centre hierarchy and this is expanded on further below.
9.19 Following on from the vitality and viability of centres, the potential to consider a local impact threshold is noted at paragraph 26 of the NPPF, which identifies the impact test and introduces the national threshold of 2,500sqm along with the potential for a local impact threshold. The PPG provides further guidance with paragraph: 016 Reference ID: 2b-016-20140306 providing further information on setting a locally appropriate threshold.
9.20 In this respect and to be able to protect local and district centres from edge and out of centre of centre retail proposals, details of average unit sizes within the centres have been identified. In combination with the overall vitality and viability assessments and the typical scale of proposals coming forwards in Liverpool, assists in identifying a potential local impact threshold, as supported by the PPG and this is considered further below.
GL Hearn Page 80 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
Consider Spatial Implications of Current and Expected Changes in Shopping Patterns both Within and Outside the City
9.21 In February 2015, NEMS market research undertook a 3,007 interview household telephone survey across the Study Area. The telephone survey was based upon the questionnaire used in the previous Liverpool Retail Study (May 2006) undertaken by GL Hearn. The survey was sampled on the basis of residents within postcode sectors and the number of interviews in each postcode reflects the number of households and population in each of the 14 study zones.
9.22 The results show that large foodstores are the main destinations for respondents undertaking main food shopping trips across the study area. Top up food shopping trips are normally made to supplement main food shopping trips and have become an increasingly important form of convenience shopping as people have changed their behaviour away from large bulk shopping trips.
9.23 There is no one single stand out destination for top up shopping as this generally is undertaken at the nearest and most locally convenient location. The survey also identified some use of the main foodstores for top up shopping use, although this was on a par with the use of some of the district and local centres within Liverpool.
9.24 In terms of comparison shopping, around 80% of the catchment’s trade is drawn to Liverpool (zones 10-10) with an overall retention rate across the survey area around 94%. Liverpool City Centre (48.9%) was the most popular destination across all goods categories. The city centre has a particularly strong market share for clothing and footwear (68.9%) and glassware, tableware and jewellery (66.5%)
9.25 In addition to Liverpool City Centre, other popular shopping destination choices include the main retail parks serving the City namely New Mersey Retail Park (11.9%), Aintree Retail Park (7.6%) also to a lesser extent Edge Lane Retail Park (1.1%) and Hunts Cross Shopping Park (0.37%).
9.26 There are a number of goods classes where the retail parks show a strong performance, with New Mersey retail Park (20%) and Aintree (16%) performing well for furniture, New Mersey (13.7%) and Aintree (14%) for electrical goods and New Mersey (23%) for sports goods and toys.
9.27 Of the existing established district and local centres within Liverpool, Old Swan, Belle Vale, Walton Vale, and Speke have reasonable comparison shopping attractions and appear to be performing well, but the other centres do not feature particularly strongly for comparison goods shopping trips and this is borne out in the analysis on market share turnovers and comparative benchmark trading in Section 5.
GL Hearn Page 81 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
Identify the Potential for Growth in Convenience and Comparison Retail Facilities within Different Parts of the City and Test Scenarios Reflecting Alternative Expenditure Retention Targets to be agreed with the City Council
9.28 The population of the study zones and study area for 2015 through to 2033 are set out in Table 1, Appendix 5. This base population and the population projections for 2020, 2025, and 2033 have been obtained from Experian and these show relatively modest population growth across the study zones over the study period rising from 681,075 to 702,593 .
9.29 The identified expenditure per capita (EPC) levels for convenience are flat with some contraction in expenditure in the short term. Overall convenience expenditure will increase slightly from £1,312.52m to £1,341.43m over the plan period. For Comparison goods expenditure is expected to rise from £1,703.52m to £2,996.91m by 2033.
Convenience Goods
9.30 The market share analysis for the whole of the City (Table 15, Appendix 5) indicates that the City retains approximately 88% of all of the convenience goods turnover potential that is generated within the Study Area. The stores trading strongly within Liverpool are Tesco, Mather Ave; Asda, Utting Ave; Asda, Hunts Cross; Asda, Smithdown Ave; Tesco, Old Swan; Morrisons, Belle Vale and Asda, Breck Road.
9.31 Across the Study Area, outside Liverpool’s administrative area (Zones 1 to 10), principally larger stores exert influence and attract spending. The main stores doing this are:
• Asda, Huyton • Asda, Aintree • Asda, Bootle • Tesco Extra, Prescot
9.32 However, this capacity is exclusive of committed convenience retail development which has been permitted within the Liverpool City Council area within recent years but not yet implemented and trading. The convenience goods commitments as at 2015 are set out in Table 13 (Appendix 5). These comprise:
• Cains Brewery Foodstore; • Foodstore at Liverpool Waters; • Sainsburys at Great Homer Street; • Aldi and Marks and Spencer at West Derby Road; • Aldi at Walton; • Lidl at Longmoor Lane; • Foodstore included in the redevelopment of Edge Lane Retail Park.
GL Hearn Page 82 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
9.33 Overall, these committed convenience goods schemes within Liverpool are anticipated to have a turnover of some £246.87m of which we estimate around £207m will be drawn from the City. Experian Brief 13 identifies a reduction in the density growth rate for convenience goods to 2033. Therefore for the purpose of this study, no convenience turnover efficiency is assumed.
9.34 Deducting the turnover of the committed floor space from the theoretical pre-commitment capacity provides the global Citywide capacity estimates for the study years. This indicates that in 2015 the combination of existing retail floorspace and the planned commitments leads to a negative floorspace capacity of £206.99m or -18,531sqm (net). Over the plan period, this negative capacity reduces and in 2033 the figure is £184.89m or -16,552sqm (net). This figure depends on a constant market share and growth rate throughout the plan period and the development of all of the commitments included in the study.
Table 30: Liverpool capacity pre and post commitments 2015 2020 2025 2033 Capacity Pre- 0.00 3.61 3.21 22.10 Commitments (£m) Capacity post -206.99 -203.38 -203.78 -184.89 commitments (£m) Floorspace capacity (sqm -18,531 -18,207 -18,243 -16,552 net)
9.35 The Study also includes a sub-sector analysis, in broadly the same way as the global Citywide analysis but also identifies trade inflow and trade outflow from the composite study zones within the sub-sectors and also makes an apportionment of the turnover of the convenience commitments that are anticipated to be drawn from each of the study subsectors. The proportions of turnover that the commitments will draw from the four sub sectors are set out in Table 14 (Appendix 5).
9.36 An overview of the existing market shares in the subsectors and how they have changed over time is presented below:
Table 31: Liverpool comparison provision – market shares by zone Zone 2015 2011 2004 City 78% 75% 74% Central 7% 6% 10% South 50% 56% 44% North 15% 18% 21%
City Centre
9.37 In terms of the City Centre, when the anticipated trade draw of the convenience shopping commitments are taken into consideration (see Table 14, Appendix 5), there is negative capacity which indicates that there is no need for additional convenience goods floorspace over the study
GL Hearn Page 83 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
period to 2033. This analysis assumes that the existing market share of the City Centre is held constant at 47% and does not take into account the likely significant increase in City Centre residents, above that considered by ONS, throughout the plan period.
Central
9.38 The analysis of the Central Liverpool sub-sector’s trade retention plus inflow of expenditure again indicates no growth in expenditure over the study period. There is negative turnover capacity (or in other words, no need for additional convenience goods floorspace) within the Central Zone over the study period to 2033 given the commitments already in place.
Southern
9.39 In the southern zone, the analysis identifies that there is no growth in expenditure over the plan period to support additional convenience. This equates to a negative capacity of £20.91m or 1,872sqm (net) by 2033.
Northern
9.40 When considering the northern zone, the market share turnover of facilities within this sub-sector when compared to the theoretical benchmark turnover shows a negative capacity for additional convenience floorspace prior to the addition of the turnover of convenience shopping commitments. When these commitments are taken into account, there is a significant negative capacity which suggests theoretically at least that there is no need for additional convenience goods floorspace to serve the northern part of the City.
9.41 The summary of the convenience sub sector analysis is presented below:
Table 32: Liverpool convenience sub sector capacity pre and post commitments in 2033 City Central Southern Northern Capacity Pre- 2.11 7.81 4.96 7.22 Commitments (£m) Capacity post -42.79 -24.6 -14.77 -102.81 commitments (£m) Floorspace capacity (sqm -3,831 -2,202 -1,322 -9,204 net)
9.42 Accordingly there is no capacity requirement based on constant market share approach, therefore there is no need for the Local Plan to allocate sites, other than identifying development opportunities in centres.
9.43 Overall there are no existing convenience trade retention rates which cause any particular concerns. However it should be noted that there are additional convenience retail proposals in the City Centre, including a foodstore at Cains Brewery along with provision at Liverpool Waters and potentially Little
GL Hearn Page 84 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
Chinatown and within northern sector, including Great Homer Street and Edge Lane Retail Park which could enhance their individual market shares of those zones. It is inevitable that these commitments, once implemented will change the market share of zones.
Potential changes to market shares
9.44 In order to consider the implications of the commitments an increase in the retention has been assessed in Section 7.
9.45 Assuming the full implementation of all commitments in the City Centre zones, including Liverpool Waters, the market share of the city zone could potentially increase to around 77% and the level of inflow of expenditure into the city centre would also be expected to rise. In order to maintain the potential 77% market share, post the implementation of all commitments, there is potential to require additional 2,169sqm floorspace over the plan period within the city centre.
9.46 In terms of the northern sector the City Council has been successful in supporting additional convenience floorspace within the northern zone, such that there are commitments in place with a potential turnover of around £130m. This includes a potential superstore at Edge Lane Retail Park, a new foodstore at Great Homer Street along with a series of discount foodstores.
9.47 It is considered that the market share of the zone could potentially increase to around 74%. If this were to occur there is potential to require an additional 2,697 sqm floorspace over the plan period within the northern sector.
9.48 In addition to the potential enhancements in the market share of the city and northern sectors the market share of the central zone should be closely monitored over the plan period as at this point as there are no live planning permissions or proposals within that zone. As such any enhancements in the market share since the 2011 study could be lost through the changing shopping patterns in adjoining zones.
9.49 It is assumed that the central zone would be subject of a trade diversion of around £32m from the existing commitments (Table 14, Appendix 5). Simply seeking to recoup this potential loss of expenditure in order to maintain its current market share would require additional floorspace to trade at the same level as the expenditure lost. In order to ‘bridge’ the £32m of expenditure lost would require around 2,900sqm of convenience floorspace on the basis of a turnover of £11,170 per sqm.
9.50 If this maintenance of the market share of the central zone were pursued by the City, then the potential for larger format foodstores should be investigated in order to have the best opportunity to recapture market share, especially of bulk food shopping trips. Given the current retail climate and the investment activity of the larger national operators securing a larger scale foodstore may be difficult,
GL Hearn Page 85 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
such that a series of smaller convenience stores should not be discounted, especially for the potential development sites identified in Allerton, Garston and Wavertree.
9.51 Overall the implementation of commitments should be monitored in order to understand the strengthening of these zones which could potentially have implications for other zones elsewhere through the diversion of trade. Rather than rely on the above assumptions, it would be recommended that the shopping patterns are reassessed once these proposals have been implemented and stable patterns have been achieved in order to understand the full impact of the proposals.
9.52 Nevertheless it is recommended that the Council continue to support convenience store proposals within centres, but given the existing retention levels, proposed commitments and no identified need no additional sites for convenience store proposals outside of centres should be identified.
Comparison Goods
9.53 The market share retention of comparison goods expenditure by facilities within the City and primarily the City Centre is some 87% of available expenditure within the study area, which is an increase from the 71% identified in the 2011 study.
9.54 Comparing this market share turnover with the theoretical benchmark turnover of comparison floorspace indicates that in 2015, before consideration of committed comparison goods schemes, there is no capacity for additional comparison goods shopping within the City Council’s area. For comparison goods the growth in density is modest with the Brief identifying an averaged growth of 3% per annum to 2033. This means that in 2020, there is some capacity (£169.61m) which grows to £429.06m by 2025 and to £1,008.50m by 2033 before commitments.
9.55 However, within the City Council area there are a number of committed developments for comparison goods shopping. These are set out in Table N (Appendix 6), as well as including the comparison goods floorspace element of a number of new food stores and extension proposals, it also includes substantial comparison goods shopping floor space that will be delivered as part of the Project Jennifer Scheme at Great Homer Street and also the redevelopment proposals for Edge Lane Retail Park.
9.56 When the comparison expenditure is considered in light of the approved commitments, there is negative capacity in 2015 and 2020. By 2025 the growth in expenditure is such that there is a residual expenditure of £145.92m, which would require an additional floorspace requirement of 14,647sqm (net). By 2033 this expenditure will grow to £723.52m, indicating an overall but nevertheless theoretical floorspace requirement of 71,544sqm (net).
GL Hearn Page 86 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
City Centre
9.57 In terms of the sub-sector analysis, the City Centre has a comparison goods shopping retention rate of 76% of the expenditure generated within its home zone. In addition, the City Centre also has a very substantial net inflow of turnover from other Sub-Sectors in Liverpool and from the outer study zones and facilities beyond. The retention rate and the net trade inflow attraction exhibited by Liverpool in respect of comparison goods shopping is high and is considered both appropriate and sustainable given the City Centre’s regional centre status and its high accessibility.
9.58 Comparing the market share turnover of the City Centre from the study zones plus inflows with the benchmark turnover of facilities within the City Centre indicates that in 2020 there is a turnover capacity of some £18.56m (1,891sqm of net floorspace). By 2025, given the growth in consumer spending on comparison goods, this increases to £183.00m (18,368sqm of net floorspace) of additional comparison goods, rising further to £551.06m (54,490sqm net floorspace) by 2033.
Central
9.59 The trade retention of the Central sub-sector, including inflows, compared with the growth in the turnover of facilities within the Central sub-sector indicates that very limited floorspace capacity (3sqm) throughout the Plan Period.
9.60 This identifies that the trade retention is low at 6% currently retaining only £30.81m from a total expenditure available of £488.93m It should be remembered that this zone only contains a series of district and local centres, with no retail parks or significant retail destinations.
9.61 Given the current level of market share, there is no real surplus expenditure or additional floorspace is required over the plan period to 2033.
9.62 Given the proximity of this sector to the City Centre and to Edge Lane Retail Park it is not suggested that the Council intervene in this market share, rather they support the implementation of the nearby Edge Lane proposals
Southern
9.63 Within the southern zone, the theoretical capacity for additional comparison goods is the largest of the subsectors outside of the City Centre. By 2033 there is a capacity of £136.46m or 13,493sqm of floorspace.
9.64 The capacity figures shown for the South Liverpool area, however do not mean that it is appropriate to seek to allocate more floorspace to South Liverpool as this would potentially compound the already significant and unsustainable pattern of shopping trips originating from the Central and North sub- sectors to South Liverpool. If New Mersey Retail Park did not exert such a strong influence or the
GL Hearn Page 87 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
central and north sub-sectors had much greater comparison shopping retention then trading patterns would be more balanced and the capacity shown to exist in South Liverpool arising from the overtrading success of the Retail Park would be more evenly spread across the whole of the City.
9.65 It is expected that there would be some clawback of expenditure from the southern zone to the northern zone following the implementation of the Edge Lane proposals to re-balance the current unsustainable trading patterns between the northern and southern zones.
Northern
9.66 The comparison shopping turnover retention rate of the North Sector of Liverpool is 15%. In terms of inflow and outflow, the North sector of Liverpool has large outflow of expenditure (£437.29m), whilst a substantial part of this is to the City Centre and New Mersey Retail Park. More significantly there is some trade outside of Liverpool’s authoritative area to locations such as Aintree Retail Park and this equates to £103.77m rising to over £182.13m in 2033.
9.67 Given the 15% turnover retention rate the comparison goods shopping capacity within the North sub- sector is small and when commitments are taken into account up to 2033, it is only £31.14m or 3,079sqm over the plan period.
9.68 The overall sub-sector capacity position over the plan period for comparison goods is presented below:
Table 33: Liverpool comparison sub sector capacity pre and post commitments in 2033 City Central Southern Northern Capacity Pre- 643.79 32.93 245.46 86.33 Commitments (£m) Capacity post 551.06 0.03 136.46 31.14 commitments (£m) Floorspace capacity (sqm 54,490 3 13,493 3,079 net)
9.69 However it is anticipated that outflow will still be significant given the geography of the area and in particular the ongoing redevelopment which will stem some leakage from this area, but also the proximity of the North Liverpool area to the Retail parks at Aintree and Bootle.
9.70 Unlike the more local nature of convenience (food) shopping, comparison goods shopping is generally undertaken in larger centres where shoppers have a range and choice of comparison goods and the ability to shop around and compare what is on offer in a number of shops, with safe convenient parking or public transport access and a pleasant environment.
9.71 What can be drawn from the current and the previous results of the shopper survey is that:
GL Hearn Page 88 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
• The City Centre is an attractive shopping destination drawing extensively across the Liverpool and the wider Study Area • The role and attraction of the City Centre is important to the overall comparison shopping needs of Liverpool as the district and local centres have only limited influence on shopping patterns and at a local sectional level only • New Mersey Retail Park with its extensive facilities dominates comparison shopping in South Liverpool and also draws trade from Central and North Liverpool and beyond. New Mersey Retail Park’s overall attraction is greater than any of the district and local centres • Like New Mersey, Aintree Retail Park to the north, beyond the City Boundary has extensive attraction to shoppers in North Liverpool • Edge Lane, in its current form has a lesser attraction than either New Mersey or Aintree Retail Parks
Potential changes to market shares
9.72 It was considered previously that the outflow of trade from north Liverpool to New Mersey Retail Park is considered wholly unsustainable. Given the increase in outflow from the north to the south of Liverpool, this remains an unsustainable situation.
9.73 However it is expected that the implementation of the Edge Lane Retail Park planning permission would stem some of the flow of expenditure from the northern to the southern area of Liverpool by providing an enhanced retail park within the northern sector of Liverpool. The identified turnover of the Edge Lane expansion is over £140m and this is expected to substantially increase the level of retention in the northern zone and will claw back substantial amounts of trade currently being lost.
9.74 An initial recalculation of the retention of the northern zone post the implementation of the live planning permissions suggests that the retention of the Northern zone could increase to around 30%. Although this is a substantial increase from the 15% identified in the current quantitative results, the Edge Lane Retail Park proposal alone is a significant regeneration proposal which could deliver in excess of 37,000 sqm of additional retail floorspace, with the proposal within the northern zone expected to trade at around £188m on an indicative ‘company average’ basis.
9.75 If this indicative 30% retention figure was used as a potential indicator for future forecasting of additional floorspace required in the northern zone, then the zone could require an additional £140m of turnover, which would require nearly 14,000sqm in 2033. Finding this substantial level of floorspace over and above the approved floorspace over a time period where there are inherent uncertainties as to how the economy and the retail market will perform should be considered very carefully.
9.76 This indicative assessment should only be used as a guide as comparison goods shopping patterns and the motivation to shop are more complex and subject to wider competitive influences which will change over time.
GL Hearn Page 89 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
9.77 Furthermore the relative dominance of the City Centre as a highly accessible and sustainable focus for comparison shopping is appropriate and should be supported in the first instance.
Identify the Potential Requirement for Further Leisure Facilities and What Broad Locations Should Any Need Be Located Within
9.78 Liverpool City Centre’s role as a regional shopping centre means that it has a significant catchment area. The Study Area adopted for our retail and commercial leisure study has a significant Study Area population of around 672,000 people in 2015 rising to some 702,593 people by 2033. The Study Area covers all of Liverpool City Council’s administrative area and in addition covers adjacent centres such as Huyton, Kirkby, Litherland and Bootle. Beyond the Study Area there are a number of other larger centres such as Widnes, Warrington, St Helens, Southport and further afield, other regional centres such as Manchester. In addition, Liverpool’s historic and entertainment attractions mean that it is a visitor and tourist destination.
9.79 Liverpool has a reasonable range and choice of commercial, leisure, entertainment and cultural facilities and this reflects its regional status and its historic and tourist attractions. Residents in the City area have relatively good access to leisure and entertainment facilities and, in addition, there are a number of out-of-centre facilities, both within and outside the general study area which are popular with residents. The individual leisure uses are identified below:
Cinema
9.80 The study area broadly accords with a 20-minute drivetime. Currently there are 42 cinema screens, with another 15 screens currently approved. Based on the current number of screens, the catchment is currently 5.9 screens per 100,000 persons, which could rise to 8.1. Currently the screen density is around the UK average of 6.1 screens (Dodona research), but would exceed this if all of the approved cinemas are implemented.
9.81 Another method would consider the number of screens which would be supported by the catchment. This compares the catchment with the average cinema visits per person (2.7) to provide a ‘cinema population’. This is then divided by the average screen attendance in the UK of approximately 45,000.
9.82 Again this demonstrates that the current number of screens in Liverpool is commensurate with the number of screens which would be supported by the population in the catchment and this will be slightly exceeded if all cinema proposals are implemented.
9.83 Cinema provision within an 20-minute drive-time of Liverpool is considered to be good, as demonstrated above. Accordingly there is no quantitative need to actively seek new provision in Liverpool. Furthermore there is no qualitative need provide additional cinema screens in the
GL Hearn Page 90 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
catchment given the existing and potential mix of both multiplexes and smaller ‘arthouse’ style cinemas, both existing and approved
9.84 There may be a potential ‘oversupply’ in cinemas in Liverpool, but this will simply equate to choice and competition and will be supported from trips from outside the catchment. Accordingly we would not expect there to be market demand for significant further cinema provision in or around Liverpool and there is no need to plan for any further cinema provision throughout the plan period.
Private Health & Fitness
9.85 The average national membership rates for gyms is currently around 12%, however the average participation rate in Liverpool is slightly higher at 20%, indicting around 136,200 active users against an average of 81,720 users.
9.86 Assuming the retention rate being maintained at 20% throughout the plan period, then there could be 140,500 gym users, or an additional 4,300 participants. On the basis of around 1,500 members per club, this could indicate somewhere between 2 or 3 additional gyms.
9.87 It is not possible to be clear as to where this need for health and fitness facilities arises spatially. Rather, gym operators seek locations with good accessibility (car and public transport), car parking, daytime working populations and evening/weekend custom. As such, the City Centre would be a prime locational choice.
Ten Pin Bowling
9.88 Applying the benchmark UK average of approximately one lane per 12,000 people to the study area population by 2033, indicates the requirement for 58 lanes within the Liverpool study area to serve the anticipated population at an average level. In contrast, the study area has only the Hollywood Bowl at Edge Lane Retail Park which has 28 lanes, although the ten-pin centre at Switch Island, with 26 lanes, also has an influence and is used by residents of the study area.
9.89 In combination, therefore, there are 54 ten-pin bowling lanes readily available to residents within the study area. This indicates that the Liverpool study area nearly meets the average provision of bowling lanes and does not necessarily suggest any deficiency that needs to be remedied over the study period.
Bingo
9.90 The household telephone survey indicates that the playing of bingo has a participation rate of approximately 7% across the study area. The current UK visitation rate is around 5%. On the basis that the household survey will have recorded ‘normally’ or regular players of bingo, it suggests that bingo playing in the Liverpool study area is marginally above the level of regular bingo play in the UK.
GL Hearn Page 91 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
Casino
9.91 Given the relatively low participation within the study area and the Gambling Act restrictions placed upon the development of new casinos, it is considered that there is limited scope for additional casino provision to serve the City over the study period. Indeed, the casino market is heavily regulated and controlled by the Gambling Act rather than the Planning Act.
Nightclubs
9.92 Within the Liverpool study area, the household survey indicates that less than 5% of households will visit nightclubs. Around 90% of those visits will be to nightclub venues within the City Centre. Our leisure demand analysis from both EGI and Focus do not indicate that there are any current requirements for nightclub uses within the Liverpool area.
Bars
9.93 As Liverpool City Centre is a focus for leisure and food and drink based activities, it is reasonable to assume that locally generated spend will be retained or at least outflow would balance inflow. There is some growth in the population expected by ONS coupled with some growth in expenditure. The additional expenditure generated by residents in the catchment is around £234.51m between 2015 and 2033 (Appendix 7).
9.94 As the food and drink sector has a diverse range of operators and turnovers it is necessary to take an approximate average turnover for the sector as a whole. Applying £0.9m as a sector average suggests that in very broad terms there is potential for around 130 new food and drink outlets in Liverpool by 2033, although this could be substantially higher when the inflow of trade is fully considered. However, class A3 to A5 operators are opportunistic and whilst they will have target towns and locations, they will take a commercial view on any opportunities arising and will compete for shop premises where they match their requirements.
Consider the Role, Function, Vitality and Viability, Mix and Potential Scope to Accommodate Development of the City Centre, District Centres and Local Centres and Identify an Appropriate Based on These Finding and the Extent of Town centre, Primary Shopping Areas and Primary/Secondary Retail Frontages
9.95 The results from the vitality and viability surveys have been drawn together and using the assessments of individual centres we have sought to provide a framework for development and investment within the City. It is considered overall that the findings of the 2009 study are still valid such that the health of district and local shopping centres across Liverpool varies and with a few exceptions majority of the centres have deteriorated over time. It was felt that a number of the centres across the City were too large and dissipated and require consolidation.
GL Hearn Page 92 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
City Centre
9.96 The City Centre is performing its Regional Centre role well as evidenced in particular by the strength of its comparison goods shopping offer. The GOAD Report for the City Centre has been used within the study to assess the centre against national averages to create a picture of how the centre is performing nationally. It performs well above the UK average in terms of representation in many comparison goods shopping categories and is particularly strong in terms of its clothing and footwear offer which is a key driver of footfall.
9.97 The city centre has 440 national multiple occupiers including 241 comparison goods multiple retailers, as well as a strong food and drink offer with over 112 restaurants/cafes
9.98 There are encouraging levels of investment in the City Centre including not just in the retail and leisure sectors but also in office and residential sectors which add to the diversity of uses. The Liverpool Development Update (October 2015, Mayor of Liverpool) identifies that the level of development activity completed in the City Centre was expected to reach £600m by the end of 2015, which would exceed the £333million achieved in 2014.
9.99 Overall Liverpool is performing well as its role as the sub-regional centre.
District and Local Centres
9.100 The results of the vitality and viability analysis identify the overall health of the district and local centres in Liverpool. The majority of centres are fit for purpose and adequately reflect the level of services and general services required to be retained as per the current classification, although some are not considered healthy. In response to this, the study identifies a number of development opportunities, suggests alterations to some centre boundaries and in some cases recommends changes to the status of some centres.
9.101 The district and local centres have been placed into three categories;
• Where centres have grown and/or surrounding uses have changed requiring the centre boundary to be expanded; • Where the centre is too large and unfit for purpose and should be consolidated; • Where the centre is fit for purpose and functions well and should be maintained.
9.102 Further to this, centres with development opportunities are identified where market led intervention would be considered appropriate. These are identified further below.
9.103 Within the City the centre at Great Homer street is set to benefit from a significant amount of investment. Planning permission has been secured here for a new district centre which will include a new supermarket (albeit smaller than initially envisaged), new shops, improved public spaces and new
GL Hearn Page 93 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
homes. The foodstore will continue to act as the anchor with additional retail space and a new market attracting investment into the centre. It is hoped that the scheme will create a hub of activity in North Liverpool and attract further investment and development to this part of the City. It is also recommended that Great Homer Street be elevated from a local to a district centre,
9.104 The vitality and viability assessments have identified two centres where the health of the centre is considered poor and are not performing within the hierarchy as they should. In this respect Wavertree is recommended to be changed from a district to a local centre. This is due to Wavertree lacking a main food supermarket, rather its provision is provided by smaller scale convenience stores. There is also a heavy reliance on A3-A5 uses and this, coupled with a high number of vacant units, mean that the centre is generally considered unhealthy.
9.105 It is recommended that Smithdown Road North should be removed from the hierarchy and become a neighbourhood centre. The centre does not contain a spread of A class uses and has a large amount of vacant units. This, alongside a lack of national retailers, has led to the centre having an overall negative image. The environmental quality of the centre as a whole is average. Due to the large amount of vacant units and the lack of variety of A Class uses the centre cannot be considered healthy.
9.106 Smithdown Road North also conjoins with Lodge Lane, which has a slightly better health. In order to try and establish one healthy centre in this area, it is recommended that Smithdown Road North is consolidated and removed from the hierarchy becoming a neighbourhood centre for the purposes of the local plan.
9.107 The wider results of our vitality and viability assessment contained within Appendix 4 are summarised below:
District Centres • Centres which have grown and/or surrounding uses have changed requiring the centre boundary to be expanded; • Belle Vale – It is recommended that the centre boundary be extended to include the Morrisons supermarket, which performs as an integral part of the centre. Centre to remain as a District Centre. • Broadway – It is recommended that the centre boundary is extended to include the Aldi development to the rear of the market. The club site to the south should be removed and possibly redeveloped for residential. Centre to remain as a District Centre. • County Road – It is recommended that the boundary is amended to remove the church grounds and include the Tesco unit and shopping units to the south. Centre to remain as a District Centre. • Speke – It is recommended that the centre boundary be extended to include the nursery and library as community uses. The centre would benefit from some night time activity such as a public house or restaurants. Centre to remain as a District Centre.
GL Hearn Page 94 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
• Smithdown Road South – boundary extended to include the ASDA to the north and Centre to remain as a District Centre. • Garston – It is recommended that the boundary should be amended by including Dunelm Mill to the north of the centre. The centre should remain as a District Centre.
• Centres which are too large and unfit for purpose and should be consolidated; • Aigburth Road – It is recommended that the centre boundary is altered to remove the former TA site as this is now within a residential use. Centre to remain as a District Centre. • Allerton Road – It is recommended that the centre boundary is consolidated to remove the residential units. Centre to remain as a District Centre. • Edge Hill – It is recommended that the boundary should be revised to remove the new and proposed residential units to the north of Wavertree Road. Centre to remain as a District Centre. • Wavertree – It is recommended that the boundary is amended by removing the sports centre and the centre reclassified as a Local Centre. • Breck Road – It is recommended that the centre be consolidated at the eastern end to Old Barn Road and Newcombe Street. Centre to remain as a District Centre. • Walton Vale – It is recommended that as there are limited opportunities within the centre for significant development the retail offering could be consolidated to fall within the northern portion of the centre between the junction with Chapel Avenue and where Walton Vale splits to become Longmoor Lane and Warbreck Moor. Centre to remain as a District Centre.
• Centres that are fit for purpose and functions well and should be maintained. • London Road – the centre provides a wide retail offering and serves the local community well. The centre is well used in spite of its proximity to Liverpool City Centre. Centre designated as a District Centre. • Old Swan – Good range of retail uses provided as well as a night time economy. There is a lack of vacant units and the centre serves its catchment area well. Centre to remain as a District Centre. • Woolton – the centre has a wide range of uses as well as a vibrant evening economy. It serves the local community well. Centre to remain as a District Centre.
Local Centres • Centres which have grown and/or surrounding uses have changed requiring the centre boundary to be expanded; • Great Homer Street – It is recommended that the boundary needs to be updated to include the retail permission that has been granted at the site. Centre should be reclassified as a District Centre. • Lodge Lane – Boundary extended to include a potential development site towards the middle of the centre. Centre to remain as a Local Centre. • Rice Lane – It is recommended that the centre boundary needs to be updated to include the Sainburys and new Aldi to the south. Centre to remain as a Local Centre.
• Centres which are too large and unfit for purpose and should be consolidated; • Aigburth Vale – recommended that the boundary should be altered to remove the residential units on the eastern edge. Centre to remain as a Local Centre.
GL Hearn Page 95 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
• Kensington – it is recommended that the warehouse site to the south of Lockerby Road should be removed in order to release it for potential residential development. Centre to remain as a Local Centre. • West Derby – boundary to exclude the garage and residential units to the south and west of the centre. Centre to remain as a Local Centre. • Prescot Road – It is recommended that the centre is consolidated to separate it from Old Swan, but should be expanded slightly to incorporate the Asda.. Centre to remain as a Local Centre. • Tuebrook – It is recommended that the centre needs to be consolidated with the railway bridge over West Derby Road being used as the limit to the retail development within the centre. Centre to remain as a Local Centre.
• Centres that are fit for purpose and function well and should be maintained; • Hunts Cross – the centre serves the local community well with sufficient comparison and convenience provision for a centre of its size. Centre to remain as a Local Centre. • Knotty Ash – despite its length, there is a general flow of retail units such that is boundary should remain. The centre should also remain as a Local Centre. • Muirhead Avenue East – the centre contains a range of A Class uses and serves the local community well. Centre to remain as a Local Centre.
• Centre to be removed from the hierarchy; • Smithdown Road North – It is recommended that as the centre cannot be considered to be healthy this centre should be removed from the hierarchy and classified as a neighbourhood centre.
9.108 The vitality and viability assessment also identified a number of potential development opportunities which may be suitable for town centre uses. The opportunities include:
• Allerton Road – land adjacent to the Penny Lane Centre • Garston – the vacant Co-op site, the Woolton Carpets/The Alexandria public house site and the Garston Baths site; • Walton Vale – Walton Vale/Chapel Avenue junction • Wavertree – former Gulf PFS, opposite the Picton Road/Wells Road junction • Hunts Cross – Hunts Cross Hotel, Hillfoot Avenue • Tuebrook – former cinema and club and vacant garage at Somerset Place/Radnor Place
9.109 The recommendations would therefore suggest a retail hierarchy as follows:
Table 34: Suggested District Centres Aigburth Road Allerton Road Belle Vale Breck Road Broadway County Road Edge Hill Great Homer Street
GL Hearn Page 96 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
Garston London Road Old Swan Smithdown Road South Speke Walton Vale Woolton
Table 35: Suggested Local Centres
Aigburth Vale
Hunts Cross
Kensington
Knotty Ash
Lodge Lane Muirhead Avenue East Park Road Prescot Road Rice Lane Rose Lane Tuebrook Wavertree West Derby
Identify the Appropriate Policy Approach to Managing Retail Development within Centres and Consider Whether it is Appropriate to Set a Local Threshold for the Application of the Impact Assessment
9.110 Paragraph 23 of the NPPF ensures that planning policies promote competitive town centre environments. In order to achieve this local planning authorities should recognise town centres as the heart of their communities and should support their viability and vitality. Council’s should define a network and hierarchy of centres that is resilient to anticipated economic changes. The extent of town centre and primary shopping areas should be based on a clear definition of primary and secondary frontages in designated centres and make it clear which uses will be permitted in each location.
9.111 Following on from this are a number of paragraphs which identify how planning applications should be considered. Paragraph 24 identifies that:
GL Hearn Page 97 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
Local planning authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to- date Local Plan.
9.112 Thereafter paragraph 26 states;
When assessing applications for retail, leisure and office development outside of town centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan, local planning authorities should require an impact assessment if the development is over a proportionate, locally set floorspace threshold (if there is no locally set threshold, the default threshold is 2,500 sq m)
9.113 The NPPG provides further guidance on the application of the NPPF. Paragraph: 016 Reference ID: 2b-016-20140306 identifies “when should the impact test be used?” This identifies that:
In setting a locally appropriate threshold it will be important to consider the following:
i. scale of proposals relative to town centres ii. the existing viability and vitality of town centres iii. cumulative effects of recent developments iv. whether local town centres are vulnerable v. likely effects of development on any town centre strategy vi. impact on any other planned investment
9.114 Chapter 4 of the Retail Study identifies a series of recommendations for the District and Local Centres currently identified in the UDP; in order to support their vitality and viability. This takes the form of consolidation, expansion and the identification of potential development opportunities.
9.115 Retail developments which are proposed on sites not located within the defined City centre, or an existing district or local centre and are not in accordance with the development plan should be supported by a retail analysis which considers the potential for the proposal to be accommodated within a nearby centre and the impact that the proposal would have upon nearby centres.
9.116 This study advises the City Council to set a local threshold for impact assessments in accordance with NPPF and the advice in PPG. It is recommended that sequential assessments should be required for all town centre uses that are not within an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up to date local plan. The recommendation to Liverpool is that a local plan wide threshold be introduced which requires retail impact information to be provided on a proportionate basis
9.117 In advising on the local floorspace thresholds, consideration has been given to the existing health of the local and district centres in Liverpool, many of which cannot be considered to be vital and viable in their current situation; and the continuing trend, particularly in food retailing to develop smaller convenience stores, such facilities if located in these centres would bolster or anchor an existing centre as a shopping focus generating footfall and linked trips to other facilities. However where
GL Hearn Page 98 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
located outside an existing centre they can attract trade from centres and harm both vitality and viability and the LPA should seek to avoid this.
9.118 In setting a locally appropriate threshold the guidance (PPG) identifies that it will be important to consider the:
• scale of proposals relative to town centres • the existing viability and vitality of town centres • cumulative effects of recent developments • whether local town centres are vulnerable • likely effects of development on any town centre strategy • impact on any other planned investment
9.119 An analysis has been undertaken on the scale of the existing units with the existing town and district centres. Within District Centres, the average size of a retail unit 137sqm. Just to provide some context for convenience stores the overall average is 326sqm and comparison goods units have an overall average of 134sqm.
9.120 The average size of a retail unit in a local centre is slightly larger than those within district centres at 145sqm. For convenience shops the overall average is 256sqm. Comparison goods units have an overall average of 67sqm.
9.121 The City has a network of District and Local Centres many of which are performing very poorly. A high or growing vacancy rate within District and Local Centres should be seen as a structural rather than short-term problem and an indicator of an oversupply of tertiary and obsolete retail property, many of which were developed in the Victorian era fronting main roads and typically consisted of small scale terraced units and are not of a scale which the vast majority of national operators are seeking to occupy. A large number of these small scale units in a centre will reduce the average unit size, despite some district centres containing some new and larger units such as superstores.
9.122 The relevance of these existing average unit size comparisons when considering impact is the scale of proposals relative to existing centres and the individual type and size of units within them. When retail trade diversion is being assessed, the widely accepted approach is that ‘like competes with like’ and that the proximity of the proposal to a centre or centres will influence the level of diversion experienced. For example it would be reasonable to consider the impact of a proposal which would perform a potentially similar role, and thus potentially divert trade away from a centre giving rise to trading and consequential impacts.
9.123 Those consequential impacts could include reduced footfall within a centre and a lower propensity for linked trips/spending; impact upon continuing viability of retailing in centres; effect on vitality and viability; and the potential to attract investment into centres. It should also be recognised that impacts
GL Hearn Page 99 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
are cumulative and may gradually build up over a period of time. Given this, it is therefore essential that the impact of retail and leisure developments outside these centres are given due consideration and appropriately tested; particularly as it is the case that in weak centres experiencing falling rents, high levels of vacancy and declining footfall, even modest levels of trade diversion can have significant adverse impacts upon both vitality and viability.
9.124 Nevertheless while our analysis above has identified that there is no need for additional convenience retail facilities over the plan period, convenience operators continue to be most likely to require floorspace in the suburbs in order to cater for more local needs.
9.125 In terms of the comparison need assessment; there is no need identified over the short to medium term; however there is the potential for some growth over the long term i.e. 10+ years. The comparison need identified is principally found in the City Centre and this should be supported in the Local Plan, not only in terms of maintaining the health of the regional centre, but it will also compliment the comparison market’s current aim to rationalise estates and focus on fewer larger stores in larger centres.
9.126 There has been a number of planning proposal over the last few years for retail developments . In terms of recent proposals identified in this study, the floorspace has ranged from 494 sqm to 37,032 sqm, albeit the largest of those floorspace figures will not be in a single footplate unit, rather it will be spread amongst many smaller units as part of a retail park proposal.
9.127 An analysis of these applications by reference to their location either in centre or edge/out of centre show that 66% of the applications proposed development in out of centre locations.
9.128 The largest applications considered by the Council over the last few years have been submitted at Edge Lane Retail Park and at Liverpool Waters, as identified above these will be delivered in much smaller units that the overall floorspace figure identified. Of the remaining single occupant units these are proposed to be occupied by Lidl, Aldi, Home Bargains and Marks and Spencer Simply Food. These have averaged just over 1,000sqm
9.129 In order to provide these under-performing local and district centres protection from edge and out of centre proposals, the recommendation to the Council is that a local plan wide threshold be introduced which requires retail impact information to be provided on a proportionate basis. The local floorspace threshold should be set at 350sqm.
9.130 This would equate to a size of unit larger than the average comparison unit with both the district and local centres (135 and 145 sqm respectively), slightly larger than the average size of the convenience units in Local centres (256 sqm) and convenience units with in the district centre (326 sqm).
GL Hearn Page 100 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
9.131 The proposed threshold would also be smaller than the average unit proposed over the last few years in out of centre locations (1,000 sqm), but it should be noted that many of these proposals were submitted at levels just below the 2,500 sqm floorspace threshold identified in the NPPF. At the floorspace level suggested it would also capture the trend for smaller format convenience food stores in edge and out of centre locations.
9.132 It should also be remembered that the PPG advocates that the level of sequential and impact information provided in support of any application is proportionate and considered in a locally appropriate way and it is recommended that the Council work pro-actively with any applicant when scoping and agreeing the level of supporting retail information required by the relevant future Policy.
GL Hearn Page 101 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
Appendices
APPENDIX 1: District and Local Centres Map & Shopper Survey Zones
GL Hearn Page 102 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
APPENDIX 2: Household Shopper Surveys
GL Hearn Page 103 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
APPENDIX 3: Liverpool City Centre Goad
GL Hearn Page 104 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
APPENDIX 4: Vitality and Viability Assessments
GL Hearn Page 105 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
APPENDIX 5: Quantitative Convenience Need
GL Hearn Page 106 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
APPENDIX 6: Quantitative Comparison Need
GL Hearn Page 107 of 108
Liverpool Council Retail and Leisure Study 2016, September 2016 Liverpool City Council
APPENDIX 7: Leisure Need
GL Hearn Page 108 of 108