London Borough of Hackney HACKNEY RETAIL AND LEISURE STUDY MAIN REPORT

Final Report May 2005

ROGER TYM & PARTNERS

Fairfax House 15 Fulwood Place London WC1V 6HU t 020 7831 2711 f 020 7831 7653 e [email protected] w www.tymconsult.com

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION...... 1 The Study Aims ...... 1 The Study Approach ...... 1 Report Structure ...... 6 Technical Reports...... 7 2 POLICY CONTEXT...... 9 National Guidance ...... 9 The London Plan ...... 10 London Borough of Hackney UDP ...... 11 3 REVIEW OF CENTRES IN THE RETAIL HIERARCHY ...... 13 Household Survey Key Findings...... 13 Dalston ...... 16 Hackney Mare Street ...... 19 Stoke Newington...... 22 4 THE IMPACT OF FUTURE COMPARISON GOODS RETAIL DEVELOPMENT...... 27 Baseline Position ...... 28 The Calculation of Retail Impact ...... 29 5 COMPARISON GOODS RETAILING NEED ASSESSMENT...... 35 Convenience Goods Retailing Need Assessment ...... 38 Leisure Retailing Need Assessment ...... 40 6 THE PHYSICAL CAPACITY FOR GROWTH...... 43 Site 1 - Dalston Town Centre North Site (Cantor Scheme) ...... 43 Site 2 - Dalston Town Centre South Site (Chelverton Scheme)...... 44 Site 3 – East London Line Extension Site, Dalston Lane ...... 45 Site 4 – Architectural Salvage Site, 25-27 Dalston Lane...... 46 Site 5 – Thames House, 20-23 Tyssen Passage, Hartwell Street...... 47 Site 6 – Kingsland Shopping Centre, Kingsland High Street...... 47 Site 7 – Blockbusters, 130 Kingsland High Street...... 48 Site 8 – Gillett Square, Dalston...... 48 Site 9 – Former Gibbons Building, 5-19 Amhurst Road ...... 49 Site 10 - Bus Garage, Bohemia Place ...... 50 Site 11 – Former HSBC Bank, 354 Mare Street...... 51 Site 12 – 280 Mare Street ...... 51 Site 13 – Land at Wilmer Place...... 52 7 POLICY OPTIONS...... 55 Draft Strategic Policies ...... 55 Suggested Draft Policies for Dalston ...... 57 Suggested Draft Policies for Hackney Mare Street ...... 58 Suggested Draft Policies for Stoke Newington ...... 59 Suggested Draft Policies for Brownswood ...... 60

APPENDICES

1 National Retail Trends 2 Comparison Goods Technical Impact Assessments 3 The Need for Additional Retail and Leisure Floorspace 4 Retail Impact Tabulations 5 Retail Need Tabulations

Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The London Borough of Hackney (LB Hackney) commissioned Roger Tym & Partners in April 2004 to carry out a Borough-wide Retail and Leisure Capacity Study to provide background information to inform the forthcoming preparation of the Local Development Framework (which will replace the existing UDP), and to provide baseline information for the development of Area Action Plans and regeneration strategies for Dalston Kingsland and Hackney (Mare Street) town centres. 1.2 The Study comprises four separate reports, as follows: ƒ Main Report (this document); ƒ Visitor Survey Report; ƒ Household Survey Report; and ƒ Healthcheck Report. The Study Aims 1.3 LB Hackney’s brief comprises five discrete aims for the study as a whole: 1. To assess the future retail and leisure needs of the Borough and to advise on the most appropriate means of accommodating any identified need; 2. To consider Hackney’s current and potential retail and leisure position in the retail and town centre network in the East London Sub-region; 3. To assess Hackney’s competitive retail advantage and to develop overall strategies for promoting and improving both the retail offer and the vitality and viability of the town centres; 4. To assess the likely impact of developments proposed outside the Borough (in particular at Stratford) on the Borough’s town centres; and 5. To advise on the appropriate car parking levels for any proposed new retail and leisure development, and location and management strategy. 1.4 This Main Report deals with all of the study aims. Firstly, we set the overall context for the study and its policy basis, and set out the key findings from the visitor, household and healthcheck surveys. Then, using the results of the surveys, we identify the need for retail and leisure development in LB Hackney and the impact of developments on LB Hackney’s centres. Having established the need, we then identify development sites which could accommodate new retail and leisure development. Finally, we suggest policy options. The Study Approach 1.5 The first and second study objectives required a number of baseline surveys and assessments to be undertaken - specifically household and visitor surveys to determine current shopping and leisure patterns and to assess current levels of satisfaction with the Borough’s centres, healthcheck assessments of the vitality and viability of the Borough’s three town centres and a quantitative modelling exercise for need.

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 1 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

Task 1: Determine current shopping and leisure patterns in the Study Area (reported separately in Household Survey Report) 1.6 The first task is to establish current shopping and leisure patterns in the Borough and in areas beyond that could be important in the context of the LB Hackney centres. This task was achieved through the analysis of a survey of a representative sample of households in the defined Study Area (that being defined as all of Hackney and a small number of wards in Islington and Tower Hamlets). The Study Area was chosen to cover an area from which the LB Hackney centres were considered to be likely to draw the majority of their trade. Shopping patterns do not generally comply with local authority boundaries and so it was necessary to cast the Study Area boundary beyond LB Hackney to develop a full understanding of the shopping flows to centres in the Borough, and perhaps more critically those beyond the Borough. The Study Area was divided into 12 sub areas (referred to as zones) that each comprised of two or three Local authority wards and were reasonably balanced in terms of population. The Study Area is defined below, and is identified in Figure 1 on the next page of this report. 1.7 Nine of the zones (zones 1 to 9) are wholly within the LB Hackney, two are in LB Islington (zones 10 and 11) and the final zone (zone 12) is within LB Tower Hamlets. 1.8 The nine LB Hackney zones are: ƒ zone 1: covering Dalston and De Beauvoir wards (Dalston’s local zone) ƒ zone 2: covering Hackney Central and Chatham wards (Hackney Mare Street’s local zone) ƒ zone 3: covering Hoxton and Haggerston wards ƒ zone 4: covering Queensbridge and Victoria wards ƒ zone 5: covering King’s Park and Wick wards ƒ zone 6: covering Hackney Downs and Leabridge wards ƒ zone 7: covering Springfield and Cazenove wards ƒ zone 8: covering New River, Lordship and Brownswood wards ƒ zone 9: covering Clissold and Stoke Newington Central wards 1.9 Unlike Dalston and Hackney Mare Street town centres, Stoke Newington is not located conveniently within one or two wards. Instead it straddles the boundary of zones 6, 7, 8 and 9. 1.10 The two LB Islington zones are: ƒ zone 10: covering Highbury West and Highbury East wards ƒ zone 11: covering Mildmay, Canonbury and St Peter’s wards 1.11 The single LB Tower Hamlets zone is: ƒ zone 12: covering Weavers and Bethnal Green North wards

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 2 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 3 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 4 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

1.12 The survey was telephone based and sampled 1,200 households across the Study Area as evenly as possible between the twelve zones (approximately 100 in each). The survey asked a series of structured questions to determine where households undertake their shopping (the questions being asked separately for comparison and convenience goods1), their leisure activities (separately for A3/A4/A5 and D2 type activity) and also asked questions relating to mode of travel, trip frequency and sought qualitative views on the existing provision (a full explanation of the method employed in the survey is set out in the Household Survey Report). 1.13 The survey provides information that is used in the impact and need assessments sections of this report as the basis for the calculation of the market share of the various centres drawing trade from the Study Area. The survey data identifies which particular centres households in the Study Area are visiting for their shopping needs, and crucially where these centres are not within Hackney, provides useful insight of the reasons why households are attracted to centres elsewhere.

Task 2: Profile the Existing Visitors in the Hackney town centres (reported separately in Visitor Survey Report) 1.14 The second task of the study is to profile the visitors using the existing town centres in the Borough in order to assess how each functions and what role they perform. This task was achieved through the undertaking of face-to-face surveys of visitors in Dalston, Hackney Mare Street and Stoke Newington town centres (a full explanation of the method employed is set out in the Visitor Survey Report). 1.15 The key information drawn from the survey concerns the type of visitors present in the centres – that is the proportions of visitors that are local to the area, from elsewhere in London, elsewhere in the UK or from abroad, along with the reasons for their visit and the amount of expenditure made on comparison and convenience goods. This data is important in establishing how much of the each centre’s turnover is drawn from beyond the Study Area, thus when combined with the market share from the Study Area data gathered via the household survey this data provides the complete picture in terms of the total turnover of each centre. The survey also provides a qualitative review of visitor satisfaction with the facilities provided in each centre.

Task 3: Review of Hackney’s current and potential retail position (reported separately in Healthcheck Report and Section 6 of this report) 1.16 Task 3 draws together all the information sourced from the various surveys to assess how each of the LB Hackney town centres functions, the role it performs and the scope for future growth. The review draws heavily on the “healthcheck” work that is undertaken through assessment of the key performance indicators (KPIs) of town centre vitality and viability. The assessment therefore involved gathering large amounts of primary data and other published information from a wide range of sources to inform assessment of the KPIs. No one KPI will demonstrate on its own how a town centre is performing, but taken together the ten indicators will provide a sound barometer of performance and point to each centre’s general outlook. 1.17 The healthcheck work also identifies the potential retail/leisure development sites within each centre, which are explored in more detail in Section 6 that assesses the development opportunities of various sites in the Borough. Our more detailed assessment deals with the policy background to each site, the land use issues

1 Convenience goods are food, drink, tobacco and non-durable household goods commonly used to clean and maintain the home. Comparison goods are all other retail goods such as clothes, shoes, homeware, jewellery, sportswear, games/toys, books, music, electricals and furniture (consumer durables is an alternative term used to categorise these goods). These definitions accord with EBS’s interpretation of the classification of individual consumption by purpose (COICOP) categories.

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 5 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

concerning current uses and neighbouring uses and also the suitability and availability of the sites. 1.18 Thus the healthcheck review of each centre provides the context for establishing where the need for future floorspace growth should be located within the Borough’s centres, and also establishes the background for the impact assessment work.

Task 4: The Retail Impact Assessment (Section 4 of this report) 1.19 The forth study task involved a modelling exercise to forecast the impact of the relevant and significant retail schemes in the LB Hackney context – the planned extension to the Kingsland Shopping Centre and the Stratford City proposal. The assessment only considered comparison goods impact, as neither scheme is likely to provide significant convenience goods floorspace. The exercise commenced by establishing the existing pattern of centre market share and turnover, projecting this baseline position forward to the time when both scheme’s are thought likely to be trading, and then made informed estimates of the pattern of trade diversion to the new schemes from the existing centres. 1.20 The outputs from this section are estimated impact figures in terms of expenditure diversion, the percentage impact and our interpretation of the trade loss in terms of the likely future turnover growth in the existing centres resulting from the new schemes.

Task 5: The Need for Additional Retail floorspace in the Study Area (Section 5 of this report) 1.21 The fifth task undertaken was the floorspace need assessment (undertaken separately for comparison and convenience goods), which involved a modelling exercise drawing on data from the two surveys referred to above. The other key data sets included in this work are population change data sourced from the GLA via the client, and expenditure data (both current per capita expenditure data and forecasts of growth) sourced from one of the principal economic forecasting organisations and suppliers of such data, Mapinfo2. 1.22 The modelling exercise produces total expenditure forecasts incorporating growth to 2006, 2011 and 2016, from which claims on the expenditure in respect of turnover growth of the existing provision (referred to as sales density growth) and the likely turnover of planning commitments are deducted, and the residual expenditure are converted to a Borough-wide floorspace requirement in the case of comparison goods, and on a more localised basis for convenience goods which reflects the much more localised shopping patterns inherent in that form of retailing. 1.23 To put the Study in context in terms of the retail industry, we outline in Appendix 1 some of the more relevant trends that are important considerations in the preparation of strategic retail studies such as this. Report Structure 1.24 Following the introduction, in Section 2 we set out the current national, regional and local policy context for the study. In Section 3 we provide a review of Hackney’s existing defined retail hierarchy, and set this within the context of neighbouring London centres. In this section we also set out the key findings from the visitor, household and healthcheck surveys, which established the baseline position and healthcheck review of Hackneys town centres. This enables us to move from an appreciation of the present position to forecasting changes in the future.

2 Mapinfo are a GIS software company that acquired The Data Consultancy, who were formally known as the Unit for Retail Planning Information (URPI). Mapinfo’s expenditure growth forecasts are produced through their associate company Oxford Economic Forecasters (OEF).

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 6 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

1.25 Having established the baseline position, the first task is to model the potential impact that could result from major retail-led regeneration schemes elsewhere in London. There are a number of schemes that may come forward in the future, and we model the likely trade draw away from the LB Hackney centres and calculate and interpret the resultant impact in Section 4. 1.26 In Section 5 we calculate the quantum of additional floorspace need in the Hackney centres in the forecast years by modelling the drivers of growth in available expenditure - population and expenditure growth across the Study Area, plus the Borough’s current and potential market share, and estimate the amount of expenditure that it is reasonable to expect will flow to the LB Hackney centres from beyond the Study Area. The output is estimates of additional floorspace need at each of the forecast years. 1.27 The penultimate section, Section 6, provides an assessment of where the growth identified in the preceding section could potentially be met. The output will identify the sites considered suitable to accommodate the floorspace growth. 1.28 The final section, Section 7, identifies the main shopping and town centre planning policy issues that the Borough is facing, sets out policy options, and makes policy recommendations. Technical Reports 1.29 There are three separate technical reports which set out the current position for shopping and leisure in Hackney’s main town centres. These are summarised below. Household Survey 1.30 The household survey was commissioned to determine shopping and leisure patterns right across the Borough and in some adjoining areas. The survey assessed the destinations used by residents within a defined Study Area for shopping and leisure activity, and seeks to identify any qualitative deficiencies in the LB Hackney centres. The survey outputs will identify which centres are being used for shopping and leisure purposes (and provide market share data in respect of the former) and provides a broad perspective on the current performance of the LB Hackney centres. Visitor Survey 1.31 The survey of visitors in the three Hackney town centres provided more centre specific data of shopping and leisure patterns. The surveys examined the origin of the visitors to each of the centres, the purpose of the visit, spending on visits and perceptions of the centres. The survey outputs provided detailed analysis of the current role and function of the Borough’s town centres as shopping and leisure destinations. 1.32 These surveys helped establish the baseline context, and feed information through to the following stages of the study. They also provided a baseline of information against which future change in the performance of the LB Hackney centres can be measured. Healthcheck 1.33 The healthcheck report reviewed each of Hackney’s town centres by analysing them against a range of market and qualitative indicators in accordance with PPS 6, and comparing these data with that derived from the household and visitor surveys. This established connections between each centre’s performance and its perception, and provides an overview of character.

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 7 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 8 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

2 POLICY CONTEXT National Guidance Introduction 2.1 The national policy context in so far as it relates to town centres and the location of new retail and leisure developments is set, in the main, by PPS 1, PPG 6 / PPS 6, PPG 13, the Transport White Paper, the White Paper ‘a better quality of life – a strategy for sustainable development for the United Kingdom’ and in the Government’s Responses to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee of July 1997 and May 2000. The Fundamental Principles 2.2 The combined effect of these national policy documents has been to establish 14 fundamental principles, as follows: i) the Government’s primary objective to promote, sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of existing town, district and local centres as part of a package of initiatives to promote sustainable development; ii) the need ‘to focus development, especially retail development, in locations where the proximity of businesses facilitates competition from which all consumers are able to benefit and maximises the opportunity to use means of transport other than the car’; iii) the objective of ‘concentrating development for uses which generate a large number of trips in places well served by public transport, especially town centres, rather than in out-of-centre locations’; iv) the need ‘to maintain an efficient, competitive and innovative retail sector’; v) the need ‘to ensure the availability of a wide range of shops, employment, services and facilities to which people have easy access by a choice of means of transport’; vi) the need for plans to establish a hierarchy of centres and a strategy for the location of employment, shopping, leisure, hospital, education and other uses which generate many trips so as to identify the preferred locations for major retail and leisure investment in particular and ensure that all significant generators of travel are well served by public transport; vii) the need to adopt a plan-led approach to the promotion of all types of new development which generate many trips so as to ensure that they are well served by public transport; viii) the need to adopt a sequential approach to selecting sites for new retail and leisure development and other town centre uses - in areas where there is a need and capacity for such development - which is an approach which requires flexibility on the part of local planning authorities, developers and retailers; ix) the need to incorporate the principle of ‘disaggregation’ in applying the sequential approach, so that large retail and leisure development proposals are broken down into their constituent parts in seeking to fit them into existing town, district and local centres; x) the need to reduce overall travel and the demand for car travel in particular; xi) the need to resist applications for retail development on land designated for other uses in an approved development plan; xii) the twin requirements that ‘new retail developments should support the Government's objectives for sustaining and enhancing existing centres and should

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 9 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

be in accord with the strategy for retail development set out in the development plan’; xiii) the need to promote mixed-use developments, especially within town centres, and maximise the use of previously developed brownfield land; and xiv) the need to improve access to leisure, retail and other services – particularly in local centres – for residents of deprived areas as part of the drive to promote social inclusion. 2.3 These represent a rigorous set of principles which confirm the preference for town centre locations for all types of new development which generate many trips. Edge-of- centre and out-of-centre retail and leisure developments represent, respectively, the less favoured and last resort options; such retail and leisure developments can only be justified by exceptional circumstances where they pass each of the six key national policy tests, as follows. ƒ the ‘need’ test; ƒ the sequential approach; ƒ the likely impact on the development plan’s strategy; ƒ the likely impact on the vitality and viability of existing centres; ƒ accessibility by a choice of means of transport, including the by foot and bicycle modes; and ƒ the likely effect on travel and car use. 2.1 National guidance makes it clear that all proposals for town centre type uses should be directed towards town centres. The London Plan 2.2 The London Plan (adopted February 2004) reiterates national guidance on retail and leisure development by supporting the role of town centres. It seeks to enhance the access to goods and services, and strengthen the wider role of town centres. 2.3 Annex 1 of the London Plan defines London’s strategic town centre network, which comprises of: ƒ International centres; ƒ Metropolitan centres; ƒ Major centres; ƒ District centres; and ƒ Local and neighbourhood centres. 2.4 In addition to these town centres, London also contains a Regional Shopping Centre – Brent Cross, which serves a regional role. 2.5 Table A1.1 provides a classification of London’s international, metropolitan, major and district centres. The London Plan identifies the Hackney centre of Dalston as a Major Centre and Mare Street and Stoke Newington as District Centres within the East London Sub Region. All town centres in this sub-region are identified as locations where retail, services, employment, leisure and housing should be promoted and intensified, and the capacity for mixed-use development should be increased. Apart from this, there are no strategic site specific proposals affecting Hackney’s town centres. Although there are specific proposals for neighbouring town centres which may have a bearing on Hackney’s centres. In addition substantial improvements are proposed to public transport links including Crossrail Line 2 and the East London Line northward extension to Dalston which is expected to be operational in 2009.

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 10 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

2.6 Stratford, lying to the southeast of Hackney, is identified as one of the major growth areas in the East London Sub region with the town centre expected to grow from its current position in the hierarchy to Metropolitan level. Proposals for substantial retail development at Strafford could have implications for Hackney’s town centres. 2.7 In addition, Bishopsgate/South Shoreditch, Whitechapel/Aldgate, and Lower Lea Valley are all identified as opportunity areas in the London Plan. However, these areas are mainly identified for increased employment uses and not for retail, leisure or other town centre uses. London Borough of Hackney UDP 2.8 The Hackney UDP was adopted in 1995 and therefore predates both PPG 6 ‘Town Centres and Retailing’ published in 1996, and the current PPS 6 ‘Planning for Town Centres’ published in 2005. In this respect some of the retail policies it contains are out of date and have been superseded by more recent government guidance. 2.9 The Plan sets out the hierarchy of centres within the Borough with Dalston being the main centre followed by Hackney Mare Street and Stoke Newington (which accords with the hierarchy in the London Plan). In addition the Plan identifies a number of smaller centres that serve the day to day needs of specific local areas. Retail Hierarchy 2.10 The adopted UDP (1995) has a defined hierarchy of centres which are spread throughout the Borough. These range in size from large and small town centres to local shopping centres. The hierarchy also includes Hackney’s traditional street markets, which are all contained within defined centres. 2.11 Dalston Kingsland is Hackney’s largest town centre providing a wide range of goods and services. Mare Street and Stoke Newington are smaller town centres providing a range of shopping functions, and also serve as a focal point for other commercial, leisure and community facilities. Below these centres in the hierarchy there are a number of defined local shopping centres, which contain a range of retail and commercial facilities, but which mostly serve the local population. In addition, there are a number of local parades and corner shops, which are not defined within the retail hierarchy, but do meet the day to day needs of their immediate surroundings. 2.12 The retail hierarchy currently consists of: ƒ Large Town Centres – Dalston ƒ Small Town Centres – Mare Street and Stoke Newington ƒ Local Shopping Centres – Stamford Hill, Finsbury Park, Stoke Newington Church Street, Upper Clapton Road, Chatsworth Road, Well Street, Lauriston Road, Broadway Market, Kingsland Road, and Hoxton Street. ƒ Street Markets – Chatsworth Road, Hoxton Street, Broadway Market, Well Street, Kingsland Waste, and Ridley Road 2.13 The adopted UDP seeks to maintain the current hierarchy of town centres, and to direct major retail, service, leisure and entertainment facilities to the town centres. In addition, the retail function of the local shopping centres will be protected to ensure that shops are easily accessible to local residents. 2.14 While there is a defined hierarchy of town centres in Hackney, town centres in neighbouring Boroughs also provide retail and leisure facilities which meet the needs of Hackney’s residents as is evidenced by the household and visitor surveys. Furthermore, Hackney is on the West End’s doorstep, with Stratford to the east, and Wood Green to the north, and new retail facilities at Stratford City will be emerging in the future. These centres also provide retail and leisure facilities used by Hackney’s residents.

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 11 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

2.15 In the next section we identify the current characteristics of each centre with reference to the household, visitor and healthcheck surveys.

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 12 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

3 REVIEW OF CENTRES IN THE RETAIL HIERARCHY

3.1 In this section we draw together the key findings for each of the LB Hackney centres making reference to the results of all three surveys – the household, visitor, and healthcheck surveys. Firstly, we set out the key findings of the household survey in respect of each category of shopping and leisure activity. The findings are presented in this way, rather than by town centre, because the household survey was based on Study Area zones (shown in Figure 1 Section 1). Residents of each Study Area may, or as we have established, will mostly not visit the Hackney centres for retail and leisure activities. Household Survey Key Findings 3.2 Below we draw out the key messages from the household survey in respect of each of the category of shopping and leisure activities. Retail - Comparison goods 3.3 Comparison goods are retail goods such as clothes, shoes, homeware, jewellery, sportswear, games/toys, books, music, electricals and furniture. (Consumer durables is an alternative term used to categorise these goods). 3.4 Comparison goods shopping by residents in the study area is undertaken predominantly in the West End. This is the dominant centre in each study area zone, and overall it accounts for almost 40% of all main shopping trips. The LB Hackney centre’s performance is generally weak with Dalston drawing 11% of main shopping trips overall, Hackney Mare Street drawing 9% and Stoke Newington drawing just 2%. Households spend approximately 50% of their total comparison goods expenditure in their primary location i.e. the location where each household undertakes their main comparison goods shopping. 3.5 Dalston Kingsland is the main centre for comparison goods shopping in Hackney, attracting shoppers from Hackney Mare Street and Stoke Newington’s local zones without losing significant trips to these centres from its local zone. Even so, all three LB Hackney centres generally have very localised catchments with little draw from beyond the zones immediately surrounding the centre. 3.6 The market share calculations indicate that the LB Hackney centres’ overall market share from the Study Area is only 16%, which is a low retention rate by any standard. Dalston is LB Hackney’s strongest centre capturing an overall market share of 8%, with Hackney Mare Street next with 4% and Stoke Newington accounting for 2.5%. The LB Hackney centres’ collectively capture 24% from zone 9, whilst in zones 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 the collective market share approximates to 20%. The LB Hackney centre market shares are low and are comparable to the weak retention currently experienced by centres in LB Southwark, where Surrey Quays is much the most successful centre. 3.7 Beyond the core zones referred to above, LB Hackney market shares are even weaker. The dominant centre throughout the Study Area is the West End, with a market share that ranges between 30% in zone 5 to around 50% in zones 4, 10 and 12, and enjoys a 40% market share overall. Other centres with an influence over the Study Area are Wood Green (8.6% overall) and Angel (5.3% overall). No other centre achieves an overall market share in excess of 2.5%. 3.8 Most trips to undertake this form of shopping are made by bus, with almost half of all trips from the study area. However, the private car accounts for a sizable 16% of all trips. The localised nature of LB Hackney centres’ catchment area is confirmed by the short journey lengths which in the case of Dalston and Hackney Mare Street are half the study area average of around 11 minutes. This compares to the 30 minutes

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 13 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

average taken by shoppers accessing the West End. Shoppers visit Dalston and Hackney Mare Street with greater frequency than the main rival comparison goods centres visited – the West End and Wood Green. 3.9 Significant numbers of trips are made by tube where the tube is available. It is likely that the proposed East London Line Extension (ELLX) to Dalston, would increase the proportion of residents in Dalston’s local zone and along the ELLX route that use the tube for comparison goods shopping trips. However, it is unclear whether these trips will be to the same locations as visited at present and thus simply divert from other modes, or if they will be new trips. 3.10 The primary reason for visiting the Hackney centres is close proximity to home, rather than the quality and range of the shops. The quality and range of shops tends to be the main reason for visiting rival comparison goods destinations outside the Borough. Price competitiveness is also very important for LB Hackney shoppers. Of the LB Hackney centres, Dalston achieves the highest satisfaction score for comparison goods provision, but even here the centre only achieves an average score whilst the other two centres score below average. Retail - Convenience goods 3.11 Convenience goods are food, drink, tobacco and non-durable household goods commonly used to clean and maintain the home. Convenience goods shopping patterns are much more localised than those for comparison goods. LB Hackney has two dominant foodstores – Tesco in Morning Lane, Hackney Mare Street and Sainsbury in the Kingsland Shopping Centre, Dalston. These two stores, centrally located in the borough, alone account for 35% of the study area main convenience goods shopping trips. Both command around a 50% share of primary trips for convenience goods from their local zones and also draw well from the surrounding zones. They draw negligible trade from zones closer to other major stores such as the Sainsbury stores on Green Lanes, Haringey and Liverpool Street, Angel. 3.12 The Safeway store in Stoke Newington centre and the Tesco ‘metro’ in Well Street also have a notable draw within their local zones. There is relatively high customer loyalty to the main store visited. Half of all households only use the one store and other households on average spend 60% of their total convenience goods expenditure in the primary location. 3.13 LB Hackney centres command an overall market share of 55% for convenience trade. This share is higher (69%) within the borough; i.e. zones 1 to 9. The existing LB Hackney foodstore provision retains a good market share from the zones within the borough, with the only exception being zone 8 where the share is a comparatively low 52%. Households in this zone also experience comparatively long journey times, which may indicate a need for improved provision in the northern part of the Borough. The three LB Hackney town centres all achieve strong retention rates from their local zones, but relatively little beyond this. 3.14 A surprising finding is the high proportion of residents (over a third) that shop for convenience goods on foot. The proportion of car-borne shoppers is approximately the same as that for walk-in, which compared to findings elsewhere is comparatively low. The only exception is the shoppers using the Green Lanes Sainsbury store. The proportion of walk-in shoppers rises still further when convenience goods shopping trips to only the LB Hackney centres are considered. 3.15 The travel times to convenience goods facilities from study area residents are low; two- thirds take less than 10 minutes. This indicates a good distribution of provision. Close proximity to home is the overwhelming reason why shoppers visit convenience goods stores in the borough. The availability and ease of parking were not cited to any significant degree as reasons for visiting the stores, although this reason is important for visitors to the Sainsbury Green Lane store. All three LB Hackney centres have above average satisfaction ratings for this form of shopping, particularly Dalston.

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 14 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

Leisure – Eat and drink 3.16 Stoke Newington Church Street is the most popular location for eating and drinking destinations. It is even more popular in the study area than Angel or the West End, drawing 15% of all study area households compared to 12% and 11% respectively. However, again there is a similar pattern to comparison and convenience goods in that this is for very localised attraction with draw declining with increasing proximity to other centres that provide rival eating and drinking facilities. The inference is that given the choice households prefer to eat and drink in the immediate locality rather than travelling longer distances. 3.17 Hackney Mare Street and Dalston both draw 7% of all the study area visits to eat and drink facilities. Angel draws a similar proportion to Dalston and Hackney Mare Street from Hackney Mare Street’s local zone (zone 2). This indicates considerable scope for improvement, especially in Hackney Mare Street. 60% of households have a trip out to eat and drink at more than a monthly frequency, making this the second most common type of activity after convenience goods shopping. 3.18 The most common mode used to undertake this activity is to journey on foot. This accounts for almost 40% of all trips and a significantly higher figures applies to the borough’s centres. Bus journeys account for 28% of trips and almost a quarter of all residents use the car. Journey times to the borough’s centres average around 10 minutes, which again compares to an average of half an hour to the West End. 3.19 Almost a quarter of study area residents visiting the West End do so by tube. This figure is lower for visits from Dalston’s local zone due to the absence of the tube in Dalston. This finding suggests that the proposed ELLX will encourage trips for eating and drinking purposes from Dalston to the West End by tube. However, it is unclear if these trips will divert from other forms of transport, or will result in additional trips being made. 3.20 In terms of overall satisfaction, Stoke Newington predictably scores the highest rating. Hackney Mare Street scores the lowest. Leisure – Commercial activities 3.21 The term commercial leisure refers to activities such as cinemas, theatres and sports centres. This activity is dominated by trips to the West End which account for 17% of all study area trips. This is, however, less than the figure for comparison goods shopping trips to the West End. Angel is also a dominant centre for commercial leisure activity, accounting for 12% of all study area trips. 3.22 However, a high proportion of study area residents (36%) do not ever visit facilities for this type of activity. Dalston does have some draw from the study area (7% overall), but this is only just over half the draw of Angel which is located outside the study area boundary. The two other LB Hackney centres have very low draws indeed - 4% and 2% respectively. No other centre in the East London sub-region draws significantly from the study area as a whole, although Stratford draws 12% of trips from the most easterly zone (zone 5), which is double the draw from that zone of the nearest borough centre (Hackney Mare Street). 3.23 Commercial leisure trips are made much less frequently than retail trips (monthly the most common frequency) and the dominant transport mode is by the bus (41% of all trips from the study area). However, a quarter of households use the car for commercial leisure trips. Journey lengths average around 10 minutes to the borough’s centres and 30 minutes to the West End. Households rate Dalston as average in terms of providing for this type of activity, but the two other borough centres are considered to rate between average and poor. 3.24 In the next sections we set out the key characteristics for each centre based on the findings of the healthcheck and visitor surveys.

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 15 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

Dalston Centre Characteristics 3.25 The centre supports a total of 49,500 sqm gross of ground floor floorspace of which 42,200 sqm is used for retail. It is the largest of Hackney’s centres in terms of the amount of retail floorspace, and is the best performing retail centre in Hackney. It has the highest rents but comparable yields to the other centres. 3.26 The centre has a strong core area which is the busiest pedestrian location in Hackney. A key attraction of the centre is Ridley Road market. 3.27 The centre suffers from high levels of crime and a poor shopping environment, which are likely to undermine any efforts to make the centre attractive to shoppers and major multiple retailers. 3.28 There are eight key development sites in Dalston (assessed in Section 6), which are adjacent to the core retail area and provide the opportunity to increase the amount of retail and leisure floorspace in the centre, and provide large retail units suitable for major multiple retailers. 3.29 The centre serves a predominantly convenience goods shopping function, but is the strongest of the LB Hackney centres in providing for comparison goods shopping. However, the surveys have identified a weakness in the range and depth of comparison goods shopping provision. This is partly a result of Dalston’s location within easy reach of the West End and Wood Green shopping centres. Ridley Road Market is identified as an important attractor, drawing in shoppers from beyond the immediate walk-in catchment. Outlook 3.30 The centres that draw most from Dalston’s catchment area are the West End and Wood Green, which suggests Dalston will remain a less attractive shopping location given the scale and attraction of these centres. On the plus side Dalston does fulfil a role as a comparison goods shopping destination for a sizable proportion of LB Hackney households and there is no reason to suspect it will not continue to do so. However, to move the centre forward there is a need, certainly qualitative, and most likely quantitative, for a better range of shopping provision. Improvements to the shopping environment are also required to improve the centre. Comprehensive redevelopment with significant retail provision associated with the East London Line Extension (ELLX) to Dalston offer the very real prospect of providing substantial additional retail floorspace in a location which could both link with, and provide a natural extension to, the existing primary retail area and set within a traffic free shopping environment. Opportunities for Growth 3.31 On the supply-side – voids in the prime shopping area in Dalston are rare, and there are a number of potential development sites, most of which are located adjacent to the Core Shopping Frontage. In particular the extension to the Kingsland Shopping Centre and the two sites on Dalston Lane (the Cantor and Chelverton schemes) offer the potential to extend the existing retail prime pitch and link with the proposed underground station. 3.32 On the demand-side – there is some interest, but from a relatively small number of multiple retailers in taking space in Dalston. There is rather more interest from independent traders, which suggests that convincing the investment market that there will be enough retailer interest in Dalston to make a new scheme viable will not be an easy task. However, investment yields, although not very attractive, have improved considerably in the recent past in response to improving rents and the prospect of much improved conditions following the construction of the underground station in the

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 16 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

mid-term. Therefore, the prospect of retail and leisure development coming forward, in association with the transport improvements, appear brighter now than for some years. Visitor Survey Visitor Characteristics 3.33 The key visitor characteristics in this centre are: ƒ Dalston has the widest visitor draw of all the LB Hackney centres, but even here almost two-thirds of visitors are residents of Hackney. ƒ Over one-quarter of visitors come from elsewhere in London. ƒ Dalston is the LB Hackney centre which attracts the highest proportion of visitors from elsewhere in the UK and abroad. Trip Characteristics 3.34 The key trip characteristics in this centre are: ƒ Shopping is the main reason why people visit Dalston, with 54% of visitors doing so. In comparison, approximately 40% of visitors to Mare Street and 30% of visitors to Stoke Newington cite shopping as the main reason for their visit. This illustrates the importance of Dalston as the main shopping destination in Hackney. ƒ As with the other centres, convenience good shopping is the main reason for visiting Dalston. Almost 30% of visitors cited this reason, which is only slightly higher than the proportions for Mare Street and Stoke Newington. ƒ Ridley Road Market is a key attractor of visitors to Dalston, with almost a quarter citing this as their main reason for visiting. ƒ Few visits to Dalston are made for A3/A4/A5 food and drink uses3 or leisure, which possibly reflects a relative lack of these facilities. ƒ The average amount of time that visitors stay in Dalston is 1 hour 40 minutes, which is shorter than the time spent in other Borough centres. This is likely to be due to the lack of food and drink facilities, limited outdoor seating, and no public open space. ƒ Visitors to Dalston tend to make trips to the centre less frequently, which is largely because it is the main shopping centre in Hackney and visitors travel from a greater distance. Spending Characteristics 3.35 The key spending characteristics in Dalston are: ƒ The majority of visitors to Dalston intend to purchase some type of goods on their visit. ƒ Dalston is the centre where both comparison and convenience goods purchases are more likely. Comparison goods purchases are almost twice as likely in Dalston as they are in Mare Street or Stoke Newington, reflecting its status as the major centre within Hackney. ƒ Visitors to Dalston spend the highest amount on both convenience and comparison goods per visit, approximately £27 and £45 respectively. ƒ Spending on convenience goods in Ridley Road Market is high, with half of visitors spending over £20.

3 Public houses, cafes and restaurants.

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 17 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

ƒ The higher spend on comparison good in Dalston is largely due to the greater number of high value comparison goods retailers in the centre, i.e. selling electrical goods. Transport & Accessibility 3.36 The key transport and accessibility characteristics in Dalston are: ƒ The majority of visitors to Dalston travel to the centre by bus or on foot. This pattern is reflected across all the Hackney centres, but lower proportions of visitors use these modes of transport to access Dalston. ƒ Dalston has 6% of visitors who use the train, which is similar to the level for the other centres. This is disappointing given that the station is well-located within the centre. ƒ Dalston has the highest proportion of visitors who use the private car to visit the centre (17%), but it is also the only centre where a significant number of visitors cycle (3%). ƒ Visitors to Dalston make longer journeys than visitors to other centres. On average they spend 20 minutes on their journey time, but a significant proportion spend over 45 minutes. This indicates that Dalston has a wider catchment area than the other centres and contains shopping attractions which encourage visitors to make longer journeys. Visitor Attitudes 3.37 The key visitor attitudes in Dalston are: ƒ The main reason for visitors choosing to visit Dalston is that the centre is close to home, but the proportion is lower for Dalston than for Mare Street or Stoke Newington. This demonstrates that Dalston attracts visitors from a wider catchment area. ƒ Over 40% of visitors to Dalston consider it to be good or very good at meeting their needs for clothes and shoes, approximately twice the levels of satisfaction stated for Mare Street or Stoke Newington. ƒ Despite Dalston being the prime centre in the borough, almost 60% of visitors do not consider it to be their main centre for comparison goods shopping. ƒ In terms of the other centres that visitors to Dalston use to purchase comparison goods, the West End is the most popular destination. ƒ While Dalston is not the main centre used for comparison goods by the majority of visitors, almost a fifth of them still visit the centre as their second choice for these types of goods. ƒ Wood Green is another significant centre for Dalston visitors. ƒ A low proportion of Dalston’s visitors consider Mare Street and Stoke Newington to be their main centre for comparison goods. ƒ Visitors to Dalston do not tend to use non-shopping facilities when visiting the centre. Of those that do use non-shopping facilities, bars, restaurants, and cafes are the most popular, used by 13% of visitors. 11% of visitors also intend to visit the cinema. ƒ The library is the only other significant non-shopping facilities used by visitors, although it attracts less than half the proportion that visits that the library in Mare Street achieves. The library in Dalston is not prominently located. ƒ A high proportion of visitors consider Dalston to be ‘good’ at meeting their indoor leisure needs. This is likely to be due to the Rio Cinema, Kings Gym and the Arcola Theatre which are in the centre. However, a high proportion of visitors did not know

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 18 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

if the centre met their needs for these facilities, suggesting that they go elsewhere instead. Suggested Improvements 3.38 The key suggested improvements for Dalston are: ƒ A third of all visitors to Dalston suggested that no improvements where necessary, which indicates a level of satisfaction with the centre. ƒ Improving cleanliness was the highest response of those visitors who wanted changes made. ƒ 15% of visitors to Dalston suggest that a better range of shops would improve the centre. This figure is lower than the proportions who suggested this improvement for either Mare Street or Stoke Newington, demonstrating that Dalston has the best range of shops in Hackney but that there is still the potential to improve. ƒ Dalston has the highest proportion of visitors who want improvements made to the level of car parking, almost twice the levels in the other centres. This is likely to be related to the higher proportion of visitors to Dalston who travel to the centre by car. 3.39 Reducing crime was mentioned by few visitors, which is surprising as Dalston has the highest level of recorded crime in Hackney. Hackney Mare Street Centre Characteristics 3.40 This centre supports a total of 51,300sqm gross of ground floor floorspace, but only 28,300sqm (55%) is used for retail purposes with the remainder used for leisure and office uses associated with the centres civic and administrative functions. For example, the Town Hall, Central Library, and leisure uses will contribute to the total floorspace within the centre. 3.41 This is the second largest of Hackney’s town centres in terms of total retail floorspace, but contains the largest Core Shopping Frontage area. It provides the most attractive shopping environment of the three Hackney centres. 3.42 Mare Street performs well as a centre in terms of rents and yields, and which provides some larger retail units attractive to major multiple retailers. Marks & Spencer, who are considered to be a key attraction for a town centre, are located in Mare Street. 3.43 The lack of bars and restaurants is both a weakness and an opportunity as the evening economy is improving and such uses would be complementary to the civic and D2 facilities already established in the centre. There are currently some prominent vacant buildings which could be re-used to accommodate such uses. 3.44 The four key development sites are located at, or near to, the main entrance to the centre, which provide an opportunity to make the centre more attractive and welcoming for visitors. There are also opportunities to re-connect part of the centre by improving or creating pedestrian links within it. 3.45 The centre has a very tightly defined catchment area, and a modest comparison goods draw, with a better convenience goods draw principally to the Tesco store on Morning Lane. The centre is perceived to provide below average comparison goods shopping, A3/A4/A5 activity and even D2 needs. The lack of A3/A4/A5 provision especially in the northern part of the centre is a particular weakness, but there are development opportunities available that could address this if demand was evident.

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 19 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

Outlook 3.46 The centre lacks the critical mass to offer residents and visitors alike a credible alternative to bigger destination comparison goods locations elsewhere. That said the centre commands only marginally less of the main centre shopping trips than Dalston. This is surprising given that Hackney Mare Street lacks a significant comparison goods anchor store, but the same applies to Dalston (and for that matter Stoke Newington), and demonstrates the overall weakness of all the LB Hackney centres and the reliance on the continuing patronage of the local shopping public. The small number of key comparison goods stores in the centre is potentially a weakness as the loss of any of these would have a compounding effect upon the fortunes of the centre as a whole. However, these stores tend to operate in routine comparison goods such as chemist goods and stationery for which shoppers will continue to visit their local centre rather than travelling to centres further afield. Opportunities for Growth 3.47 On the supply-side – the key opportunity sites are related to the public transport arrival points, but these, such as former Gibbons building on Amhurst Road, offer only small- scale opportunity to expand the retail provision in the centre. However, were need to be identified for substantial growth and the market conditions prove favourable then the bus garage site is the obvious location to expand the retail centre as it relates well in physical terms to the prime retail pitch in the centre. 3.48 On the demand-side – the surveys indicate that residents and visitors would appreciate a better range of comparison goods shopping outlets, and indeed there appears to be reasonable interest from comparison goods retailers for representation in the centre. However, prime shop rentals in Hackney Mare Street are some 50% below those in Dalston, which makes the centre much less attractive to investors and developers, although vertical mixed use with residential above retail is certainly viable in the right location. 3.49 The lack of A3/A4/A5 provision in the Narrow Way area is a weakness that represents an opportunity for Hackney Mare Street. The complementary nature of A1 comparison goods shopping and A3 activity in particular is well documented and encouraging shoppers to take refreshment during a shopping trip also encourages them to stay longer in the centre and spend more. The under-provision is particularly acute with regards to restaurants and coffee shops. These uses have expanded considerably in representation over the past five years in centres up and down the country, but not in LB Hackney centres. One of the critical reasons for this is considered to be the fear of crime that is a major disincentive to retailers considering locating in the centres. Addressing this issue could be the catalyst to encouraging A3/A4/A5 operators to consider Hackney Mare Street as a location where they can enter a developing market. Visitor Survey Key Findings Visitor Characteristics 3.50 The key visitor characteristics in this centre are: ƒ Almost three-quarters of visitors to Mare Street come from within LB Hackney, which is at comparable level to Stoke Newington. Dalston attracts the most visitors from outside Hackney. ƒ Mare Street attracts a similar proportion of visitors to Dalston from the other London boroughs, but the centre attracts no visitors from elsewhere in the UK or abroad. Trip Characteristics 3.51 The key trip characteristics in this centre are:

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 20 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

ƒ Shopping is the dominant reason why people visit Mare Street. This was cited as the main reason by 40% of visitors. The proportion is higher than Stoke Newington (30%) but much lower than Dalston, the main centre for shopping in Hackney. ƒ The other main reason for visiting Mare Street was proximity to home as cited by 15% of visitors. This is almost twice the level giving this reason as a reason for visiting Dalston. ƒ A higher proportion of visitors to Mare Street, compared to the other centres, stated that education was the main reason for visiting the centre. 8% cited this as their main reason for visiting, which is likely to be due to the close proximity of nearby colleges and also the library in Mare Street. ƒ 8% of visitors to Mare Street South stated that the main purpose for their visit was for leisure and recreation. This is most likely to be because the library is in this part of the centre; the Hackney Empire is also in this location. ƒ Very few visits to Mare Street are made for A3/A4/A5 food and drink uses. This presumably reflects a relative lack of bars and restaurants in particular. ƒ Visitors to Mare Street spend on average 2 hours in the centre, which is higher than dwell-time for Dalston. This is likely to be because it is a more attractive centre with open space and outdoor seating opportunities. ƒ Visitors to Mare Street tend visit the centre on a regular basis. This is likely to be a result of its more localised shopping function. Spending Characteristics 3.52 The key spending characteristics in Mare Street are: ƒ Almost half of all visitors to Mare Street do not intend to purchase any goods during their visit, which is the highest proportion of Hackney centres. ƒ More visitors to Mare Street intend to spend on convenience goods than comparison goods. It is the centre where spending on comparison goods is least likely, and 80% of visitors do not intend to purchase any comparison goods during their visit. ƒ Visitors to Mare Street spend approximately £19 on convenience goods and £25 on comparison goods. This is lower than the amount spent in Dalston, and reflects the attraction of that centre. Transport & Accessibility 3.53 The key transport and accessibility characteristics in Mare Street are: ƒ The majority of visitors to Mare Street travel to the centre by bus or on foot. Mare Street has the highest proportion that uses the bus to travel to the centre. This is not surprising as it is well-served by buses. ƒ A lower proportion of visitors walk to the centre but this mode of transport still represents almost a third of all visitors. ƒ The only other significant mode of transport is the train, but this is nevertheless low given that two stations serve the centre. However, only one of these is prominently located. ƒ Mare Street has the lowest proportion of visitors who travel to the centre by private car. ƒ The lower proportion of very local trips to Mare Street corresponds to the number of visitors who travel to the centre by bus. Visitor Attitudes 3.54 The key visitor attitudes in Mare Street are:

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 21 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

ƒ Proximity to home is the main reason why visitors choose to visit Mare Street. This reflects the local nature of its catchment area and 60% of respondents cite this reason. ƒ Less than 20% of visitors consider Mare Street to be good or very good at meeting their needs for clothes and shoe shopping. Dalston achieves more than twice this level of satisfaction. ƒ Almost three-quarters of visitors to Mare Street do not consider it to be their main centre for comparison goods shopping. ƒ In terms of the other centres that visitors to Mare Street use to purchase comparison goods, the West End is the most popular destination. This is also the case for the other Hackney centres. ƒ Mare Street is not the main centre used for comparison goods by the majority of visitors. In fact, less than 10% of its visitors consider it to be their second choice of centre when purchasing these goods. Whereas almost 20% of visitors to Dalston considered that centre to be their second choice when shopping for comparison goods. ƒ Dalston is the other significant centre for visitors to Mare Street, which is not surprising as it is the main Hackney centre. Angel, located outside LB Hackney, is also a significant other centre visited. ƒ Stratford is not a significant centre for visitors to Mare Street with only 3% citing it as a centre that they visit for comparison goods shopping. Stoke Newington was not mentioned as centre visited for comparison goods by any of Mare Street’s visitors. ƒ Visiting the library is the main non-shopping activity undertaken by visitors. This is likely to be because it is a new modern facility which is prominently located within the centre. A high proportion of visitors also intend to use the open space in the centre. ƒ Compared to the other centres, a lower proportion of visitors to Mare Street intend to also visit a restaurant, café or bar while in the centre. This indicates that there is a lack of these facilities in the centre. ƒ The low levels of satisfaction with the indoor leisure facilities by visitors are a partial reflection that, in relative terms, Mare Street lacks such uses. Suggested Improvements 3.55 The key suggested improvements for Mare Street are: ƒ Most visitors to Mare Street wanted to see improvements made to the range of shops in the centre. This explains why visitors to the centre tend to shop elsewhere. ƒ More than a quarter of visitors overall wanted to see improvements made to the shopping environment, and the northern section was considered to be a particular problem. Visitors also wanted to see the amount of traffic reduced in the northern section. ƒ A high proportion of visitors wanted crime reduced in the centre, and this was particularly highlighted in the northern section of the centre. Stoke Newington Centre Characteristics 3.56 Stoke Newington is the smallest of Hackney’s town centres, and supports a total of 36,700 sqm gross of ground floor floorspace, of which 27,900 sqm is used for retail. It

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 22 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

has far fewer multiple retailers and a poorer range of shops. As such, local people will have to visit other centres to meet all their shopping needs. 3.57 Stoke Newington, and Church Street in particular, is characterised by independent and niche retailers, restaurants and café uses, and there is strong demand from retailers for units located in the prime retail pitches. 3.58 The mainstream comparison goods attractions in the centre are particularly weak with the only main attractor being the Woolworths store. Much of the remainder of the comparison goods offer in the centre is operated by independent traders specialising in ethnic goods and services. Church Street provides a very different type of comparison goods offer with a range of specialist fashion boutiques. The principal convenience goods attraction in Stoke Newington is provided by the Safeway store on the edge of the centre on Stamford Hill. The retail offer on Church Street is complemented by a good selection of good quality A3/A4/A5 provision – mainly quality restaurants and wine bars. 3.59 Overall the centre has a very weak comparison goods attraction, and in consequence has a very tightly drawn catchment area that extends little beyond the local zone (just three wards). The A3/A4/A5 provision on Church Street provides a very strong attraction that draws a considerable proportion of Study Area residents, albeit mostly from the zones closest to the centre reflecting the local travel patterns of trips out for eating and drinking purposes. Outlook 3.60 Stoke Newington has become an established centre for routine retail and specialist ethnic retailing and services on the one hand and upmarket fashion boutique and A3/A4/A5 leisure activity on the other. It is perhaps unsurprising that the two activities have gravitated to different geographical areas within the centre especially given the complementary nature of the latter combination. 3.61 We consider that the future outlook for these quite separate retail pitches should be reasonably stable as the type of specialist provision provided in Church Street is not replicated by any centre in reasonably close proximity and the High Street no longer provides the type of comparison goods provision that would set Stoke Newington in direct competition with other centres. Opportunities for Growth 3.62 On the supply-side, our search has identified one site, at Wilmer Place, with the potential to provide new retail development. 3.63 On the demand-side, the mainstream retailer interest is the lowest of all the LB Hackney centres, which is unsurprising, although interest in units that become available in Church Street attract considerable retailer (mostly A3/A4/A5) interest. Rents are similar to Hackney Mare Street, which indicates that investor/developer interest would only be in piecemeal opportunities rather than any form of comprehensive development. Visitor Survey Key Findings Visitor Characteristics 3.64 The key visitor characteristics in this centre are: ƒ More than three-quarters of visitors to Stoke Newington come from within LB Hackney. This is a comparable level to Mare Street but less than Dalston which attracts more visitors from outside Hackney. ƒ Stoke Newington attracts fewer visitors from the other London boroughs compared to Dalston or Mare Street.

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 23 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

ƒ Stoke Newington does attract a small proportion of its visitors from elsewhere in the UK, slightly less than Dalston. Mare Street attracts no visitors from elsewhere in the UK. ƒ Stoke Newington attracts no visitors from abroad. Of the Hackney centres, only Dalston manages to do so. Trip Characteristics 3.65 The key trip characteristics in this centre are: ƒ Shopping is the dominant reason why people visit Stoke Newington, with 30% citing this reason. This is a lower proportion than for Mare Street and much lower than for Dalston. ƒ A significant number of visitors state that the bars, restaurants and cafes in Stoke Newington are their main reason for visiting the centre. 10% cite this as a reason for visiting Stoke Newington compared to only 3% and 1% in Dalston and Mare Street respectively. These uses are a characteristic of Stoke Newington and Church Street in particular. ƒ Stoke Newington is the centre where visitors spend the most time, but it is Church Street where visitors intend to stay the longest. This is mainly because people tend to spend longer in the bars, restaurants and cafes. ƒ Visitors to Stoke Newington tend to visit most frequently, with nearly half of all visitors doing so on a daily basis. This is because Stoke Newington largely serves its local resident population. Spending Characteristics 3.66 The key spending characteristics in Stoke Newington are: ƒ As with the other centres, visitors to Stoke Newington are more likely to purchase convenience goods than comparison goods. ƒ Stoke Newington is the Hackney centre where visitors spend the least, with approximately £15 spent on convenience goods and £24 on comparison goods. Stoke Newington High Street is the area where visitors are least likely to spend money, which is likely to be because the shops do not meet the needs of visitors. ƒ The high proportion of purchases in Church Street is because of the specialist / niche retailers in this part of the centre selling high value convenience and comparison goods. Transport & Accessibility 3.67 The key transport and accessibility characteristics in Stoke Newington are: ƒ Stoke Newington has the highest proportion of visitors who travel to the centre on foot, with over half of all visitors doing so. ƒ A lower proportion of visitors take the bus, but this mode of transport still represents almost a third of all trips. This may relate to the one-way traffic system in operation through the centre which may discourage visitors travelling in a southbound direction. Visitor Attitudes 3.68 The key visitor attitudes in Stoke Newington are: ƒ More than 60% of visitors to Stoke Newington stated that their main reason for visiting the centre was proximity to home, which reflects the local nature of its catchment area. ƒ More than a quarter of visitors consider Stoke Newington to be good or very good at meeting their needs for clothes and shoe shopping. Dalston achieves the

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 24 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

highest level of satisfaction with the centres for these types of goods, with more than 40%. ƒ More than 85% of visitors to Stoke Newington do not consider it to be their main centre for comparison goods shopping. This is the highest of Hackney’s centres and indicates that visitors travel elsewhere for these goods. This is largely because Stoke Newington has a limited supply of comparison goods floorspace, and has few multiple retailers. ƒ In terms of the other centres that visitors to Stoke Newington use to purchase comparison goods, the West End is again the most popular destination. ƒ Stoke Newington is clearly not the main centre used for comparison goods by the majority of its visitors. Less than 5% of its visitors consider it to be their second choice of centre when purchasing these goods. ƒ Angel is the other significant centre for visitors to Stoke Newington ƒ For only 9% of Stoke Newington’s visitors is Dalston considered to be another centre used for comparison goods, despite it being the main Hackney centre. Camden Town achieves a similar level to Dalston as another significant centre for Stoke Newington visitors. ƒ Visiting restaurants, cafes or bars are the main non-shopping activity undertaken by visitors to Stoke Newington. 60% of visitors to Church Street undertake a non- shopping activity, and half of those intend to visit a restaurant, cafe or bar while in the centre. These facilities are a characteristic of this centre and a key attraction. Not surprisingly, three quarters of all visitors were satisfied that the centre meets their needs for these facilities. ƒ A quarter of the visitors to Church Street also intend to visit open space while in the centre. Suggested Improvements 3.69 The key suggested improvements are: ƒ A quarter of all visitors to Stoke Newington wanted improvements made to the range of shops in the centre. Mare Street was the centre where the highest proportion of visitors suggested this improvement. ƒ Almost one-fifth of visitors wished to see improvements to the shopping environment. ƒ There were some noticeable differences between the responses made in the High Street and Church Street areas. In particular, reducing crime and improving cleanliness were identified as measures by those questioned in the High Street, but lower proportions requested these changes from Church Street. ƒ Provision of a cinema or particular leisure facility was mentioned by 12% of visitors. 3.70 Interestingly, while a high proportion of visitors wanted crime reduced in Stoke Newington, but the crime statistics indicate that this centre has much lower levels of recorded crime than either Mare Street or Dalston.

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 25 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 26 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

4 THE IMPACT OF FUTURE COMPARISON GOODS RETAIL DEVELOPMENT 4.1 In the preceding section we set out the main characteristics of each centre and the key findings from the visitor, household and healthcheck surveys. The three surveys, taken together, have essentially reviewed the current performance of each of the LB Hackney centres, the general outlook for these centres and the opportunities for growth. In this section we assess the impact of future comparison goods retail development on the LB Hackney centres. 4.2 We identified the extension to the Kingsland Centre as a commitment that is likely to come forward in the short to medium term. This development together with others that will come forward both within LB Hackney and beyond, will alter shopping patterns and centre market shares, and make adjustments to the relative position of each centre in the sub-regional retail hierarchy. 4.3 In order to plan for change it is important to understand the likely consequences of changes brought about by development, and therefore in this section we model the likely comparison goods retail impact of new retail floorspace development in Dalston (the plans to extend the Kingsland Shopping centre) and the planned development on the Stratford railway lands (a development known as Stratford City). The regeneration of Stratford City is one of six large mixed-use, but retail-led schemes at various stages of advancement in London, the others being White City, King's Cross, Brent Cross, Wembley and Elephant & Castle. However, in our view none of the other five schemes would have any discernable impact upon the LB Hackney centres, and therefore we only model the impact of Stratford City and the extension to the Kingsland Shopping centre. 4.4 Both schemes (the extension to the Kingsland Shopping centre and Stratford City) propose largely additional comparison goods floorspace rather than any significant additional convenience goods floorspace, which means it is only necessary to model comparison goods impact. 4.5 The term “retail impact” we define as meaning the amount of turnover diverted from the existing centres/stores by new development, expressed as a proportion of the total turnover the centres/stores would have achieved had no development taken place. The impact percentages need to be interpreted in terms of the risk to town centre strategies, alterations to roles, effects on future investment and changes in the vitality and viability of centres as a whole in accordance with paragraph 3.22 of PPS6. 4.6 The existing centres included in the assessment are locations that currently draw trade from the Study Area4 and are likely to experience some trade diversion to both the planned Dalston extension and Stratford City. These centres were identified in the household survey of shopping habits (reported in the Household Survey report). The assessment excludes all the LB Hackney neighbourhood centres with the exception of the largest - Stamford Hill. The reason being that the other neighbourhood centres were not identified in the Household Survey in sufficient numbers to provide market share and turnover data, and we are therefore unable to model retail impact for the other neighbourhood centres – Stamford Hill excepted. It is worthy of note that new comparison goods retail developments will only divert trade from centres that provide some level of comparison goods provision. If a centre provides very little in the way of comparison goods shopping then it follows that trade diversion and impact will be negligible, and this is the case with the LB Hackney neighbourhood centres.

4 The Study Area and the zones within it are defined and described in Section 1 and Figure 1 of this report.

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 27 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

4.7 In this section we summarise the findings of the impact assessment work. We present a technical note on the methodology employed and a series of detailed tabulations at Appendix 4. Baseline Position 4.8 Below we summarise the base position. Figure 4.1 Total comparison goods expenditure generated in the Study Area - 2004

Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone All Zones

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total Total

Expenditure 58.6 56.9 56.2 60.3 54.0 58.3 53.4 95.6 66.8 77.4 105.0 61.9 804.5 (£M) 4.9 Figure 4.1 sets out the total available comparison goods expenditure generated by residents in each zone, and for the Study Area as a whole. The data indicates that the Study Area as a whole currently generates marginally more than £800 million. Most of the zones contribute between £50-£60 million, with Zones 8 and 11 contributing appreciably more than the rest. 4.10 We next assess how much of this expenditure is captured by the LB Hackney centres and how much leaks out to centres elsewhere. This assessment is based upon the available expenditure as set out in Figure 4.1 above and the market share data derived from the Household Survey. Figure 4.2 Turnover and Market Share of Existing Centres from Expenditure Generated From Within the Study Area LB HACKNEY OTHER CENTRES LOCATED BEYOND THE STUDY AREA Dalston Hackney Stoke Stam- LB H West Wood Other 5 Sub- TOTAL K’land Mare St New’ton ford Hill Total End Green Total Turnover from Study Area (£M) 65.6 34.4 20.1 7.2 127.3 338.4 69.3 269.5 677.2 804.5 Market Share from Study Area (%) 8.2 4.3 2.5 0.9 15.8 42.1 8.6 33.5 84.2 100.0 4.11 Figure 4.2 demonstrates the dominance of the West End as a comparison goods shopping location, which draws £338 million of expenditure from the Study Area (a market share of 42%). No other centre draws a double-digit market share. Wood Green draws the next highest figure at £69 million, a 8.6% market share. Dalston at almost £66 million, equating to a market share of 8.2%, is the best performing LB Hackney centre, and derives the third highest draw from the Study Area behind the West End and Wood Green. Dalston accounts for 52% of all the spend in LB Hackney centres (£127 million). 4.12 Collectively the LB Hackney centres retain just less than 16% of all Study Area comparison goods expenditure, and only marginally more (19%) from the Borough (Zones 1 to 9), which is a low retention rate compared to the rates experienced elsewhere in London. The high level of expenditure leakage (81% from the Borough) reflects the close proximity and strength of alternative shopping destinations, and in particular the West End and Wood Green. 4.13 All centres in the assessment will derive some turnover from shoppers/commuters/tourists resident in locations beyond the Study Area. Our

5 The “Other“ centres located beyond the Study Area includes a number of centres that derive some expenditure and market share from within the Study Area, but individually in smaller proportion compared with the two named centres located beyond the Study Area. The “Other” centres include Stratford, Walthamstow, Camden Town, Angel, Nags Head, Bluewater, Lakeside, Brent Cross, Romford, Ilford, Barking and East Ham.

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 28 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

estimates of turnover derived from beyond the Study Area, each centre’s total turnover and sales densities are set out in Figure 4.3 below. Figure 4.3 Base Year Total Comparison Goods Turnover and Floorspace Sales Densities of the Centres Dalston Hackney Stoke Stamford LBH Total K’land Mare St New’ton Hill

Turnover from Study Area (£M) 65.6 34.4 20.1 7.2 127.3 Turnover from Beyond Study Area (£M) 7.3 1.8 1.1 0.4 10.5

Total Turnover (£M) 72.9 36.2 21.2 7.6 137.8

Sales Density (£/sqm net) 4,108 3,773 2,769 2,562 4.14 Of the LB Hackney centres Dalston leads the way with a total turnover of £73 million, which is 53% of the Borough’s total comparison goods turnover (£138 million). Average sales densities are highest in Dalston at £4,100/sqm, with those in Hackney Mare Street next highest at about £3,800/sqm and around £2,800/sqm in Stoke Newington. The sales densities for the three town centres are comparatively low compared to the centres such as Wood Green that has a sales density of £4,400/sqm. 4.15 The completion of Step 3 concludes the work to establish the baseline position and we now move forward to consider the impact of the Kingsland Centre Extension and Stratford City on the existing centres. The Calculation of Retail Impact 4.16 As discussed above, in this assessment we are modelling the impact of two schemes - the Kingsland Centre Extension, Dalston and the Stratford City scheme, as these are the only schemes that in our view are likely to result in any discernable impact on the LB Hackney centres. 4.17 In the interests of pursuing a cautious approach we adopt the optimistic position that the Dalston scheme, which has planning permission could be built and trading by late 2005, and we therefore model the impact of this scheme first with a design year of 2006, which is the year after trading could in theory begin. The Stratford scheme is currently at outline planning permission stage. The site’s owners LCR and its developer partners Chelsfield and Stanhope have planning permission for a total of 1.2 million square metres6 of development of which 150,500 sqm gross will be A class floorspace, and the applicant’s planning advisers CBRE indicate that 100,000 sqm gross will be used for comparison goods retailing. Current estimates are that the early phases of this scheme could be trading by 2010, and therefore to maintain a cautious approach we test the whole scheme at a 2011 design year. The Impact of the Extension to the Kingsland Centre, Dalston Turnover of the Extension 4.18 We have obtained details of the gross and net retail floorspace of the scheme from the LB Hackney and we assume that 100% of this floorspace will be used for comparison goods retailing. The floorspace data is set out in Figure 4.4 below, along with our estimate of the likely sales density (based on the new space trading at 10% above the 2006 average sales density for Dalston town centre as a whole) and the total scheme turnover.

6 Floorspace figures are gross external, i.e. including plant, parking and any other external space

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 29 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

Figure 4.4 Kingsland Centre Extension, Dalston – Comparison Goods Floorspace, Sales densities and Turnover Sales Floorspace Density Turnover sqm £ (gross) sqm (net) £/sqm (million) 4,227 3,800 4,846 18.4 Sources: Floorspace data – LB Hackney. Sales density and turnover data - RTP assumptions

4.19 Figure 4.1 indicates that the extension to the Kingsland Centre, Dalston would turnover £18.4 million in 2006. Trade Diversion to the Extension 4.20 Trade will divert to the extension from other centres. The majority of the trade will divert from expenditure generated from within the Study Area, but some will be drawn from expenditure generated beyond that is currently being captured by the LB Hackney centres and also centres beyond. Figure 4.5 below sets out the derivation of the turnover of the extension. Figure 4.5 Kingsland Centre Extension, Dalston – Trade Diversion LB HACKNEY CENTRES OTHER CENTRES LOCATED BEYOND THE STUDY AREA

Dalston Hackney Stoke Stamford LB H West Wood Other Sub- TOTAL K’land Mare St New’ton Hill Total End Green Total

Diversion from Study Area (£M) 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.0 1.3 11.4 0.9 3.0 15.3 16.6 Diversion from Beyond Study Area (£M) 0.1 0.0 0.0 - 0.2 0.8 0.3 0.5 1.7 1.8

Total Diversion (£M) 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 1.5 12.2 1.2 3.5 16.9 18.4 4.21 The figure indicates that the main source of trade diversion to the development will be the West End, which will contribute £12.2 million. Wood Green is expected to experience £1.2 million of diversion, while Dalston itself where there will be some degree (very modest in this case) of turnover ‘cannibalisation’ resulting from a transfer of shopper spend from retailing outside to inside the new scheme. The other LB Hackney centres are likely to only experience very modest trade diversion. A total of £3.5 million is likely to divert from all other unnamed centres located beyond the Study Area. Impact Calculation 4.22 Figure 4.6 below sets out the findings from the impact assessment in respect of the extension to the Kingsland Shopping Centre. The figure sets out the impact percentages and adds some other interpretative figures looking at changes in market share and turnover growth.

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 30 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

Figure 4.6 Kingsland Centre Extension, Dalston – Impact LB HACKNEY CENTRES OTHER CENTRES Dalston Hackney Stoke Stamford LB H West Wood K’land Mare St New’ton Hill Total End Green Impact (%) +22.2 -0.7 -0.6 -0.1 +11.2 -0.3 -0.5

2004 Market Share (%) 8.2 4.3 2.5 0.9 15.8 42.1 8.6

2006 Market Share (%) 9.9 4.2 2.5 0.9 17.6 40.7 8.5 Annual Turnover Growth 'No Development' (%) +3.6 +3.7 +3.7 +4.0 +3.6 +3.7 +3.8 Annual Turnover Growth 'With Development' (%) +10.6 +3.3 +3.3 +3.9 +9.4 +3.6 +3.6 4.23 Whilst the existing retailing in Dalston will experience trade diversion of £1.0 million (refer to Figure 4.5), the addition of the shopping centre extension will generate a 22.2% overall increase in Dalston’s turnover. Comparison goods retailing in LB Hackney will increase by around 11%. All impacts on the identified centres are very low, universally less than a -1.0% negative impact. 4.24 The low level of impact is translated into insignificant changes in market share, with only the West End market share from the Study Area falling by more than a percentage point. Dalston’s market share from the Study Area rises by 1.7% to almost 10.0%, which takes the market share of the centres within the Borough as a whole from 15.8% to 17.6%. 4.25 Turnover growth in all centres will continue at good levels with the development in place (3% and above in all cases) little changed from what would have occurred had no development taken place. Dalston will experience turnover growth at a much higher rate. The healthy growth rates in all centres results from two factors (i) the continued high rate of consumer expenditure growth that are forecast over the period and (ii) the relatively high rates of planned population growth in the area. The Impact of the Stratford City scheme 4.26 Having accounted for the impact of the planned extension to the Kingsland Shopping Centre we now move on to consider the impact of the Stratford City scheme. Turnover of the Scheme 4.27 Below we itemise the comparison goods floorspace, the sales density and the total turnover of the Stratford City scheme.

Figure 4.7 Stratford City – Comparison Goods Floorspace, Sales density and Turnover Comparison goods Sales Floorspace Density Turnover Sqm sqm (gross) (net) £/sqm £ (million)

100,000 75,000 6,666 500.0 Sources: all data CBHP Stratford City Retail Study, April 2003 as submitted in support of the planning application.

4.28 The data has been obtained from material submitted in support of the planning application for the scheme, which indicates that at 2011 the scheme is expected to turnover £500 million or more than four times that of Dalston and two and a half times that of the combined total turnover for all the LB Hackney centres. Trade Diversion to the Extension 4.29 Figure 4.8 below sets out the derivation of the turnover of the Stratford City scheme.

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 31 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

Figure 4.8 Stratford City – Trade Diversion LB HACKNEY CENTRES OTHER CENTRES LOCATED BEYOND THE STUDY AREA

Dalston Hackney Stoke Stamford LB H West Wood Other Sub- TOTAL K’land Mare St New’ton Hill Total End Green Total

Diversion from Study Area (£M) 2.1 2.5 0.9 0.1 5.7 75.7 6.2 22.4 104.3 110.0 Diversion from Beyond Study Area (£M) 0.6 0.1 0.0 - 0.7 164.9 3.5 220.8 389.2 390.0 Total Diversion (£M) 2.7 2.7 0.9 0.1 6.4 240.6 9.7 243.2 493.5 500.0 4.30 We have adopted CBRE’s estimate of the trade diversion from the West End to the development being approaching half of the total turnover. This vast sum is plausible given the size of the scheme proposed. The three LB Hackney centres will all experience comparatively little diversion, with the same amount of diversion from Dalston and Hackney Mare Street (£2.7 million). However, any diversion from a low and vulnerable base, such as at Hackney Mare Street is potentially damaging. The high diversion figure from ‘Other’ reflects diversion from centres identified in our assessment – Stratford, Walthamstow, Camden, Angel, Nags Head, Bluewater, Lakeside, and Brent Cross, but also centres such as Romford, Ilford, Barking and East Ham that are external to our assessment. Impact Calculation 4.31 Figure 4.9 below sets out the impact percentages in respect of the Stratford City scheme and adds some other interpretative figures looking at changes in market share and turnover growth. Figure 4.9 Stratford City – Impact LB HACKNEY CENTRES OTHER CENTRES Dalston Hackney Stoke Stamford LB H West Wood K’land Mare St New’ton Hill Total End Green Impact (%) -2.4 -5.7 -3.5 -0.7 -3.1 -4.5 -3.5

2006 Market Share (%) 9.9 4.2 2.5 0.9 17.6 40.7 8.5

2011 Market Share (%) 9.7 4.0 2.4 0.9 16.9 33.5 8.0 Annual Turnover Growth 'No Development' (%) +3.6 +3.8 +3.7 +4.7 +3.7 +3.2 +3.7 Annual Turnover Growth 'With Development' (%) +3.1 +2.6 +3.0 +4.5 +3.1 +2.2 +3.0 4.32 The highest impact experienced by a LB Hackney centre will be the approximately 6% at Hackney Mare Street. The effect on the market share of Hackney Mare Street is small, but more significant when assessing the centre’s annual turnover growth rate. The turnover growth rate for the five-year period to 2011 drops from 3.8% to 2.6%, but remains above the 1.5% threshold that is the benchmark for continued investor confidence. 4.33 The impact upon Stoke Newington would be 3.5%, which reduces the market share very slightly, and takes the turnover growth rate down from 3.7% to 3.0%, well above the benchmark 1.5%. 4.34 The impact on Dalston is forecast to be 2.4%, which reduces the market share by 0.2%, but at 9.7% is still well above the 2004 of 8.2% figure. Turnover growth falls from 3.6% to 3.1%, but well within acceptable limits. 4.35 The only centres where impact reaches double-digit proportions are Walthamstow and Stratford (refer to Table 4.19, in Appendix 4). Of course in the case of the latter the 10% impact is the result of the ‘cannibalisation’ of some trade by the new development.

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 32 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

Walthamstow is also forecast to experience a 10% impact. In this case the impact is of concern as it takes the equivalent annual turnover growth rate for the five-year period to 2011 down only just above the 1.5% threshold, a point at which future investment by retailers/investors is put at risk. A further point to note in this context is that the impact and consequential reduction in turnover growth will not actually be spread evenly across the five years (2006-11), but rather will be experienced in one hit in 2011 when the Stratford City scheme is planned to open for tradingthe need for additional Retail and leisure floorspace.

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 33 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 34 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

5 COMPARISON GOODS RETAILING NEED ASSESSMENT

5.1 In this section we set out our assessment of the need for additional retail floorspace in the LB Hackney over the Development Plan period in five-year tranches up to 20167. Separate assessments are made for A1 comparison goods, A1 convenience goods shopping and a broad-brush assessment for A3/A4/A5 leisure provision. All three forms of retailing have very different geographical distributions and generate very different shopping patterns - comparison goods shopping facilities are generally concentrated in the town centres (there is very little retail warehousing to consider in the Study Area) and encourage trips from a relatively wide Catchment Area, whilst convenience goods and A3/A4/A5 have a denser distribution of facilities much of which is individual store based and much more likely to be located outside town centres. Therefore the forecasts of comparison goods floorspace requirements are Borough- wide and could in theory be absorbed by one or all of the existing centres, while the convenience goods and A3/A4/A5 requirements are focused on individual centres. 5.2 For each of the forecast years we present three alternative need scenarios – Scenario A (the “benchmark” based scenario) that calculates future floorspace need by assuming that current market shares are maintained; Scenario B (the “trend” based scenario) that presents future floorspace need on the basis of market shares adjusted in response to alterations in shopping patterns resultant from the extension to the Kingsland Shopping Centre and Stratford City developments; and Scenario C (the “preferred policy” scenario) that models the future floorspace need resultant from LB Hackney retaining the level of market share (ie higher than the existing market shares) that we consider provides a fair, equitable, sustainable and realistic distribution of retail provision within the Borough. Improving on the prevailing market shares, which were identified in the household survey as being very weak in comparison with retention rates for other centres/Boroughs, is desirable and in the interests of developing a more sustainable distribution of retail facilities. Such an uplift in market share is conditional on the LB Hackney’s centres increasing turnover. The only means of improving on trading success to a significant degree is to provide additional shopping floorspace that is attractive to shoppers and leads to an improvement in expenditure retention within the Borough’s centres. The market shares for each of the three scenarios are set out in Figure 5.1 below. The Study Area zones are defined in Section 1 of this report and shown in Figure 1. Figure 5.1 LB Hackney Existing and Potential Comparison Goods Market Shares by Study Area Zone

Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Scenario A 23.2 27.3 18.1 16.4 18.0 19.0 17.7 12.8 23.1 4.4 9.9 10.4 Scenario B at 2006 26.9 30.2 21.1 18.1 19.7 20.1 18.6 13.6 25.6 4.9 11.9 11.5 Scenario B from 2011 26.1 28.6 20.8 17.3 18.2 19.0 18.1 13.5 25.1 4.9 11.9 11.2

Scenario C 25.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 15.0 30.0 4.9 11.9 11.2

7 The Study provides forecasts at 2006, 2011 and 2016.

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 35 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

5.3 The aspirational market shares used in Scenario C are comparatively modest, and in the main only involve a five percentage point increase in share, with the zones beyond the Borough having no change over and above that induced by the extension to the Kingsland Centre and Stratford City. The Baseline Position 5.4 The baseline position in respect of the pool of available expenditure and the turnover of the LB Hackney centres in 2004 was established in the preceding section of this report. The findings were that the whole of the Study Area generates marginally over £800 million, of which the LB Hackney centres currently retain only £127 million (some 16%), with a further £10.5 million of the turnover of LB Hackney centres derived from beyond the Study Area. Expenditure leakage out to centres beyond the Study Area is currently running at 84%. The Forecast Years 5.5 We undertake the assessment of the new comparison goods floorspace requirement at three forecast years – 2006, 2011 and 2016. Available Expenditure in the Forecast Years 5.6 The first calculation is needed to determine how much expenditure is available to stores/centres in LB Hackney. The findings set out in the figure below. Figure 5.2 Available Expenditure in the Forecast Years 2006 2011 2016 (£M) (£M) (£M) Scenario A (current market shares) 136.7 164.1 196.3 Scenario B (market shares reflecting commitments/proposals) 152.0 176.8 211.3 Scenario C (adjusted market shares) 159.2 191.3 229.1 5.7 The figure presents the expenditure available to stores/centres in LB Hackney on the basis of each need scenario, and excludes expenditure that will be legitimately drawn to higher order centres elsewhere. 5.8 Observing the Scenario B market shares it can be seen that in 2006 following the Kingsland Centre extension the amount of available spend is relatively high compared to Scenario A (a difference of circa £15 million), and in the following periods the ‘gap’ closes (the difference between Scenarios A and B in 2011 is circa £13 million) as the impact of Stratford City reduces the LB Hackney market share. Allowances for Claims on Available Expenditure 5.9 Having established the pool of available expenditure for LB Hackney we need to identify how much of this will be absorbed by existing provision (both existing traders improving sales, but also existing vacant stock coming back into use), vacant unit uptake and planned commitments, leaving a residual amount available for new floorspace. The results of the calculations in this regard are set out in Figure 5.3. Figure 5.3 LB Hackney - Claims on Available Expenditure 2006 2011 2016 (£M) (£M) (£M) (i) Turnover of the LB Hackney Existing Provision 133.7 151.3 171.2 (ii) Uptake of Vacant LB Hackney Property 1.5 1.7 2.0 (iii) Planning Commitments 16.6 18.8 21.2

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 36 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

5.10 The turnover of the existing provision rises significantly over the period at a rate of 2.5%/annum, which is a rate consistent with data in the recent GLA Comparison Goods Retailing report referred to earlier8. Residual Available for New Floorspace 5.11 Having established the amount of available expenditure in the locality and subtracted the legitimate claims on that expenditure growth, we next move to calculate the amount of residual expenditure available for new floorspace in LB Hackney centres.

Figure 5.4 LB Hackney - Residual Available for New Floorspace 2006 2011 2016 (£M) (£M) (£M) Scenario A (current market shares) -15.1 -7.7 1.9 Scenario B (market shares reflecting commitments/proposals) 0.2 4.9 16.9 Scenario C (adjusted market shares) 7.4 19.5 34.7 5.12 Figure 5.4 indicates that based upon the prevailing market shares (Scenario A), and accounting for the Kingsland Centre extension, there is a deficit of expenditure in the short and medium term. The residual available in the short to medium terms based on post Kingsland Centre extension and Stratford City (Scenario B) are very modest, but increase in 2016. The scenario based on the more equitable market shares (Scenario C) indicates reasonable growth over the entire period. Comparison Goods Floorspace Requirements 5.13 The floorspace requirements for the Borough as a whole at each of the forecast years are summarised in Figure 5.5 below. Figure 5.5 LB Hackney - Comparison Goods Floorspace Requirement

2006 2011 2016 sqm sqm sqm sqm sqm sqm net gross net gross net gross Scenario A (current market shares) -3,080 -4,106 -1,353 -1,804 396 528 Scenario B (market shares reflecting commitments/proposals) 77 103 948 1,264 3,139 4,185 Scenario C (adjusted market shares) 1,566 2,087 3,605 4,807 6,376 8,501 Source: The gross floorspace estimates are based on a net to gross ratio of 75:25

5.14 By adopting the current market shares to forecast future floorspace requirements means that for the entire plan period there will be negative progressing to minimal need for new floorspace. There are two main reasons for this situation, firstly the very low existing market share figures that translate to low need, and also the claims on the expenditure growth (the extension to the Kingsland Shopping Centre in particular) are very significant in the context of the low base of available expenditure. However, the planned extension in Dalston will improve the Borough’s overall market share (as discussed in the Retail Impact Section of this report). Indeed when we ‘plug’ the post- Kingsland Shopping Centre extension market share (Scenario B) figures into the

8 ibid

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 37 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

model we arrive at a floorspace requirement in 2006 that is close to zero (i.e. the uplift in market shares resultant from the extension balances the shortfall in the residual expenditure). The requirement under Scenario B remains relatively modest in the mid to long term. 5.15 On the basis of modest growth in market share (Scenario C) the data indicates that in 2006 an additional 1,500 sqm net could be accommodated in the Borough’s town centres over-and-above the currently committed floorspace, and by 2011 the figure rises to 3,600 sqm net, which grows to 6,400 sqm net by 2016. These are modest growth targets in the context of centres elsewhere (eg Stratford City 100,000 sqm net), but are significant in the context of the LB Hackney centres. Convenience Goods Retailing Need Assessment 5.16 Our approach to the assessment of the convenience goods floorspace requirement in LB Hackney utilises a broadly similar approach to that used for the assessment of the comparison goods floorspace requirement, and so in the interests of brevity and avoiding any unnecessary methodological repetition we restrict our reporting as far as possible to the findings. Total Available Convenience Goods Expenditure in the Forecast Years 5.17 Figure 5.6 below sets out how much expenditure is available to stores/centres in LB Hackney. Figure 5.6 Total Available Expenditure in the Forecast Years Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone All Zones

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m

2004 22.8 22.7 22.5 23.8 21.9 22.6 20.9 36.9 25.1 28.7 39.6 24.8 312.5

2006 23.6 23.6 23.4 24.7 22.7 23.6 22.2 38.5 25.8 30.1 41.2 26.4 325.7

2011 25.5 25.9 25.7 26.9 25.3 26.0 25.7 42.5 27.4 33.4 45.5 30.8 360.5

2016 27.5 28.0 27.6 29.2 27.6 28.5 30.0 47.3 29.3 37.0 50.7 35.6 398.2

5.18 The Figure identifies the total available expenditure, which in the base year (2004) is £312 million, which grows by some £13 million to 2006, by a further £35 million by 2011 and the total growth to 2016 is £86 million, as the total available reaches £398 million. Allowances for Claims on Available Convenience Goods Expenditure 5.19 Having established the total available expenditure for LB Hackney stores/centres we next need to identify how much of this will be absorbed by existing provision leaving a residual amount available for new floorspace. The results of the calculations in this respect are set out in Figure 5.7. Figure 5.7 LB Hackney - Claims on Available Expenditure Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone All Zones 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m

2004 22.8 22.7 22.5 23.8 21.9 22.6 20.9 36.9 25.1 28.7 39.6 24.8 312.5

2006 23.1 22.9 22.8 24.1 22.1 22.8 21.1 37.3 25.3 29.0 40.0 25.1 315.6

2011 23.6 23.5 23.3 24.7 22.6 23.4 21.7 38.2 26.0 29.7 41.0 25.7 323.6

2016 24.2 24.1 23.9 25.3 23.2 24.0 22.2 39.2 26.6 30.5 42.1 26.4 331.7

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 38 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

5.20 We start from the methodological position that in 2004 expenditure and comparison goods retail provision were in equilibrium - i.e. claims on expenditure from the existing provision balance the quantum of available expenditure. We allow the 2004 turnover to grow to the forecast years at 0.5%/annum. Residual Available for New Convenience Goods Floorspace 5.21 The amount of residual expenditure available for new floorspace in LB Hackney is set out in Figure 5.8 below.

Figure 5.8 LB Hackney - Residual Available for New Floorspace Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone All Zones

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m

2004 ------

2006 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 1.1 1.2 0.5 1.1 1.2 1.3 10.1

2011 1.9 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.6 2.6 4.0 4.3 1.5 3.7 4.4 5.1 37.0

2016 3.2 3.9 3.6 3.9 4.4 4.5 7.8 8.1 2.7 6.5 8.7 9.2 66.5 5.22 Figure 5.8 indicates that by 2006 after allowing for the legitimate claims of the existing provision there will be £10 million of expenditure that is available for new floorspace in the LB Hackney centres. The figure grows to £37 million in 2011 and to almost £67 million in 2016. Distribution of Additional Floorspace Requirement 5.23 Having established the pool of residual expenditure available for new floorspace in LB Hackney within each Study Area zone, the next task is to determine where the expenditure would best be allocated. To do this we have identified what we consider to be a fair and equitable distribution of the growth to the LB Hackney centres and to centres beyond in aggregate. Our assessment is set out in Figure 5.9 below. Figure 5.9 LB Hackney – Equitable Distribution of Expenditure Growth Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 % % % % % % % % % % % % Centre Dalston 70 30 40 40 5 30 20 30 30 10 40 10 Hackney Mare Street 10 50 5 45 45 40 20 5 10 0 5 10 Stoke Newington 10 10 0 5 0 10 30 40 50 15 5 0 LB Hackney Centres' Total 90 90 45 90 50 80 70 75 90 25 50 20 Other Beyond Study Area 10 10 55 10 50 20 30 25 10 75 50 80 Grand Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 5.24 Figure 5.10 below sets out the requirements. The calculations involve applying the market share proportions set out in Figure 5.9 above to the available expenditure for each centre in each zone (Figure 5.8), and then converts the residual monetary amount to a net floorspace figure by dividing by an average sales density figure for LB Hackney, which was £9,600/sqm in 2006. The average sales density figure is permitted to grow by 0.5%/annum to the mid and longer term forecast years. The gross figures are calculated by applying a net:gross ratio of 65:35.

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 39 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

Figure 5.10 LB Hackney – Convenience Goods Floorspace Requirement 2006 2011 2016 sqm sqm sqm sqm sqm sqm net gross net gross net gross Dalston 284 437 1,007 1,549 1,767 2,719 Hackney Mare Street 184 283 670 1,031 1,148 1,766 Stoke Newington 153 236 531 817 958 1,474 LB Hackney Centres' Total 622 956 2,207 3,396 3,874 5,959 5.25 Figure 5.10 indicates that Dalston is allocated the highest proportion of the convenience goods floorspace growth across the entire forecast period. The data indicates that in terms of additional provision, based solely on growth since 2004 (i.e. not making any compensatory allowance to address over-trading in the LB Hackney existing provision) expenditure growth is only of an order sufficient to support small stores or extensions to existing provision, as it would take until 2016 for growth available to each centre to amount to that required to support a small to mid-sized foodstore. Leisure Retailing Need Assessment 5.26 Our approach to assessing the combined A3, A4 and A5 leisure need in the LB Hackney centres is much more broad-brush than the A1 retail assessments. We have made an assessment of the ratio of A1 to the combined A3/A4/A5 provision in the LB Hackney centres, and compared the LB Hackney centres with a range of other centres to determine the extent of over/under provision. 5.27 It is well documented that A3/A4/A5 provision is complementary to A1 provision in town centres because A3 activity in particular helps to maximise the period shoppers are retained (sometimes referred to as the “dwell time”). There is a broad correlation between the period of dwell time and spend, and it is therefore important to provide sufficient A3/A4/A5 activity to allow shoppers choice of where they can pause from the shopping trip. 5.28 To assess the current aggregate level of A3/A4/A5 provision we have set out in Figure 5.11 below data for some of LB Hackney’s neighbouring centres. Figure 5.11 Existing Retail Floorspace and A1:A3/A4/A5 Ratios of Selected Centres All A Class: Centre All A Class A3/A4/A5 A3/A4/A5 Sqm gross Sqm gross % Dalston 37,718 5,042 13 Mare Street 33,336 6,616 20 Stoke Newington 31,756 5,823 18

Camden Town 77,115 18,659 24 Kilburn 43,620 9,304 21 Angel 47,871 13,311 28 Nags Head 48,931 8,050 16 5.29 Figure 5.11 demonstrates that the amount and relative concentration of A3/A4/A5 uses in these centres varies widely. Some such as Angel have a very high concentration, while others such as Nags Head and Dalston have relatively low concentrations. It is somewhat surprising that the quantum and ratio for Stoke Newington is low. We attribute this fact to the relative lack of A3/A4/A5 provision on Stoke Newington High Street where A1 activity dominates. The non-LB Hackney town centres included in the assessment average 23% of total floorspace used for A3/A4/A5 activity, which is higher than each of the LB Hackney centres.

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 40 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

5.30 In the final Figure (Figure 5.12) below, we identify the existing A3/A4/A5 floorspace in each of the LB Hackney centres, the benchmark figure for the amount of A3/A4/A5 space that would be expected were each centre to provide the average proportion, and finally we calculate the resultant shortfall in provision. Figure 5.12 A3/A4/A5 Leisure Floorspace Requirement Centre Existing Benchmarked Difference Sqm gross Sqm gross Sqm gross Dalston 5,042 8,552 -3,510 Mare Street 6,616 7,559 -943 Stoke Newington 5,823 7,200 -1,377 5.31 All three LB Hackney centres have an A3/A4/A5 floorspace provision deficit. The implication is that at the present time Dalston has the largest shortfall, and requires an additional 3,500 sqm gross of A3/A4/A5 floorspace to reach parity with what on average other centres provide for the visiting public. However, both Hackney Mare Street and Stoke Newington also have under-provision, albeit of much more modest proportions compared to Dalston.

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 41 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 42 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

6 THE PHYSICAL CAPACITY FOR GROWTH 6.1 In the previous section we established the need for additional floorspace in Hackney. In this section we identify development opportunity sites, in each of the three town centres, which could be used to meet that the need. 6.2 A total of 13 potential development opportunity sites were identified as part of this study. Dalston, the major town centre in Hackney, contains most of the opportunity sites, whereas Stoke Newington contains only one. Most of the sites had previously been identified in RTP’s 1992 town centre feasibility study of Dalston and Hackney Mare Street for LB Hackney. 6.3 The development potential of each site has been reviewed in general terms only, concentrating on their potential contribution to meet the identified retail and leisure capacity. All of the sites have either been the subject of planning applications for retail and leisure uses, are identified in the Adopted UDP (1995), or are a derelict site recognised as being suitable for redevelopment. All of the development opportunity sites are either within or immediately adjacent to the existing defined town centres. 6.4 Some of the key town centre sites in Dalston, which have been the subject of a planning application, have been refused by the Council because of the failure of the applicant to provide enough retail and leisure uses on site, and instead have over- provided for residential use. This is in accordance with the adopted UDP, which recognises that opportunity sites exist in Dalston which are well suited for major retail development and if developed could reinforce Dalston’s existing role. 6.5 For those sites where planning permission has been granted, the applicant has already decided that redevelopment is viable. In the cases where planning applications have been refused, further work will be necessary to establish the most appropriate mix of uses to ensure that redevelopment of the site remains viable. However, in accordance with current policy, retail and leisure should still be the dominant uses in these town centre locations. For the remainder of the sites that have not been the subject of planning applications, more detailed work will be necessary to consider issues such as, the appropriate mix of uses, site viability, highways and access, and design. 6.6 There were other development opportunities identified as part of the town centre healthcheck, including: ƒ Improvements to storage facilities at Ridley Road Market; ƒ Creating an improved pedestrian link through the railway arches from Tesco in Morning Lane to the core shopping frontage on Mare Street; ƒ Enhancements to Hackney Central Station making the entrance to the centre more appealing and attractive, and creating or improving pedestrian links to Amhurst Road and Graham Road. 6.7 These developments will not necessarily create new retail or leisure space but will contribute to the attractiveness of the centre, improving pedestrian accessibility within the centre, but importantly also potentially improving access to secondary shopping areas and thus increasing their viability. Site 1 - Dalston Town Centre North Site (Cantor Scheme) Planning Policy 6.8 The Dalston Town Centre North site relates to land bound by Dalston Lane / Kingsland High Street / Ashwin Street – often referred to as the “Cantor Scheme”. The site is wholly contained within a larger area identified in the adopted UDP Schedule of Proposals (Ref. No. 352), as being suitable for retail development, community and office uses, although it is affected by railway safeguarding lines. It is within the defined

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 43 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

Dalston town centre. The southwest corner of the site is within the northern section of the defined Kingsland Conservation Area, and it contains a Locally Listed Building. Land Uses 6.9 The site lies to the southern end of Dalston town centre, and is located at one of the Borough’s key road junctions of Kingsland High Street, Kingsland Road, Dalston Lane, and Balls Pond Road. It is occupied by 2-4 storey buildings, which are in retail, office/industrial, residential, and community uses. However, a number of the buildings are currently vacant and derelict. 6.10 The immediately surrounding area is used for retail, commercial and employment activities, but the wider area is predominantly in residential use. The Kingsland Shopping Centre, Ridley Road Market, and the defined Core Shopping Area on Kingsland High Street are located to the north of the site. Immediately opposite the site is the proposed Dalston Junction station, which will be redeveloped to provide a new underground station as part of the East London Line Extension (ELLX) and the Chelsea-Hackney rail line, and will also include a bus interchange. Suitability for Retail / Leisure Use 6.11 The site is within the defined Dalston town centre, which as the major centre in Hackney, is promoted as the key location for retail and leisure uses. Therefore, in terms of the sequential approach to site selection, this site would be the preferred location for retail and leisure use. The adopted UDP also promotes such uses on this site. The site is currently well served by buses, and in the future Dalston will be well served by underground trains, which will increase accessibility by public transport. When the public transport improvements occur, this site and others on Dalston Lane will become much more prominent locations within the centre, and thus more commercially attractive to retail and leisure operators. Availability for Retail / Leisure Use 6.12 This site has already been the subject of a planning application in 2002. This was refused in 2003, in part because the proposed scheme failed to make adequate provision for retail uses on this key town centre site. A previous application indicates that the site has already been assembled for development to take place, and is either within a single ownership or all owners support the redevelopment of the site. It appears that the site is available for retail and leisure development once an acceptable mix and type of uses has been defined. Site 2 - Dalston Town Centre South Site (Chelverton Scheme) Planning Policy 6.13 The Dalston Town Centre South site relates to land bound by Dalston Lane / Beechwood Road / Roseberry Place – often referred to as the Chelverton Scheme. The site is partly contained within the area identified in the adopted UDP Schedule of Proposals (Ref. No. 351). The site frontage is on Dalston Lane and extends southwards along Beechwood Road and Roseberry Place to the boundary of Holy Trinity Primary School. The UDP has identified the site as being suitable for major office development, leisure facilities, community uses and car parking, although like other sites in this area it is also affected by railway safeguarding lines. The site is within the defined Dalston town centre, and is adjacent to the defined Kingsland Conservation Area. It also contains a Locally Listed Building. Land Uses 6.14 The site lies to the southern end of Dalston town centre, and is located on Dalston Lane, which is a busy road and a main route for buses. The site is occupied by several buildings, including a former cinema / nightclub, retail uses, a surgery, a place of

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 44 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

worship, and a vacant site which has been occupied by gypsies. Most of the buildings are currently unoccupied and in a derelict state. 6.15 The adjoining areas of Dalston Lane are used for retail and commercial activities, but the wider area to the south and east is primarily residential. Immediately adjacent to the west of the site is the proposed Dalston Junction station, which will be redeveloped to provide a new underground station as part of the ELLX and the Chelsea-Hackney rail line. This site is also identified as a development opportunity site, suitable for an element of retail and leisure use. Suitability for Retail / Leisure Use 6.16 The site is within the defined Dalston town centre, and in terms of the sequential approach is the preferred location for retail and leisure uses. Its suitability for leisure uses is recognised in the adopted UDP. Its location, adjacent to future public transport improvements, makes this site ideal for leisure uses which are likely to attract a large number of people, thus, increasing the possibility of visitors travelling to retail and leisure facilities by modes of transport other than the private car. Availability for Retail / Leisure Use 6.17 In 1997, detailed planning permission was granted for a scheme on this site, comprising of four retail units, a restaurant, a 14 screen cinema, and a family entertainment centre. This permission has now expired. In 2003, the same applicants submitted an outline application for a mixed use development, including predominantly residential use but also providing a cinema, restaurant, and commercial / training space. This application was refused, partly because it failed to provide adequately for employment generating uses and retail, and would have resulted in the loss of a community facility which would not have been replaced in the new scheme. Previous applications indicate that the site has already been assembled ready for redevelopment, and there are no landownership constraints. An acceptable mix of retail and leisure uses had previously been allowed on this site, and it is still available for development once an agreed scheme is in place. Site 3 – East London Line Extension Site, Dalston Lane Planning Policy 6.18 This site is immediately adjacent to Site 2 above, and is also contained within the area identified in the adopted UDP Schedule of Proposals (Ref. No. 351). However, the key proposal affecting the site will be the proposed Dalston Junction underground station (Ref No. 269 & 273) as part of the ELLX and the Chelsea-Hackney rail line (Ref. No. 265 & 270). Land Uses 6.19 The majority of the site is a safeguarded railway route. The former station is currently derelict and vacant, and the other buildings fronting Dalston Lane are also vacant. The buildings to the west, on Kingsland Road, are mostly in retail use. The site to the east, the Dalston Town Centre South Site, has been subject to recent planning applications for retail and leisure uses, and mostly contains vacant and derelict land and buildings. Suitability for Retail / Leisure Use 6.20 This site is within the defined Dalston town centre, and is both opposite and immediately adjacent to major redevelopment sites with potential for large scale retail and leisure development on Dalston Lane. Transport for London (TfL) and the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) are examining the feasibility of development above the proposed station at Dalston Junction, including retail development on Dalston Lane. TfL are also proposing to locate a bus station behind the railway station directly over the rail platforms. Therefore, retail development on this site would, in the future, be highly accessible by public transport, and would be well related to other retail and

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 45 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

leisure developments on Dalston Lane and the rest of the town centre. Located on a sequentially preferable town centre site, and in the future highly accessible by public transport makes this site very suitable for retail development. Availability for Retail / Leisure Use 6.21 TfL and SRA as the key players in the redevelopment of this site indicates that landownership and site assembly will not be issues for this site. The feasibility of developing above the station is still being assessed. Therefore, the viability for retail development is still to be determined and its availability is uncertain at this stage. Site 4 – Architectural Salvage Site, 25-27 Dalston Lane Planning Policy 6.22 This site is outside the limits of Dalston town centre, but is in the next block across Hartwell Street, which defines the boundary. It is located within the Ramsgate Street defined employment area (Ref. No. 354), where the loss of employment land and premises through changes of use and redevelopment is normally resisted. It would be contrary to policy to allow the redevelopment of this site to become dominated by non- employment uses, particularly at ground floor level, and there are many vacant retail units on Dalston Lane which are within the defined town centre and could be re-used for retail purposes instead. 6.23 A planning application was approved in 2002 for the redevelopment of this site for a gymnasium, business use and residential. However, this site was also included within the larger Cantor scheme (Site 1), which was refused in 2003. Land Uses 6.24 This site is currently vacant, and is surrounded by retail, business and community uses, but some of the buildings are currently vacant. The retail uses in this location are typical of the type found in secondary retail areas – hairdressers, taxi offices, and A3 takeaways. To the east is the Ramsgate Street defined employment area, but a number of the immediately adjacent buildings are or have recently been the subject of planning applications for retail, commercial, employment uses at ground floor with residential above. On the south side of Dalston Lane is a parade of shops, some of which are vacant or derelict, and this area is considered to be a marginal retail location, which is a long way from the core shopping area on Kingsland High Street. Suitability for Retail / Leisure Use 6.25 This site is not really suitable for retail development, mainly because it is outside the defined town centre boundary, which needs to be more focussed in this location rather than expanded. In addition, vacant retail units exist in Dalston Lane which will be suitable for re-use, and other better located opportunities exist for new retail development to be provided further west on Dalston Lane and nearer to the primary retail area. In Dalston there should be a greater concentration of retail units, and it would be inappropriate to allow such uses to spread further away from the primary retail areas. This area would only ever be a secondary retail area if such uses were allowed. Leisure uses, such as gymnasiums which have already been permitted on site, would be appropriate in this location as part of a mixed use proposal with business and residential uses. Availability for Retail / Leisure Use 6.26 This site has already been the subject of a planning application in 2002, which included an element of leisure use. As such, it is available for leisure use. There is a lack of D2 uses in Dalston, and a leisure use in this location would contribute to the range and mix of uses, complementing other activities particularly during the evening.

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 46 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

Site 5 – Thames House, 20-23 Tyssen Passage, Hartwell Street Planning Policy 6.27 This site is outside the limits of Dalston town centre and is located within the Ramsgate Street defined employment area (Ref. No. 354). As such, it is not a preferable location for retail and leisure development which should be sited within the town centre, and the loss of employment land or buildings is normally resisted in this area. 6.28 A planning application was submitted in 2001 on this site for a mixed use proposal including retail, leisure, live/work units, and residential above ground floor. This application has not yet been determined. Land Uses 6.29 A garage is currently located on the site, but the building and the land are vacant. The site is located at the end of Hartwell Street, which is off Dalston Lane. The surrounding buildings are predominantly in employment and business use. The adjacent site, Springfield House, has planning permission for business, live/work units, and residential use. Suitability for Retail / Leisure Use 6.30 This site is outside the defined town centre boundary and is protected for predominantly employment use. It is not well related either visibly or functionally to the primary retail areas on Kingsland High Street or future retail and leisure opportunities on Dalston Lane. Town centre uses should be concentrated to the western part of Dalston Lane, and not allowed to sprawl further eastwards or into side streets. Vacant retail units exist which are within the currently defined town centre, and are better suited to being re-used for retail development. In terms of the sequential approach to site selection this is an edge of centre site, and there are better and more preferable sites available for new retail and leisure development. When these other development take place this site would be a more marginal and less viable retail and leisure location. Availability for Retail / Leisure Use 6.31 The submitted planning application on this site indicates that it is within a single landownership, and site assembly would not be an issue. While it is potentially available, retail and leisure uses are not really suitable in this location because it separated from current and future retail and leisure development. This site should remain in predominantly employment and business use, particularly at ground floor level. Site 6 – Kingsland Shopping Centre, Kingsland High Street Planning Policy 6.32 This site is identified as a car park in the adopted UDP Schedule of Proposals (Ref. No. 368) and is safeguarded for that use, and is intended to serve the immediately adjacent Kingsland Shopping Centre and the town centre. 6.33 A planning application was approved in 2003 for an extension to the Kingsland Shopping Centre to provide new two floors of new retail floorspace, ancillary storage and offices. The proposal would involve the loss of some parking spaces, but the existing basement parking level would remain unaffected. Land Uses 6.34 The site lies to the east of the town centre is currently used as a car park. The main pedestrian access point is via the shopping centre. This site is adjacent to the defined Dalston town centre boundary. To the north, the site is bounded by the railway line, with Ridley Road Market on the other side of the tracks. To the south is the Ramsgate

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 47 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

Street defined employment area, which contains significant industrial buildings and more recently live/work units. Suitability for Retail / Leisure Use 6.35 The approved planning application on this site indicates that this sites is both suitable and viable for retail development. Dalston is Hackney’s largest town centre as being promoted as the key location for new retail development. The provision of large retail units in Dalston will prove attractive to national multiple retailers, who often only seek units with a substantial floor area within or adjacent to the prime shopping frontages. Availability for Retail / Leisure Use 6.36 This site is within a single landownership, and redevelopment for retail use has already been permitted. It is therefore assumed that this site is available for retail development. Site 7 – Blockbusters, 130 Kingsland High Street Planning Policy 6.37 This site is within the defined Dalston town centre, where new retail and leisure development is supported. Planning permission was granted in 2003 for the demolition and redevelopment of the existing building to provide retail use on the ground floor with residential above. Land Uses 6.38 The site is located in the northern part of Dalston town centre on the eastern side of Kingsland High Street. The current building is already in retail use - as a Blockbuster Video store, but it is set back from the street frontage and is only two storeys in height. As such, the current building is much less visible, and less likely to attract shoppers to this northern part of Kingsland High Street. The adjacent uses are predominantly retail, but the wider surrounding area is mostly residential. Suitability for Retail / Leisure Use 6.39 This site is within the town centre and it is entirely suitable to be redeveloped for retail purposes. The approval of planning permission demonstrates this. It also demonstrates that new and improved retail units can be provided through the redevelopment of existing units. It is likely that it is the residential units above ground floor that makes this redevelopment viable. Availability for Retail / Leisure Use 6.40 The approved planning application on this site would indicate that this site is available for retail development. Site 8 – Gillett Square, Dalston Planning Policy 6.41 This site is currently identified as a car park within the UDP Schedule of Proposal (Ref. No. 366), and is safeguarded for that use. This public car park is intended to serve Dalston town centre. Gillette Street is within the defined Dalston town centre boundary. 6.42 In 2004 a planning application was submitted to develop a new public square on the site. Buildings will surround the square to enclose and define the space, and will contain cultural, leisure and retail uses. One of the new buildings, the Dalston Culture House, is currently under construction, to be occupied by a jazz bar. There are also proposals to redevelop Stamford Works, which is to the north of the site, possibly to include leisure uses.

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 48 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

Land Uses 6.43 The site lies in the north western part of Dalston town centre. It is to the rear of the main retail area on Kingsland High Street. The building immediately to the north is in employment use, Stamford Works, but the wider surrounding area is primarily residential. Suitability for Retail / Leisure Use 6.44 This site is not within the defined town centre shopping area, and is not in a very visible location, being set down a side street. The surrounding residential uses and its separation from the main retail area make it unsuitable for retail uses. In terms of the sequential approach other vacant sites and buildings which are located within the town centre provide more preferable opportunities for retail development. The large retail development opportunities at Dalston Junction are likely to mean that this site could only realistically function as a marginal retail area. The redevelopment of the site for a public square makes the surrounding development much more suited to leisure development, such as is already being developed and proposed – bars and restaurants. This will develop Gillette Square into a niche leisure and cultural destination for Dalston town centre, which it currently lacks. Availability for Retail / Leisure Use 6.45 The submitted planning application on the site indicates that it is available for leisure development. Site 9 – Former Gibbons Building, 5-19 Amhurst Road Planning Policy 6.46 This site is within the defined Hackney Mare Street town centre, and is contained within the core shopping frontage area (Ref. No. 310). In such areas the loss of ground floor retail space is not normally permitted. The site is within the Clapton Square Conservation Area. Land Uses 6.47 The site is currently occupied by derelict and damaged buildings as a result of a fire in 2003. No.5 suffered roof and structural damage but can be retained. Nos.7 to 17 were formerly occupied by Gibbons department store and is derelict. No.19 has approval for demolition. 6.48 To the north is the prime retail area on Mare Street. Hackney Central Station is located to the rear of the site, with the railway line running in an east west direction. The railway route is safeguarded for the Chelsea – Hackney line, and there are proposals for improvements to the station, with easier and more attractive pedestrian access. The north side of Amhurst Road contains secondary retail uses, and these units do not have policy protection. The remainder of Amhurst Road contains a housing estate. On the south side of the railway bridge, there are other retail units but this area is also the location for leisure, civic and community facilities. Suitability for Retail / Leisure Use 6.49 As this site is located within the defined Core Shopping Frontage area retail is the preferred use, and would contribute to the vitality and viability of Mare Street. As the only large redevelopment opportunity site in the town centre, new retail units in this location could attract major multiple retailers which could improve the range and quality of shops here. The adjacent retail and leisure uses, and its location next to a railway line make the redevelopment of the site for these uses both suitable and the only viable option. In addition, Amhurst Road and Mare Street are well served by buses, and Hackney Central railway station is to the rear of this site. There are also proposals to improve the pedestrian links to Hackney Downs which is a short walk from the town centre. Therefore, this site is currently well served by public transport, and this is likely

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 49 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

to get better in the future. As such, this site is in a sequentially preferable location and it is well served by public transport, making it a suitable site for retail development. Availability for Retail / Leisure Use 6.50 We understand that the owners of the former Gibbons department store at Nos.7 to 17 are currently in discussion with the owners of No.19 to purchase this building. This would mean that the site would be assembled, and thus more likely to be readily available for comprehensive redevelopment. Site 10 - Bus Garage, Bohemia Place Planning Policy 6.51 This site is within the Hackney Mare Street defined town centre. It is contained within a larger site identified in the adopted UDP Schedule of Proposals (Ref. No. 288) – the area to the south of the railway line has subsequently been redeveloped and is occupied by Tesco. The UDP has identified the site as suitable for offices and other shopping centre related activities, provided that the bus garage is no longer required for operational use. Land Uses 6.52 The site is currently in use, and is occupied by a bus garage and its associated forecourt and bus stands. The site is accessed via Mare Street. It is adjacent to the defined core shopping frontage area, which contains the majority of the multiple retailers present within the centre. At the southern boundary of the site is the North London railway line and its railway arches, which are currently occupied by vehicle servicing and repair workshops. To the north is the adjacent Clapton Square conservation area and St John’s Church and Gardens - used as informal open space. The area to the east, at the rear of the bus garage, is predominantly in residential use. Suitability for Retail / Leisure Use 6.53 The site is within the defined town centre and adjacent to the core shopping frontage. As such, it is suitable for retail and leisure use. This is a large opportunity site, and its redevelopment could be used to add to the number of large shop units in the centre which could be attractive to national multiple retailers. Redevelopment of this site could also increase the amount of bars and restaurants in the centre, which it currently lacks. Such uses would add to range and diversity of uses in the centre and its attractiveness, particularly in the evening. 6.54 The redevelopment of this site for retail and leisure uses could provide the opportunity to develop new pedestrian link and improve accessibility between the Tesco site and the main shopping area on Narrow Way. Such an improvement would connect the key town centre retailers, and link the northern and southern part of the centre, and encourage linked trips between uses. Availability for Retail / Leisure Use 6.55 The bus garage is currently in use, and is not available for redevelopment. An alternative site for the bus garage would need to be found before development could proceed. If a suitable site were to be found there is no reason why the bus garage could not be relocated elsewhere. However, Mare Street is currently well served by buses and this will encourage those visitors seeking a convenient and accessible centre for shopping. The redevelopment of the bus garage should not lead to buses being significantly re-routed so that they no longer serve the centre.

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 50 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

Site 11 – Former HSBC Bank, 354 Mare Street Planning Policy 6.56 This building was built in 1802, and was formerly the Old Town Hall of Hackney. It is a Grade 2 Listed Building. It is set within the Clapton Square Conservation Area. As such, this building should be preserved, and any development should preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area. To the rear is the old tower of the former Church of St Augustine, which is a Grade 1 Listed Building. 6.57 The building is within the defined town centre and is located in the core shopping frontage area of Mare Street (Ref. No. 310). Land Uses 6.58 Retail is the dominant use in the immediately surrounding area. To the rear is St John’s Church and St John’s Gardens, which are areas of informal open space. A bus depot is also located to the rear of the site. Suitability for Retail / Leisure Use 6.59 The building is currently vacant, and its last use was as a bank. It occupies a prominent position on Mare Street, and is a detached building. As a listed building any proposed use or alterations need to be sympathetic to its character and appearance. 6.60 The buildings location within the core retail frontage make it suitable site for retail, subject to listed building considerations. As with other sites on Mare Street, it is well served by public transport. 6.61 There has previously been an application to convert the building to A3 use, but this was refused because the applicant did not provide enough information on the design or operation of the proposed use. A current application seeks to convert the building to a betting shop. 6.62 An A3 restaurant use would be acceptable in this part of Mare Street, as such uses are currently lacking in the area. It would complement the leisure uses further south on Mare Street, and attract visitors to the area particularly in the evening. This high quality building needs a high quality retail use to occupy it. Availability for Retail / Leisure Use 6.63 The building is currently vacant and the owners have in the past submitted planning applications for its re-use. This indicates that the site is available for retail or leisure development, subject to an acceptable use being found with an appropriate design. Site 12 – 280 Mare Street Planning Policy 6.64 This is a locally listed building and is within the Town Hall Square Conservation Area. There is a presumption in favour of retaining the building, and its redevelopment should preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area. This building is identified within the UDP Schedule of Proposals (Ref. No. 105), as being suitable for mixed use development for A1, A2 or A3 use on the ground floor, with B1, community or residential use on the upper floors. The Council has recently prepared informal planning guidance for the redevelopment of this building, and residential use is no longer seen as appropriate in this location adjacent to leisure and entertainment uses. 6.65 This building is outside the currently defined Mare Street town centre, but it is on the edge of this area, and is surrounded by buildings in retail and leisure use. Land Uses 6.66 This building is currently vacant, and is located on a busy main road. The area is characterised by retail, leisure, community and civic uses. Hackney Town Hall is

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 51 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

directly opposite the site, and the main library and Hackney Empire are also on the opposite of Mare Street. Suitability for Retail / Leisure Use 6.67 This building is currently in poor condition and in need of extensive restoration. It is in a visually prominent location, and as a locally listed building its redevelopment should be of the highest architectural standards and design quality. 6.68 The building has a single frontage to Mare Street and has no servicing yard or fire escape, other than the main entrance. A bus stop is located directly outside the building. These access issues may limit the types of retail or leisure uses that could feasibly use the building. 6.69 Its location adjacent to the defined town centre, but within the emerging cultural and entertainment area of Mare Street, make the building suitable for retail and leisure uses, subject to the design, access and public safety issues highlighted above. The prime retail area is located to the north of the railway bridge on Mare Street, but this part of Mare Street is considered to be more of a secondary area. As such, the building would not be attractive to a major retailer, other than possibly an A3 food and drink operator. On the positive side, the building is well served by public transport, making it very accessible for visitors to Mare Street, and it occupies a prominent location in the street. Availability for Retail / Leisure Use 6.70 The building is currently owned by the London Development Agency, and the building has long been seen as suitable for redevelopment. While the building may be available for retail and leisure use, the cost and viability of redevelopment may restrict re-use. Grant funding may be the only way that the redevelopment of this building will occur. Site 13 – Land at Wilmer Place Planning Policy 6.71 The site is within the defined Stoke Newington town centre boundary. In July 1999 LB Hackney adopted a development brief for the site to inform developers of the Council’s policies and objectives for the site. As a town centre site, its redevelopment for retail, office, community, arts, culture and entertainment activities is encouraged. In principle support is given to proposals which enhance and improve Stoke Newington’s retail and town centre functions. The development brief also seeks to retain a public cark park on the site, which serves the town centre. The site is within the Stoke Newington Conservation Area which requires, in particular, that proposals are designed to maintain or enhance their surroundings. Land Uses 6.72 Part of the site is currently used for a 108 space “pay and display” car park. The site also contains existing buildings, including industrial buildings within the Wilmer Place Industrial Estate, an office building (Anita House), and the former Winchops builder’s yard. The site is accessed via Wilmer Place, off Church Street. There is also pedestrian access between 181 and 183 Stoke Newington High Street. To the south and east of the site are Stoke Newington High Street and Church Street, which mostly provide retail activities, but also contain office, community and residential uses. To the north and northwest of the site lies Abney Park Cemetery. Suitability for Retail / Leisure Use 6.73 As the site is with the defined Stoke Newington town centre it is suitable for retail and leisure uses.

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 52 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

Availability for Retail / Leisure Use 6.74 The various parts of the site are within different landownerships, including the Council owned car park. While this may make redevelopment for retail and leisure uses more complex, it does not mean that the site could not be made available. However, the different owners would need to agree to redevelopment for a comprehensively designed scheme to proceed, which provided the mix of uses required by the development brief.

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 53 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 54 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

7 POLICY OPTIONS

7.1 The primary purpose of this study is to provide background information to inform the forthcoming preparation of the Local Development Framework and to provide baseline information for the development of Area Action Plans and regeneration strategies for Dalston Kingsland and Hackney (Mare Street) town centres. Earlier sections of this report detail the studies undertaken to achieve this aim. 7.2 These studies include a household survey, a visitor survey and healthcheck surveys. The details of these surveys are included in associated reports to this main study report. Elsewhere in this report we have modelled the likely impact of future comparison goods retail development (Section 4) on LB Hackney’s town centres, the need for additional retail and leisure floorspace (section 5) in LB Hackney’s town centres and the physical capacity of the borough’s main centres to accommodate future growth (section 6). 7.3 We now explore a range of planning policy options, which the Council may wish to consider as a means of progressing from background information towards mapping out the preferred future development of the borough’s main centres. These policy options are based on, and supported by, the survey and analytical work described in earlier parts of this report. 7.4 We have divided these policy options into strategic policies which, if agreed, would cover the whole borough, and centre-specific policies for Dalston, Hackney Mare Street and Stoke Newington, together with proposals for Shacklewell, South Lower Clapton Road and Brownswood. Draft Strategic Policies SP1: The Retail Hierarchy 7.5 The adopted UDP regards Dalston as a large town centre and both Mare Street and Stoke Newington as small town centres. The London Plan regards Dalston as a major centre and both Mare Street and Stoke Newington as district centres. We suggest that the Council adopts the London Plan nomenclature for centres, but upgrades Mare Street to a major centre. This would produce the following format for centres in the borough: ƒ Major Centres – Dalston; Mare Street ƒ District Centres – Stoke Newington ƒ Local Centres – (others) 7.6 The reasoning for this policy proposal is that Mare Street is a strongly performing centre with an attractive shopping environment. It contains major multiple retailers, such as Marks & Spencer and Tesco, who are key attractions to the town centre. Mare Street also represents the main civic and administrative centre of LB Hackney. It has sites which are available for development and the potential to attract comparison goods trade back from competing centres, especially the West End. Mare Street is also highly accessible in terms of public transport. A sound case can be made to argue that this centre meets the criteria in the London Plan for a major centre, and development opportunity sites exist to increase the amount of retail floorspace in the centre. 7.7 In parallel with this revised retail hierarchy, we take it as read that the council will have policies that seek to ensure the protection and maintenance of the hierarchy – similar to existing strategic policies ST35, ST36, ST37 and ST38.

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 55 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

SP2: Additional Local Centre – Shacklewell 7.8 We propose that Shacklewell be identified as a local centre, and that it be added to the schedule of 11 local centres as set out in the adopted UDP. Shacklewell is located between Dalston and Stoke Newington, comprising a ‘tail’ of smaller shops which link these two centres, but are distinct from both of them. The distinct character and identity of Shacklewell is largely drawn from the influence of the borough’s Turkish community. The Shacklewell shops meet the requirements of PPS6 (Annex A) for a local centre, having a range of shops, including a post office, which serves the needs of its local catchment. Shacklewell should be treated as such in the emerging local development documents. SP3: Additional Local Centre – South Lower Clapton Road 7.9 South Lower Clapton Road is currently part of the defined Mare Street town centre. It is, however, physically separated from Mare Street by St John’s Gardens and Clapton Square, which is a defined London Square. It is also quite different in terms of the type of retail activity present. Lower Clapton Road largely comprises independent convenience outlets and matches the definition of local centres as in PPS6 (Annex A). The area has long been recognised as serving a different more localised function compared to the rest of Hackney Mare Street, and indeed the 1992 RTP study considered that this area did not function as part of Mare Street town centre. SP4: Town Centre Boundary & Shopping Frontages 7.10 The adopted UDP currently defines Town Centre and Main Shopping Centre areas. In our view this broad approach does not adequately deal with the different town centre uses (which are now clearly identified in PPS 6), or define the preferred location for such uses within the town centre boundary. We suggest that town centre boundaries are defined, with amendments in accordance with Policies D1 and MS1, as proposed below. We also suggest that within the town centre boundary, separate primary and secondary shopping frontages are defined, which clearly indicates the preferred location for retail development. SP5: Car Parking Provision 7.11 The Healthcheck report identified the level of off-street car parking provision in each of the town centres, and compared these with other town centres in London. This analysis concluded that Hackney’s centres are comparatively well provided for in terms of car parking. It should be remembered that LB Hackney is an inner London location, and the town centres are well served by public transport, principally the bus. The LB Hackney centres are less well served than most other Inner London Boroughs by the tube and overground rail network. We suggest that the current car parking provision (with the exception of the loss of parking associated with the environmental enhancements underway in Gillett Square) within the centres are retained at current levels, at least until significant public transport (rail) improvements are implemented. 7.12 In Mare Street, the main car parking provision is at Tesco on Morning Lane. We have suggested in Policy MS4 below that pedestrian links between this site and the core shopping area need to be improved with the aim of making the Tesco car park function much more as a facility for the whole town centre. SP6: TCM Schemes and BIDs 7.13 The main purpose of town centre management schemes and business improvement districts is to regenerate, sustain and develop the well-being of town centres by encouraging local businesses and other stakeholders to create a partnership to implement specific agreed projects focusing on improving the maintenance and cleansing of the public spaces, enhancing safety and security and assisting with the marketing and promotion of each centre. The healthcheck report identifies the lack of cleanliness of the street environment in all the LB Hackney centres as being a

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 56 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

significant weakness, and points to the need for a more effective street cleansing regime to be put in place. 7.14 The findings of this study do not, of themselves, provide an adequate evidence base to support the introduction of town centre managers for Hackney’s three main centres. Such a function is, like any proposed BID, contingent on a wider range of factors than covered here. We thus do not suggest that emerging local development documents include any specific policies on TCM schemes or BIDs. However, we recommend that the relevant LDD puts forward the proposal, in the form of supporting text. SP 7: Diversity of Uses 7.15 Maintenance of, or improvement in, the diversity of uses in any centre is a legitimate objective for planning policy. This is frequently attempted by means of specifying, in a development plan policy, a minimum length of frontage in a centre or part of a centre which should be used only for certain uses such as A1 activity. This is usually expressed as a percentage of the total frontage present, and often has no reference to the location of any specific part of the frontage. Such percentage based policies can be difficult to defend at Inquiry principally because of the quite arbitrary nature of the percentage definition. 7.16 As an alternative we suggest that the Council might wish to consider a policy whereby there is a presumption against a change of use from A1 to A2/A3/A4/A5 if the size (floorspace sqm net) exceeds a particular figure. 7.17 There is a parallel issue of seeking to protect diversity by means of retaining large units and preventing them being split into two or more separate units. This is important because the trend for many retail sectors, particularly the clothing sector, is towards larger units that allow for the display of as wide a range of product as possible. Therefore if LB Hackney centres are to attract a broader range of retailers they will need to retain, and indeed expand the range of larger units. The division of a large A1 unit into say three smaller A1 units would only be subject to normal planning control if any works materially affected the external appearance of the building. However, a change into say one A1 unit and two A3/A4/A5 units would be development, and we suggest a policy which would set a presumption against any such partial change of use by sub-division. Suggested Draft Policies for Dalston D1: Town Centre Boundary 7.18 We suggest that the area south of Dalston Lane and east of Woodland Street be deleted from the defined Dalston town centre boundary. This area comprises poor quality shops with many vacant units and is remote from the main shopping area of the town centre. It does not add to the vitality or viability of the centre, and nor is it likely to in the near future. Furthermore, the major retail and leisure opportunities in Dalston are at the western end of Dalston Lane, making this area even less attractive to retailers. It is highly unlikely that this area will be redeveloped for retail use and it would be more advantageous to encourage redevelopment of the area for residential or other uses that would generate more demand for town centre uses and help sustain such activity elsewhere in the centre. D2: Shopping Frontages 7.19 The UDP includes only a small section of the Dalston frontages within the core frontage. This comprises the area outside Kingsland Shopping Centre between the Dalston Kingsland Station and Boleyn Road. We propose that the core frontages be extended to include the Kingsland Centre on the eastern side of Kingsland High Street as well as the proposed eastern extension to this shopping centre which has planning permission. The extension to the core shopping area proposed above would match the

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 57 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

prime retail pitch as defined by retail rental values, and include the area where the larger retail units are located. 7.20 The remainder of the retail area would be defined as a secondary shopping frontage in accordance with Policy SP4, above. D3: Retail & Leisure Allocations 7.21 We recommend that the following sites are allocated for retail or leisure development in Dalston, depending on their planning status at the time of the Local Development Document. Their suitability for retail / leisure development has already been assessed in Section 6 above. These sites are close to the East London Line Extension and their (re)use for retail and leisure development would help Dalston to maximise the benefits of the ELLX. ƒ Dalston Town Centre North Site ƒ Dalston Town Centre South Site ƒ East London Line Extension Site ƒ Architectural Salvage Site ƒ Thames House ƒ Kingsland Shopping Centre D4: Public Square Allocation 7.22 We suggest that the following site is allocated or protected as a public square, depending on its status at the time of the Local Development Document. The site has been identified as one of the Mayor’s 100 public spaces project: ƒ Gillett Square 7.23 At present there are no areas of public open space in Dalston. The development and subsequent protection of this site at Gillett Square will provide the opportunity for shoppers and visitors to escape from the busy streets which are dominated by traffic. The provision of this area will encourage people to spend more time in Dalston. Suggested Draft Policies for Hackney Mare Street MS1: Town Centre Boundary 7.24 We propose that the town centre boundary is reduced to exclude the South Lower Clapton Road area, which will become a Local Shopping Centre, as recommended by Policy SP3 above. MS2: Shopping Frontages 7.25 The core shopping frontages, as currently defined, equates to the area of prime retail pitch and the section of Narrow Way that is part-pedestrianised, and we therefore recommend that the core shopping frontage in Mare Street remains unchanged. 7.26 The remainder of the retail area would be defined as a secondary shopping frontage in accordance with Policy SP4 above. MS3: Retail & Leisure Allocations 7.27 We recommend that the following sites are allocated for retail or leisure development in Hackney Mare Street, depending on their planning status at the time of the Local Development Document. Their suitability for retail / leisure development is assessed in Section 6 above. ƒ Former Gibbons Building, Amhurst Road ƒ Former HSBC Bank, 354 Mare Street

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 58 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

ƒ 280 Mare Street ƒ Bus Garage, Bohemia Place 7.28 The bus garage is a large opportunity site, and its mixed use redevelopment could be used to add to the number of large shop units. Such units could be attractive to national multiple retailers. Redevelopment of this site could also increase the amount of bars and restaurants in the centre, which are currently lacking in addition to commercial and residential accommodation. MS4: Improved Pedestrian Routes 7.29 We recommend that the following highway / environmental improvements are defined in the Local Development Document: ƒ Pedestrian Link From Tesco site to Core Shopping Frontage 7.30 The 1992 RTP study suggested creating pedestrian links through the railway arches to link the site now occupied by Tesco with the Core Shopping Frontages, improving the connection between this key centre attractor and the rest of the centre. The current pedestrian links are unattractive and unclear. This enhancement should be implemented in conjunction with the redevelopment of the Bus Depot site for retail / leisure uses. ƒ Hackney Central Station 7.31 There are currently proposals to redevelop the railway station. Contingent upon exact design details, this should enable improvements to be made to pedestrian access to the town centre, via both Amhurst Road and Graham Road. Suggested Draft Policies for Stoke Newington SN1: Retail Function 7.32 Stoke Newington is located close to Dalston and Mare Street town centres, but is smaller and serves a different function. It has two distinct geographical elements – Church Street that provides upmarket fashion retailing and good quality restaurant/cafe facilities characterised by independent traders, and Stoke Newington High Street that provides basic day-to-day shopping facilities again with relatively few multiples that serves a very localised catchment. As such it serves a different market than other two town centres in the Borough. Stoke Newington does not, and we recommend that it should not, compete directly with these other centres. These characteristics represent the individual strength of this centre and should be protected. 7.33 The retail units in Stoke Newington tend to be comparatively small in size, affordable and attractive to independent retailers. This explains why there are few multiple retailers in this centre. The centre’s character and function should be protected and where possible enhanced, possibly by seeking to build upon the already significant “ethnic” retailer and restaurant/café representation. A clearly focused marketing plan prepared through a BID could be the best means of achieving this aim 7.34 Unlike Mare Street, Stoke Newington should retain its current (UDP) status as a small centre or, in the hierarchy set out in the London Plan, a district centre. SN2: Town Centre Boundary 7.35 We propose that the town centre boundary remains unchanged. The reason for this is because there is only one development opportunity in the centre, and we have recommended that the distinct parts of the centre are protected. In addition, we have also recommended that the western part of Church Street is retained as a local centre, and that Shacklewell is defined as a new local centre.

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 59 Hackney Retail and Leisure Study – Main Report Final Report

SN3: Shopping Frontages 7.36 The core shopping frontage as defined in the UDP corresponds to the prime retail pitch where the highest rental levels are achieved. We therefore recommend that the core shopping frontage in Stoke Newington High Street remains unchanged. 7.37 The remainder of the retail area would be defined as a secondary shopping frontage in accordance with Policy SP4, above. SN4: Retail Allocations 7.38 We recommend that the following site is allocated for retail / leisure development in Stoke Newington, in accordance with the approved development brief: ƒ Wilmer Place. Suggested Draft Policies for Brownswood BW1: Foodstore Provision 7.39 The Household Survey results indicated that, overall, the existing LB Hackney foodstore provision retains a good market share within the Borough. However, Zone 8 (covering New River, Lordship and Brownswood wards) retains a lower proportion of market share, which means that residents in these wards tend to travel elsewhere for convenience goods. As such, they make comparatively long journey times to access these facilities. These factors may indicate a need for improved provision in this area. 7.40 We recommend that an appropriately located site is allocated within the local area for a foodstore to meet the need for convenience goods provision. The store should be of a scale to serve the local catchment area only, and not draw trade from other centres.

Roger Tym & Partners May 2005 60

APPENDIX 1

NATIONAL RETAIL TRENDS

The Context 1. To put the Study in context in terms of the retail industry, we outline below some of the more relevant trends that are important considerations in the preparation of strategic retail studies such as this. We source the data to which we refer from business monitors and economic forecasters such as Verdict and Experian Business Strategies (EBS), and concentrate on trends as they relate to high street retailing, which is a general term used to refer to retailing in the traditional town centres. Retail sales growth and consumer expenditure1 2. Total retail spend in the UK (that is on the high street, in retail parks, in supermarkets and in other locations) rose by 5%/annum (current prices) over the decade to 2002, but at the slightly lower rate of 4.5% for high street retailing. In 2002 total retail spend in the UK stood at £240.8 billion, of which half was spent on the high street. High street sales rose by 3.6% between 2001/02, which again was below the overall UK rate of 4.2% (with the retail parks leading the way on growth). The lower rate of growth on the high street is at least partly attributable to the slower rate of growth in the principle sectors that underpin the high street - clothing and footwear, compared to the much faster rate of growth in sectors such as DIY and electricals that are the main stay of out-of-town retailing. 3. In the early to mid-1990s sales on the high street grew by 3.1%/annum (at constant prices). However, in the period since the growth rate has accelerated to 7%/annum. Consumer expenditure growth forecasts 2 4. Economic forecasters produce forecasts of future retail growth rates for comparison and convenience goods that are based on past performance and future economic outlook. There are a number of expenditure data providers in the market place, and we use Mapinfo. Mapinfo’s latest (April 2004) expenditure growth forecasts for the 2004-2016 period are 3.4% in respect of comparison goods and 1.0%/annum for convenience goods. Some of the growth in consumer expenditure will be fuelled by consumer debt (as is currently the case), but there is no sign of a weakening of consumer confidence and no reason to believe that the pattern of generally steady, but sometimes spectacular expenditure growth that has taken place for over 30 years will not continue. Retail store numbers and floorspace 3 5. In 2002 the total number of retail stores in the UK was 272,000 (this includes high street, out-of-centre and neighbourhood facilities), which is a 14% reduction on numbers a decade earlier. Over the same period high street stores experienced a marginally lower closure rate of 11%. However, the high street closure rate has slowed considerably in the last five years to just 4.2%. The reason for the reduction is likely to be a combination of high street retailers adjusting their price positioning to compete with the out-of-town retailers, and the tightening of government retail planning policy, which over the past few years has been much more effective at reducing the flow of new out-of-centre retailing. 6. Whilst store numbers have declined generally, the volume of retail floorspace in the UK has risen as retailers move into larger units and maximise the amount of trading space in their existing units. Table 1.1 below compares the government’s retail floorspace statistics for England and Wales in 2000 with those for 2003. The table shows that there are over 100 million square metres gross of retail floorspace in England and Wales, and that the provision rose by 6% in the three year period to

1 All figures sourced from Verdict Report “Verdict on the High Street” 2003 2 All figures sourced from Table 5, EBS Retail Planner Briefing Note 1.2 (Nov 2003) 3 All figures sourced from Verdict Report “Verdict on the High Street” 2003

2003, which is significant growth. The biggest proportional growth was in the A1 and A3 classes, which in terms of the total retail growth was partially offset by a reduction in the sui generis category. The table demonstrates that the amount of retail floorspace has increased over time, buoyed no doubt by the growth in retail expenditure. Table 1.1 - Total Retail Floorspace in England and Wales 2000 and 2003 (000s sqm gross) A1 A2 A3 Other All Retail 2000 83,469 6,220 6,719 8,687 105,095 2003 90,883 6,457 7,462 7,051 111,853 Net Difference (sqm) +7,414 +237 +743 -1,636 +6,758 Net Difference (%) 9 4 11 -19 6 Source : ODPM Commercial and Industrial Floorspace Statistics 7. Unfortunately there are no comparable statistics for any dates prior to 2000 to assess longer term trends. However, we can speculate that the trend for year-on- year increases in the amount of retail floorspace is not just a phenomenon of the past three or four years. 8. The trend for more and bigger space requirements is most evident in the fashion- wear clothing sector where retailer space requirements have expanded significantly over the past few years. The fashion-wear sector is very competitive especially with the introduction of a number of international operators into the UK market in recent years such as Mango, Zara and H&M. Retailers seek space where they can display their full range of goods, because shoppers demand this, and vote with their feet if their regular high street store lacks the range available in the flagship stores in the centres such as Bluewater. This is obviously not good for the retailer or the high street. Operators such as Next and Gap now routinely seek units with sales area of 1,000 sqm plus. 9. In 2002 the total retail sales area in the UK stood at 51.5 million sqm, up 10% on a decade earlier. The high street accounts for well over half of the total at 29.6 million sqm, remaining virtually unchanged over the decade. The main increase in floorspace has been in out-of-town stores where floorspace almost doubled between the early 1990s and 2002 to a total of 14.0 million sqm. However, the outlook for floorspace growth is for significant increases in high street locations with developments such as Birmingham’s Bullring adding significant new modern space in central locations. A number of major new town centre retail developments are at various stages of the planning process right across the UK, but especially in London where schemes such as Park Place in Croydon and at the Elephant and Castle in Southwark are set to provide major additions to both the quantum and quality of shopping floorspace in the Capital. Sales densities 4 10. The term ‘sales density’ refers to centre/store turnover expressed as a proportion of sales area and is presented as a monetary value per square metre figure. The higher the sales density the more efficient the floorspace is operating. Nominally high sales densities are an indication that stores are getting congested and additional floorspace is required. However, there are vast differences between sales densities of different categories of traders. Electrical retailers for example have much higher sales densities that say book retailers, because their price to volume of goods ratio is much higher for items such as camcorders. Retail planners assessing retail need at the borough level seldom get into levels of sales density detail at the retail class level, rather they work at the aggregate level of comparison and convenience goods. However, even at the aggregate level there are a number

4 All figures sourced from Verdict Report “Verdict on the High Street” 2003

of factors that mean the relationship between rising sales densities and the need for additional floorspace is not simple and straightforward, and we briefly discuss these below. 11. Over the past five years the average sales density for all high street retailers in the UK has risen by 5%/annum (at current prices). The retailers that have experienced the highest growth are generally in the home entertainment and electrical sectors such as HMV and Dixons. This rate of growth is all the more impressive because the last five years have been a period of price deflation, whereby year-on-year prices have actually reduced. This has been largely the result of technology products, such as DVDs or computer equipment, becoming cheaper over time as they become mass market, and also due to price competition in the market place driving prices down. 12. A significant factor contributing to sales density growth is what is commonly referred to as ‘trading up’, which is where consumers purchase an item from the more expensive end of the range rather than purchasing the standard product. An example of this activity is where the consumer replaces a standard computer monitor in favour of a more expensive flat LCD screen monitor. The upshot is the consumer spends more on the item and the store requires no additional stocking space (and indeed less space in this example), and therefore sales density rises with no impact on floorspace requirements. This phenomenon holds true for many products. In addition to stores selling higher value goods other factors that contribute to sales density growth are - management efficiencies and changes in occupancy resulting in the introduction of retailers with higher turnover (such as a change from furniture to electricals). 13. However, in parallel with this ever-continuing drive upwards of sales density there is an ever increasing range of goods available for purchase that require evermore room to stock. This is most clearly demonstrated by the unprecedented growth in the number of mobile phone retailers in the space of just a few years, along with electrical and home entertainment where new technology continues to expand the range of products available to purchase. 14. Thus, whilst sales densities on the high street are rising by around 5%/annum (at current prices) stores are able to absorb much of this growth within the existing floorspace, and it does not all translate to an additional floorspace requirement. A linked point mentioned earlier that is worth making again here, is that the trend for clothing retailers to seek to stock their full ranges does not necessarily lead to a requirement for additional floorspace. 15. The upshot of this continual growth in sales densities is a need for the growth to be factored into retail need assessments so as not to over-state the amount of expenditure available for new floorspace. Over the past twenty years or so retail planners have used a sales density growth figure of 1.5%/annum for comparison goods and 0.5%/annum for convenience goods based on advice provided by URPI in the early 1980s. However, recent research undertaken separately by the Valuation Office, Verdict and Experian suggests that real growth in turnover efficiencies have in fact been higher than previously thought, and that sales density growth of between 2.0% and 3.5%/annum for comparison goods retailing are more realistic. We adopt 2.5%/annum for comparison goods in this study because the LB Hackney centres have less representation of the electrical goods retailers that are driving the increase in comparison goods sales density growth, and we adopt the traditional 0.5%/annum sales density growth rate for convenience goods. The figures are applied to both the existing floorspace and the potential new floorspace.

Retail rental growth 5 16. In common with rental growth rates across the whole of the property sector, retail rental growth has fallen from the high rates in the late 1990s as retailers shy away from taking space in anticipation of weakening consumer confidence in what is seen as an unsettled economic climate. Rental growth in 2003 for high street shops averaged around just 1.0%, which is low in comparison to the very healthy 3.5% growth in the out-of-centre retail warehouse sector. The retail warehouse figure reflects the added premium on such space resulting from the difficulties in providing more of this type of provision in the context of current national planning policy guidance. 17. Demand from retailers seeking space reduced during 2003. However, demand remains strong for the better space (the larger units in prime locations) in the better centres. However, it is the backdrop of the uncertain economic times that is failing to drive up rents at a time when shop vacancy rates are at an all time low, with only 5% of the current UK retail stock being vacant. 18. The longer term prospects for rental growth on the high street look more favourable with high occupancy rates, continued consumer spending growth and retailers (even those such as Matalan and Asda (in the guise of the George format) that are nominally out-of-town players), being directed to take space in-town by government policy. We consider that the prospect of future retail growth is what has encouraged the plethora of retail schemes to come forward in recent times in centres up and down the length of the UK. The threat to the high street of e-retailing 6 19. Retail sales in 2003 via the Internet totalled £4 billion, which is equivalent to the turnover of Safeway, and gives the sector a 1.6% market share of all UK retail sales. UK internet sales have soared in recent years, with April 2003’s online sales alone accounting for nearly £1.2 billion (this figure includes expenditure on items such as holidays, travel and cars that are not retail sales, and are not therefore included in the retail sales statistics). 20. Yet, despite previous predictions by many commentators to the contrary, e-retailing has failed to sound the death-knell for retailers on the high street. Indeed it is the high street retailers themselves who are the primary participants in e-retailing (the so called bricks and clicks operators, as opposed to new non-property based entities). Bricks and clicks operators such as the supermarket operators will continue to require conventional floorspace because they manage the sourcing of goods ordered on-line by ‘picking’ the goods from existing stores rather than from distribution warehouses. 21. Whilst e-retailing might have some impact on sectors such as books and home entertainment, in our view the principal sector underpinning the high street, clothing and shoes, is unlikely to lose out in a significant way to e-retailing although there are a number of wholly internet based retailers in the clothing sector. Forecasts vary, but it is generally held that e-retailing will not command even as much as a 5% market share of retail sales until at least 2007.

5 Source : All figures sourced from Verdict Report “Verdict on the High Street” 2003 6 Source : Verdict Report “Verdict on the Internet” 2003 and EGi

APPENDIX 2

COMPARISON GOODS TECHNICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

1. The methodology used in the assessment is as follows: i) Establish the baseline position –the calculation of base year comparison goods centre turnover; ii) Project forward to the design year and estimate the impact of firstly the extension to the Kingsland Centre, Dalston and then the Stratford City scheme – the key steps being the estimation of scheme turnover, the pattern of trade draw and the centre specific trade diversion distribution; 2. Below, we detail the steps involved, the assumptions made and conclusions reached in firstly establishing the baseline and secondly estimating impact. Baseline Position 3. Establishing the baseline (2004) position involves the following three steps : Step 1 : Calculate the total comparison goods expenditure (net of that available for the true bulky goods sector (DIY and hardware)) generated in the Study Area by applying per capita comparison goods expenditure estimates to population estimates. Step 2 : Calculate the turnover and total market shares derived from the Study Area for each of the centres included in the assessment, by applying the market shares (calculated in Section 2 of this report) for centre from each zone to the pool of available expenditure calculated in Step 1. Step 3 : Calculate the total turnover of each of the centres by accounting for the turnover derived from beyond the Study Area. Average floorspace sales densities are also calculated as a check to ensure that the turnover estimates are realistic. 4. This assessment is set out in Table 4.1 through to Table 4.3 and discussed below. Step 1: Total comparison goods expenditure generated in the Study Area 5. We obtained ward level population estimates from the GLA7 via LB Hackney for 2001, 2006, 2011 and 2016 and extrapolated to the base year (2004) using the ward level average annual growth rate for the 2001 – 2006 period. The 2004 forecasts for each zone and the Study Area in total are set out in the first row of Table 4.1 and demonstrate that with the exception of Zones 8 and 11 the distribution of population is very even, averaging around 22,000. Overall the Study Area contains almost 300,000 persons. 6. The second row of Table 4.1 sets out the local area per capita comparison goods expenditure estimates for each of the Study Area zones, the data being obtained from Mapinfo8. The data obtained is the latest available, that is 2001 expenditure estimates at 2001 prices, and for consistency we maintain a 2001 price base throughout the study. The Mapinfo data are derived from the CSO UK National Accounts, known as the ‘Bluebook’, which contains nationally audited consumer spending data and are used as the basis to project per capita expenditure levels in the base year, and indeed in the forecast years. Not all comparison goods expenditure is available for town centre retailing and in line with the government’s emerging policy on this issue we adopt Mapinfo local area estimates that 8% of comparison goods expenditure is spent on DIY and hardware, and we deduct that proportion from the total comparison goods expenditure figures. 7. A further deduction needs to be made to reflect that proportion of the expenditure that is spent by special forms of trading (SFTs) such as mail order, catalogue, and of increasing importance, internet sales. Expenditure via SFT is not available for

7 2003 Round of GLA Demographic Projections (Scenario 8.1) 8 Mapinfo are the industry standard provider of consumer expenditure data.

conventional store based (bricks and mortar) forms of retailing, therefore to accurately forecast the amount of expenditure available for conventional forms a deduction needs to be made in the forecast years to account for expenditure made via SFT. Mapinfo’s latest estimate (year 2000) is that nationally SFT accounts for 8.4% of all comparison goods expenditure. Market commentators agree that Internet sales are growing very fast, and there are significant numbers of retailers that are wholly Internet based. On this basis we estimate that the 2004 figure SFT will have grown to 9.0%, and we deduct this proportion in the third row of Table 4.1. 8. The fourth and penultimate row of Table 4.1 projects the 2001 per capita expenditure estimates forward to the base year based upon the Mapinfo GB average growth rate forecast for the 2004 – 2016 period of 3.4% per annum9 (in the absence of forecasts for the 2001 – 2004 period we adopt the forecast for the 2004- 2016 period, which we consider to be a reasonable assumption). The figures show quite significant variations across the Study Area with the highest expenditure in the Stoke Newington zone (Zone 9), and the two LB Islington zones (Zones 10 and 11), and the lowest in the zones to the east (Zones 5, 7 and 12). The final row of Table 4.1 sets out the total available comparison goods expenditure generated by residents in each zone and for the Study Area as a whole. Step 2: The Turnover of Existing Centres from Expenditure Generated From Within the Study Area 9. Having calculated the available comparison goods expenditure generated by the resident population within the Study Area, the next step is to identify where the expenditure is spent, and we perform this step by applying the market share estimates in each zone10 (set out in Table 6i of the Household Survey Report) to the pool of available expenditure within each zone. In Table 4.2 we present the turnover derived from each zone by each of the LB Hackney centres and other significant centres located beyond, but drawing trade from within, the Study Area. The final columns calculate the total Study Area turnover and the market share for each of the centres included in the assessment. Step 3: Base Year Total Turnover and Floorspace Sales Densities of the Centres 10. Step 3 is the final step to establish the current pattern of shopping for the centres included in this study. In Step 2 we established the turnover and market share of the centres drawn from within the Study Area. However, each centre will derive some turnover from shoppers/commuters/tourists resident in locations beyond the Study Area. Our estimates of turnover derived from beyond the Study Area, each centre’s total turnover and sales densities are set out in Table 4.3. 11. The first column sets out the turnover derived from the Study Area, which is taken from the penultimate column of the preceding table. The next column is our estimate of the proportion of turnover derived from within the Study Area, and for the LB Hackney centres we base our estimate on the results of the Visitor Survey (Table 21 Appendix 2), which indicates that only 8% of visitors to Dalston, 0% to Hackney Mare Street and 3% to Stoke Newington are resident outside of London. There are significant proportions (18% in Dalston’s case, 17% for Hackney Mare Street and 13% for Stoke Newington) that are resident elsewhere in London, but we anticipate these visits are made primarily for work related reasons, and will not result in significant workplace comparison goods shopping. We have adjusted the percentages of non-Study Area turnover to reflect the higher spend of those not resident in the Study Area, and applied our own professional judgement. The third column sets out the total turnover for each centre. The total turnover estimates for the centres beyond LB Hackney are sourced from other published material prepared by RTP for other studies or work from other consultants.

9 Mapinfo Information Brief 04/02 April 2004 10 Market share data obtained from the Household Survey (May/June 2004)

12. The penultimate column sets out the floorspace data, which is derived from our own land use surveys in the case of the LB Hackney centres and a combination of estimates obtained from studies elsewhere and total A1 floorspace data from the ODPM Defining Boundaries project, with a proportion deducted to allow for convenience goods floorspace. The final column of Table 4.3 calculates the average sales density for each centre. 13. The completion of Step 3 concludes the work to establish the baseline position and we move forward to consider the impact of the Kingsland Centre Extension and Stratford City on the existing centres. The Calculation of Retail Impact 14. As discussed above we are modelling the impact of two schemes - the Kingsland Centre Extension, Dalston and the Stratford City scheme, as these are the only schemes that in our view are likely to result in any discernible impact on the LB Hackney centres. 15. The Dalston scheme has planning permission and could be built and trading as early as latter part of 2005, and we therefore model the impact of this scheme first with a design year of 2006, which is the year after trading could in theory begin. The Stratford scheme has recently been granted outline planning permission. The site’s owners LCR and its developer partners Chelsfield and Stanhope propose a total of 1.2 million square metres11 of development of which 150,500 sqm gross will be A class floorspace, and the applicant’s planning advisers CBRE indicate that 100,000 sqm gross will be used for comparison goods retailing. It is anticipated that the early phases of the scheme could be trading by 2010, and we therefore test the scheme at a 2011 design year. 16. The key steps in this impact assessment exercise are : Step 1 : to estimate what the turnover of the existing centres at each of the design years would be were no developments to come forward; Step 2: the turnover of the Kingsland Centre Extension and the Stratford City scheme; Step 3 : the trade draw pattern to each scheme from each of the Study Area zones, and from beyond; Step 4 : the distribution of trade diversion from each of the existing centres to each scheme; and Step 5 : to translate the above into monetary and percentage figures. 17. Below we take the reader through each of the steps (using where appropriate data for Dalston by way of example to explain the calculations), starting with the assessment of the impact of the Kingsland Centre Extension, Dalston and then (and avoiding any unnecessary repetition in the description of the methodology), the impact of the Stratford City scheme.

The Impact of the Kingsland Centre Extension, Dalston Step 1 Establish Design Year Turnover of Existing Centres 18. The calculation of the impact of the Kingsland Centre Extension, Dalston firstly requires a forecast of the turnover of the existing centres in the design year (2006) based on a ‘no development’ scenario (i.e. rolling forward the 2004 situation on the basis that there will be no new retail developments that will make significant changes to the 2004 market shares). We set out the turnover derived from the Study Area, that from beyond and the resultant sales density figures in Table 4.4

11 Floorspace figures are gross external, i.e. including plant, parking and any other external space

19. Taking Dalston as an example, Table 4.4 indicates that the centre’s local zone (Zone 1) contributes £11.1 million to the centre’s turnover derived from the Study Area of £70.4 million, and the centre will derive a further £7.8 million from beyond the Study Area to give a total turnover of £78.2 million. The total turnover equates to an average sales density of £4,400/sqm up from £4,100/sqm in the base year. Step 2 Establish the Turnover of Kingsland Centre Extension, Dalston 20. This step is explained in detail in the main report, and we do not repeat the explanation here. Step 3 Trade Draw Pattern 21. In Step 3 we identify the origin of the trade draw to the scheme from each of the Study Area zones, and also the trade draw from beyond the Study Area. In our view the origin of the scheme turnover will be very much in line with the existing pattern of trade draw to Dalston as a whole, as set out in Tables 4.3 and 4.4. Therefore the first row of Table 4.5 draws on the Dalston turnover data from Table 4.4 to calculate our estimate of the trade draw percentages across the Study Area zones by dividing the turnover drawn from each zone by the turnover for Dalston as a whole. The table indicates that Zones 1, 2, 3, 9 and 11 will generate the bulk of the turnover, roughly two thirds (£10.9 million) of that from the Study Area as a whole (£16.6 million), with the balance £1.8 million (10%) coming from beyond the Study Area. Step 4 Establish the Trade Diversion Distribution 22. In the first three steps we have established what the existing centres would turnover in 2006 were no development to take place (Step 1), the likely turnover of the scheme (Step 2), and also the overall pattern of trade draw to the scheme from the Study Area and beyond (Step 3). The next step is to identify from which specific centres the turnover will divert. As explained above turnover comprises of both spend generated within and beyond the Study Area. The assessment of diversion therefore looks at both elements, and to help explain the workings of the trade diversion modelling we again refer to the impact specifically on Dalston. (i) Diversion from Turnover Generated from Within the Study Area 23. This step uses a modelling technique that has been developed and refined by RTP and others over a number of years, and is set out in Tables 4.6 to 4.9. The model takes the existing market shares as the starting point and ‘weights these up’ by using allocated weighting factors, which are then applied to the trade draw figures to identify the pattern of trade diversion. The highest weightings are allotted to centres with a better than, or similar range of comparison goods shopping to that which will be provided in Dalston, as these centres will experience the highest trade diversion as Study Area shoppers switch from trips to other centres in favour of shopping in Dalston. At the other end of the spectrum the lowest weightings are allotted to centres that tend to be convenience rather than comparison goods retail oriented and would not therefore compete with a largely comparison goods retail development at Dalston. 24. The weighting factors allotted are based on comparability with the likely type of shopping provision that will trade in the extension. We have adopted a weighting factor range of 1 to 20 in this assessment, which is a wide range reflecting the enormous differences there are between the quantity and quality of the shopping provision in the area. In studies elsewhere away from Inner London we have tended to use a narrower range. 25. At the uppermost end of the weighting scale is the West End, which is allotted a score of 20 as the new development will constitute a modest expansion to the offer in Dalston and clawback some trips made by local residents currently shopping in the West End to undertake less trips to the West End and to spend more in Dalston.

26. The Metropolitan and regional centres such as Wood Green and Bluewater are the next tier of centres allotted a weighting of ten, with the Major centres such as Dalston itself and Angel and Nags Head allocated a weighting of six. Below the Major centres the other LB Hackney town centres are allocated a weighting of four, and the lowest weighting of just one is reserved for Stamford Hill. 27. The weighting factors for each centre are multiplied by the 2004 centre/zone market shares to calculate a centre/zone weighting score, as set out in Table 4.6. Dalston’s weighting score from Zone 1 is 107, which is the sum of the base year Zone 1 market share (17.8%) (Table 2.6A) and the weighting factor (6). The weighting scores are then converted into trade diversion percentages to Dalston in Table 4.7. Dalston’s weighted Zone 1 score of 107 divided by the zone 1 total (1162) provides a trade diversion percentage of 9.2%. The percentages are then converted into monetary values in Table 4.8, which sets out the distribution of the whole £16.6 million of scheme turnover derived from the Study Area. Table 4.8 indicates for example that of the £2.6 million the scheme would draw from Zone 1, £0.24 million is expected to divert from Dalston itself (as shoppers spend a proportion of their expenditure in the scheme rather than in the existing stores in the centre as they would otherwise do). However, the most significant diversion (£1.75 million) is from the West End, as shoppers are clawed back from that location to spend a little more in Dalston. (ii) Diversion from Turnover Generated Beyond the Study Area 28. As noted above a proportion of the total turnover of all of the centres comes from expenditure generated beyond the Study Area. The proportion generated from beyond is naturally lower for the LB Hackney centres located within the Study Area boundary than it is for centres located beyond the Study Area and some of this turnover will divert to the Dalston proposal. We set out forecast in Table 4.5 above that the scheme will attract 25% of its turnover from beyond the Study Area, equivalent to some £1.8 million, and in Table 4.9 we provide our estimates of the origin of this diversion. 29. Table 4.9 sets out the forecast 2006 pre-development turnover inflows from beyond the Study Area to the centres, and then our estimates of diversion in both percentages and money values. Table 4.9 indicates that the West End once again is forecast to experience the highest diversion (£0.8 million or almost half of all the diversion) as a proportion of shoppers undertake occasional shopping trips in Dalston in preference to a visit to the West End. Again no other centre is forecast to experience diversion of more than £0.3 million to the scheme from this source of turnover. Table 4.9 indicates that in total approximately £1.6 million of scheme turnover generated from beyond the Study Area would divert from the named centres, with the balance, some £0.2 million diverting from other unnamed centres located beyond the Study Area. Step 5 Impact Calculation 30. The final step in the assessment is to translate the trade diversion figures into impact percentages, and we set out the calculations in Table 4.10. The table is divided into five sets of data – (i) the no development centre turnover forecasts, (ii) the trade diversion to the scheme, (iii) the post-development centre turnovers, (iv) the impact percentages - calculated by dividing the money value trade diversion estimate for the design year with the development in place (the “total diversion” column on Table 4.10) by the forecast centre turnover were no development to take place (the second ‘No development Centre Turnover (2006) column on Table 4.10), and finally (v) the annual turnover growth rate percentages for the ‘no development and ‘with development’ scenarios, which provide an indication of the significance of the impact.

31. The final calculations to make are in respect of recalibrating the post-development centre turnover and market share and these we set out in Tables 4.11 and 4.12. The post development centre turnovers are calculated by deducting the trade diversion monetary values from the ‘no development’ 2006 centre turnover forecasts (Table 4.4) and these data are used to calculate the post-development market shares. The Impact of the Stratford City scheme 32. Having accounted for the impact of the planned extension to the Kingsland Shopping Centre we now move on to consider the impact of the Stratford City scheme. As the above Kingsland Shopping Centre extension assessment has taken the reader step-by-step through the methodology, we seek to avoid any unnecessary methodological repetition in this section, and we therefore refer only to any important methodological differences, and concentrate on drawing out the salient findings. The Stratford City assessment is set out in Tables 4.13 to 4.21. Step 1 Establish the Design Year (2011) Turnovers of the Existing Centres 33. The promoters of the Stratford City scheme have used a 2011 design year in the material they have submitted in support of the currently undetermined planning application, based on the estimation that the floorspace could be trading by 2009/10, which we consider to be rather optimistic. Never the less to ensure we test a ‘worst case’ scenario (i.e. all the floorspace coming forward and diverting trade at the earliest opportunity) we adopt 2011 as the design year. 34. The first step is therefore to roll forward the centre turnovers from the 2006 post- Kingsland Shopping centre extension position to 2011. The calculation of the 2011 turnovers is set out in Tables 4.13. Dalston’s total turnover (inclusive of the extension to the shopping centre) rises from £95.6 million in 2006 to £114.3 million in 2011. Elsewhere the turnover of Hackney Mare Street rises from £38.6 million to £46.5 million over the same period. Step 2 Establish the Total Turnover of the Stratford City Scheme 35. This step is explained in detail in the main report, and we do not repeat the explanation here. Step 3 Trade Draw Pattern 36. In Table 4.14 we identify our estimates of the trade draw to the scheme from the LB Hackney Study Area zones. We have studied the CBRE trade draw data submitted in support of the Stratford City application and have estimated the trade draw from each of the LB Hackney Study Area zones, which sum to a total of 22% (a monetary figure of £110 million) of the Stratford City scheme’s turnover. This is a reasonably high proportion and reflects the very close proximity of the Study Area to the Stratford City site. The highest proportional draw is from the zone nearest to Stratford City (Zone 5), which we estimate will be the origin for 4% of the scheme’s turnover, the three zones in next closest proximity (Zones 2, 4 and 6) are forecast to each contributing 3% of scheme turnover, with the remaining zones providing between 1.5% and 0.5% of scheme turnover. The bulk of the scheme’s turnover (some £390 million or 78% of the total) will be generated from beyond the Study Area. Step 4 Establish Trade Diversion Distribution 37. In accordance with the method followed for the Dalston assessment we make a separate assessment of turnover diversion from within and from beyond the Study Area.

(i) Diversion from Turnover Generated from Within the Study Area 38. We again use the modelling approach as described above, and which is based on the current market shares and the application of weighting factors (we adopt the same factors as used in the Kingsland Centre Extension assessment). The calculations of trade diversion are set out in Tables 4.15, 4.16 and 4.17. Table 4.17 sets out the trade diversion in money values and indicates that £2.2 million will divert to Stratford City from Dalston, a little lower than the £2.6 million which is likely to divert from Hackney Mare Street. Hackney Mare Street will experience higher trade diversion than Dalston even though the latter merits a higher weighting factor (6) compared to the former (4). The higher diversion reflects the origin of Hackney Mare Street’s existing shoppers a higher proportion of whom come from east of Hackney Mare Street (and Dalston), and therefore are more likely to be attracted to Stratford City. Stoke Newington will experience diversion in the region of £0.9 million. However, once again the centre experiencing the most diversion is forecast to be the West End (£76 million). (ii) Diversion from Turnover Generated from Beyond the Study Area 39. Our calculation of diversion of existing centre turnover derived from beyond the Study Area is set out in Table 4.18. The table indicates that in total we expect the named centres to experience diversion of a further £293 million in total, of which 56% (£165 million) will be from the West End12, with Lakeside, Bluewater and Walthamstow the other significant centres to experience diversion. A further £97 million will be drawn from unnamed centres elsewhere, notably to the north and east. Step 5 Impact Calculation 40. Table 4.19 brings together all the impact data for the Stratford City scheme and calculates the impact and annual growth rate percentages. 41. The final impact calculations we make are to draw together the turnover forecasts for all the centres post-Stratford City development and then to recalibrate the centre market shares, and these calculations are set out in Tables 4.20 and 4.21. The changes in market share across the Study Area resulting from the Stratford City scheme, which is the biggest retail content scheme coming forward in London at the present time, are significant in some zones, but in most respects the impact of the Stratford City scheme is to reduce the LB Hackney market share by 1.0 percentage point. However, in Zones 1, 4 and 6 the reduction is approximately 1 percentage point, and even higher at 1.6 percentage points in Zones 2 and 5, which is the zone furthest to the east (closest to Stratford City). Thus the positive work done by the Kingsland Centre extension in terms of clawing back shoppers and expenditure and raising market shares, albeit by only a modest amount, is partially undone by the impact of the Stratford City scheme.

12 The figure of £165 million diversion from the West End from beyond the Study Area, plus the £76 million diversion from the Study Area equates to the applicant’s own estimate of the impact of the Stratford City scheme.

APPENDIX 3

THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL RETAIL AND LEISURE FLOORSPACE

Comparison goods Need Assessment 1. We have employed a step-by-step approach in accordance with standard practice for such assessments. The approach is as follows: ƒ Our starting point, Step 1 is to establish the current position (the baseline 2004 position) in respect of the pool of expenditure available to the Borough’s centres and the turnover of those centres. The base line data is set out in the previous section of this report dealing with the impact of future retail development; ƒ We then move on to establish the potential for growth at the forecast years (2006, 2011 and 2016) by firstly identifying in Step 2 the allowances that need to be made for claims on future expenditure growth resulting from (i) the growth in the turnover of the existing provision, (ii) the uptake of voids in the Borough’s centres and (iii) floorspace commitments; ƒ In Step 3 : we establish the floorspace requirement for the 2006 forecast year. This step involves three calculations :- (i) establish the quantum of available expenditure for LB Hackney’s centres, (ii) build-in allowances for claims on that expenditure, (iii) convert the residual expenditure (i.e. (i) minus (ii)) that is available to support new floorspace to a floorspace requirement by the application of a realistic turnover figure for new comparison goods floorspace in 2006. ƒ In Step 4 : we roll the 2006 data forward to the 2011 forecast year using the same methodology as for Step 3, and finally; ƒ Step 5 : we roll the 2011 data forward to the 2016 forecast year, once again employing the same methodology. 2. In Steps 3 to 5 we present three scenarios – Scenario A that maintains current market shares; Scenario B that presents the forecast market shares following the extension to the Kingsland Shopping Centre and Stratford City developments; and Scenario C that models the floorspace requirements resultant from LB Hackney retaining a more appropriate, but realistic market share of Study Area expenditure. Step 1: The Baseline 2004 Position 3. As noted above, the preceding section of this report established the baseline position in respect of the pool of available expenditure and the turnover of the LB Hackney centres. The calculations are set out in Tables 4.1 to 4.3, and discussed fully in full in the Baseline section. In summary the findings are that the whole of the Study Area generates marginally over £800 million, of which the LB Hackney centres currently retain only £111 million (some 14%), with a further £29 million of LB Hackney centre turnover being derived from beyond the Study Area. Step 2: Allowances for claims on future expenditure growth 4. Population and expenditure do not stand still, significant population growth is planned for East London over the next 15 to 20 years and economic forecasters predict that comparison goods expenditure will continue to grow at similar rates to those we have seen since the mid-1990s. Thus there is likely to be considerable total expenditure growth available for the LB Hackney centres (and centres elsewhere) to absorb through new floorspace development. However, not all of the growth will be available for new floorspace, and in Step 2 we consider the allowances that need to be made to reflect the various legitimate claims on the expenditure growth in the forecast years starting with 2006. 5. There are three key claims in respect of which allowances need to be made to ensure that the expenditure available for new development is not over-estimated – these are (i) the existing trading floorspace that will continue to operate more

efficiently (increasing turnover year-on-year), (ii) the uptake of currently vacant retail property located in the core areas of the LB Hackney centres, and (iii) floorspace commitments. The calculations of the allowance required for these claims on the expenditure growth are set out in Table 5.1. 6. We firstly consider the turnover of the existing comparison goods floorspace in the Borough’s centres, which will absorb some of the expenditure growth as store/centre turnover increases year-on-year. The reasons for the growth in retailer turnover are set out in Appendix 1 to this report and can be summarised as the continual development and bringing to the market place of increasingly expensive goods and the continual movement of higher turnover retailers replacing lower turnover traders. Traditionally retail planners applied 1.5%/annum turnover growth (referred to as sales density growth, and expressed as £/sqm), but recent research indicates that we should be adopting a higher figure, and for the reasons given in Appendix 1 of this report we adopt a 2.5%/annum sales density growth for comparison goods. In the first section of Table 5.1 we apply this growth rate to the turnover of the LB Hackney centres’ existing provision to identify the expenditure claim that needs to be allowed for the existing provision. The table indicates that the existing provision will for example require an additional £0.7 million from Zone 1 in 2006, and £6.4 million from the Study Area as a whole. 7. Next we identify the claim to cover the potential take up of currently vacant premises in the core areas (we discount vacant premises beyond the core, because it cannot be guaranteed that these units are available for A1 use added to which some may be converted for non-retail use. Therefore we include in this assessment vacant retail property in the shopping cores, and find that there is only vacant space in Hackney Mare Street and Stoke Newington (340 sqm gross in the former and 570 sqm in the latter). Of this we assume that 25% could come forward for convenience goods use and so the aggregate gross figure available for comparison goods retailing is 680 sqm as set out in the second section of Table 5.1. We net the gross area down by applying a standard ratio for older stock (70:30), and then apply the 2006 average sales densities (sourced from Table 4.4) to the sales floorspace to arrive at a total turnover of £1.6 million. However, not all of this turnover will be derived from the Study Area, and we deduct a proportion (the proportion is sourced from the Visitor Survey undertaken as part of this study) to reflect the turnover derived from beyond the Study Area. Thus we conclude that the uptake of currently vacant floorspace within the Borough’s centres in 2006 will claim £1.5 million of the expenditure generated by Study Area residents. 8. The third and final claim relates to planning commitments that have yet to be implemented. We have consulted with LB Hackney and the only commitment that needs to be taken into account is Charterhouse Shopping Centre’s planned extension to the Kingsland Shopping Centre, Dalston, and we present the data for this scheme in the final section of Table 5.1. The proposal involves the erection of an elevated two-storey extension to the existing centre that will provide 4,227 sqm gross of additional floorspace, and 3,800 sqm net of additional sales area. We apply a sales density some 10% higher than the average currently achieved by floorspace in Dalston to reflect the likelihood that new modern floorspace will trade above average, which generates a scheme total turnover of £18.4 million. Some of this turnover will derive from beyond the Study Area, and we apply the same proportion as for the whole of Dalston town centre (10% turnover from beyond the Study Area), as in our view there is no reason to suspect that the pattern of trade draw will differ materially from the current position. Thus the commitment will draw £16.6 million from the Study Area. Steps 3 to 5 – Floorspace Requirements in the Forecast Years 9. Having set out the claims on the expenditure that need to be taken into account at each of the forecast years in Step 2, we now move on to calculate the floorspace

requirement in the 2006, 2011 and 2016 forecast years. The calculations of the requirement are set out in three tables, one for each of the three scenarios we present – Scenario A is set out in Tables 5.X(i), Scenario B is presented in Tables 5.X(ii), and Scenario C is presented in Tables 5.X(iii). Step 3: Comparison Goods Floorspace Requirement – 2006 10. The 2006 floorspace requirement data are presented in Tables 5.2(i), 5.2(ii) and 5.2(iii). As mentioned in the introduction to this section there are three calculations involved in determining the floorspace requirement, and we discuss each in turn below. ƒ Firstly we establish the quantum of available expenditure for LB Hackney’s centres in 2006. These calculations are set out in the first five rows of the tables and are common to all, in all but one crucial respect - the market share data. The population data is sourced from the GLA Round 8.1 projections and the per capita expenditure data is sourced from MapInfo with a 8.4% deduction made for special forms of trading (SFT) and a further 8% deduction to represent expenditure on hardware and DIY in accordance with MapInfo estimates. ƒ Next we deduct from the available spend the claims on that expenditure. We covered the calculations of this deduction in the Step 2 above, and in the tables we simply insert the findings. The data is common to all three Scenarios. ƒ Finally, we convert the residual expenditure that is available to support new floorspace to a floorspace requirement. We do so by the application of what we consider to be a realistic turnover figure (i.e. a £/sqm) for new comparison goods floorspace in 2006, and we consider £4,817/sqm, based on a 10% uplift on the 2006 centre average figure to be appropriate (this is the same figure we have used in the impact assessment calculations for the extension to the Kingsland Shopping Centre). Step 4: Comparison Goods Floorspace Requirement – 2011 11. In Step 4 we project the requirement to 2011 as set out in Tables 5.3(i), 5.3(ii) and 5.3(iii). The data sources for the available expenditure are the same as those used in Step 3 and require no comment. The claims on the expenditure are the 2006 data rolled forward to 2011 by applying a 2.5%/annum growth rate in respect of all three items. The floorspace requirements are calculated from the residual expenditure on the same basis used in Step 3, and with the application of the 2.5%/annum sales density growth. Step 5: Comparison Goods Floorspace Requirement – 2016 12. Finally we turn to calculate the floorspace requirement in 2016, which we set out in Tables 5.4(i), 5.4(ii) and 5.4(iii). Once more the data sources and percentage figures used to account for growth are consistent with those applied in Steps 3 and 4, with the data simply rolled forward using the 2.5% growth factor to 2016. Convenience Goods Need Assessment 13. For the convenience goods assessment we have employed a similar step-by-step approach as that undertaken for comparison goods. The approach is as follows:

ƒ Step 1 is to establish the current position (the baseline 2004 position) in respect of the pool of expenditure available to the Borough’s centres and the turnover of those centres. The baseline data is set out in Tables 5.5, 5.6 and 5.7;

ƒ We then move on to establish the potential for growth at the forecast years (2006, 2011 and 2016) by firstly identifying in Step 2 the allowances that need to be made for claims on future expenditure growth resulting from (i) the growth in the turnover of the existing provision, (ii) the uptake of voids in the Borough’s centres and (iii) floorspace commitments. These calculations are set out in Table 5.8; ƒ In Step 3 we establish the floorspace requirement for the 2006 forecast year. This step involves three calculations :- (i) establish the quantum of available expenditure for each of the LB Hackney centres after deductions for claims on that expenditure, (ii) apply an appropriate market share for each of the LB Hackney centres from each zone and (iii) convert the residual expenditure (i.e. (i) multiplied by (ii)) to a floorspace requirement by the application of a realistic turnover figure for new convenience goods floorspace in 2006. ƒ In Step 4 we roll the 2006 data forward to the 2011 forecast year using the same methodology as for Step 3, and finally; ƒ In Step 5 we roll the 2011 data forward to the 2016 forecast year, once again employing the same methodology. Step 1: The Baseline 2004 Convenience Goods Position 14. Table 5.5 sets out the population and expenditure data for the baseline year 2004. The base data is Mapinfo 2001 percapita expenditure data (second row of data), which has been projected to 2004 data at 2001 prices by the application of an 13 annual growth rate of 1.2% as recommended by Mapinfo (third row of data). A reduction of 3.2% is then made in the forth row of data to represent the amount of convenience goods expenditure that is likely to be spent via SFT, again in accordance with advice from Mapinfo. The fifth row of data sets out the total available expenditure, and indicates that in 2004 Zone 1 for example generated £38.1 million of convenience goods expenditure and the Study Area as a whole generated £520 million. 15. The final two rows of Table 5.5 divide the expenditure between expenditure available to supermarkets and that available for local convenience shopping14. The ratio used in this assessment is 60:40 supermarket:local provision which is based on data in the 2003 ONS Family Expenditure Survey that indicated nationally the ratio stood at 74:26. Our use of a lower supermarket proportion and correspondingly higher figure for the local provision in this assessment, is in acknowledgement of the prevalence of relatively large numbers of local convenience stores, much of it associated with ethnic groups with large populations in the area, which means that significantly more of the overall convenience goods expenditure in the LB Hackney centres is currently likely to be spent in nonsupermarket facilities. 16. The purpose of accounting for the two types of convenience goods expenditure (supermarket and non-supermarket) separately is to “ring fence” an appropriate level of expenditure growth for the provision of local facilities rather than simply making all the expenditure available for supermarket format stores. This is very important in localities such as Dalston and the other LB Hackney centres where it is critically important for a host of economic and social reasons to maintain and develop a thriving local non-supermarket convenience provision. 17. The data in the final two rows of Table 5.5 indicates that in Zone 1 for example £22.8 million of the total £38 million generated is estimated to be spent in

13 Mapinfo Information Brief 04/02 April 2004 14 Local convenience shopping provision includes CTNs, bakers, butchers, grocers, delicatessen, off licences as well as small local convenience stores.

supermarkets and some £15 million in non-supermarket local convenience stores. Overall from the Study Area £312 million is spent in supermarkets and £208 in local convenience stores. The rest of the assessment concentrates on the floorspace requirements for supermarket provision. 18. The next stage of Step 1 is to determine where the expenditure is spent, and to do so we apply the market share data from Table 27C of the Household Survey report to the available expenditure in each zone. The output from these calculations is set out in Table 5.6, which indicates that for example Dalston draws £11.7 million of Zone 1 expenditure and £53.6 million from the Study Area overall, equivalent to a 17% market share. Overall the LB Hackney centres draw £173 million of supermarket convenience goods expenditure from the Study Area, a market share of a commendable 55% and a commendable Borough-wide (Zones 1 to 9) market share of 69%. 19. The final stage in the baseline assessment is to establish the total turnover of each of the centres, and to calculate the centre sales densities to assess relative performance. The calculations are set out in Table 5.7. The table firstly identifies the turnover from the Study Area for each centre, which is drawn from the previous table. Then the proportion of total turnover drawn from the Study Area is estimated and total turnover calculated. In accordance with the fact that convenience goods shopping is undertaken on a local basis when compared to comparison goods shopping, we estimate that in all cases 95% of the turnover will be generated from within the Study Area. Dalston’s total supermarket convenience goods turnover for example is calculated to be a little over £56 million of which 5% (some £3 million) comes from beyond the Study Area. Dalston supports some 3,800 sqm net of supermarket floorspace (principally the Sainsbury store, Iceland and Costcutter), which indicates that these stores are collectively trading very well with an average sales density of some £14,900/sqm net, appreciably above the Sainsbury company average. The supermarket provision in Hackney Mare Street (principally Tesco, M&S and Somerfield) is trading marginally better than the counterparts in Dalston with an average sales density of almost £15,500/sqm net. Supermarkets in Stoke Newington (principally Safeway) are trading reasonably well, much better than the supermarkets in Stamford Hill (principally Safeway and the discounter Netto). Step 2: Allowances for Claims on Future Supermarket Expenditure Growth 20. Not all of the future expenditure growth that is forecast to come from increased population and increased spending will be available for new floorspace. A proportion will be absorbed by (i) the increased efficiency of existing trading floorspace, (ii) the uptake of currently vacant retail property located in the core areas of the LB Hackney centres, and (iii) floorspace commitments. These claims need to be taken into account to ensure that the expenditure available for new development is not over-estimated. The calculations of the allowance required for these claims on the expenditure growth are set out in Table 5.8. 21. Table 5.8 indicates that it is only improvements in the efficiency of the existing comparison goods floorspace in the Borough’s centres that needs to be considered and we return to explain the calculations in this respect shortly after a brief explanation why no deductions are required for vacancy uptake and planning commitments. With regard to the uptake of vacant space, we identified the amount of vacant A1 retail space in each centre in the comparison goods assessment, which was less than 1,000 sqm gross in total. We estimated that 75% of this floorspace would be likely to come forward for comparison goods retailing. The remaining 25%, which totals only just more than 200sqm gross could be available for convenience goods retailing. However, this floorspace comprises of many individual units and so will not be available or suitable for supermarket operators. Likewise the planning pipeline currently does not yield additional supermarket floorspace as there are no planned commitments.

22. Next we return to the legitimate claim on expenditure growth brought about by the improvements in the efficiency of the existing convenience goods floorspace in the Borough’s centres. The first set of data in Table 5.8 sets out the calculation of growth in turnover due to improvements in efficiency between 2004and 2006. We have adopted 0.5%/annum efficiency growth in line with the research recently conducted on behalf of the GLA on this matter15. The table indicates that the growth in convenience goods floorspace efficiency will be of a much lower order than that for comparison goods. Step 3: Supermarket Floorspace Requirement – 2006 23. The 2006 floorspace requirement data are presented in Table 5.9. The calculations firstly identify the residual expenditure available for new floorspace after all claims have been deducted and then apply an appropriate market share percentage for each individual centre to the residual, before finally applying an average sales density figure (£9,600/sqm net) to determine the floorspace requirement. 24. Using data for Dalston as an example the calculations are thus: ƒ Firstly the residual is calculated from the growth in expenditure minus the growth in the existing turnover due to efficiency improvements. In the case of Dalston’s turnover derived from Zone 1 the amount of available expenditure will be £23.6 million (see Table 5.6 in the Section 5 of this report) and the turnover of the existing provision, building in the 0.5%/annum efficiency improvement, is forecast to reach £23.1 million (see Table 5.7 in the Section 5 of this report), which equates to a residual of £0.5 million (see Table 5.7 in the Section 5 of this report). ƒ Next we apply our market share estimates to the residual, which are based on an equitable distribution of expenditure. Turning once more to Dalston, the Zone 1 market share is estimated at 70% (see Table 5.8 in the Section 5 of this report), which equates to an expenditure figure of £0.35 million. ƒ Finally we apply the sales density figure to the residual amount, which again in Dalston’s case equates to a need of 36sqm net from Zone 1, and a total Study Area need of approximately 280sqm net. This is a modest figure by most standards, but is the largest requirement of all the LB Hackney centres. Step 4: Convenience Goods Floorspace Requirement – 2011 25. In Step 4 we project the requirement to 2011 as set out in Table 5.10. The data sources for the available expenditure are the same as those used in Step 3 and require no comment. The claims on the expenditure are the 2006 data rolled forward to 2011 by applying a 0.5%/annum growth rate. The floorspace requirements are calculated from the residual expenditure on the same basis used in Step 3, and build-in 0.5%/annum growth in respect of the average sales density figure. The Dalston requirement overall will increase to 1,000sqm net, with the other two centres roughly half this. Step 5: Convenience Goods Floorspace Requirement – 2016 26. Finally, we turn to calculate the floorspace requirement in 2016, which we set out in Table 5.11. Once more the data sources and percentage figures used to account for growth are consistent with those applied in Steps 3 and 4, with the data simplyrolled forward using the 0.5% growth factor to 2016. Dalston’s need will increase to almost 1,800sqm net by 2016.

15 GLA/Experian Convenience goods Retail Need, December 2004

Leisure Need Assessment 27. The limited nature of the calculations involved in the assessment of leisure need as set out in the report requires no further explanation here.

APPENDIX 4

RETAIL IMPACT TABULATIONS

LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY : RETAIL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Table 4.1 Baseline 2004 - Population and Comparison Goods Expenditure

All Zones Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10 Zone 11 Zone 12 Total

Popluation (1) 21,042 22,034 22,020 23,188 22,846 21,182 23,002 35,915 21,287 23,351 33,680 25,460 295,007

2001 Per Capita Comparison goods Expenditure (£) (2) 2,768 2,568 2,537 2,587 2,351 2,737 2,307 2,646 3,121 3,294 3,100 2,415

2004 Per Capita Comparison goods Expenditure (£) (3) 3,060 2,839 2,805 2,860 2,599 3,026 2,550 2,925 3,450 3,642 3,427 2,670

2004 Per Capita Comparison goods Expenditure (£) (4) 2,785 2,583 2,552 2,603 2,365 2,753 2,321 2,662 3,140 3,314 3,119 2,430

Total Expenditure (£ millions) (5) 58.6 56.9 56.2 60.3 54.0 58.3 53.4 95.6 66.8 77.4 105.0 61.9 804.5

NOTES: (1) The population figures are based on the GLA Round 8.1 figures for 2001 and 2006, with the annual growth rate over that period used to extrapolate the 2004 population figures. (2) The 2001 per capita comparison goods expenditure (net of the 8% Mapinfo allocate to DIY and hardware) sourced from Mapinfo. (3) The 2004 per capita comparison goods expenditure figures are based on the 2001 estimates, with growth applied at a rate of 3.4%/annum applied as recommended by Mapinfo/Oxford Economic Forecasters. (4) The 2004 per capita comparison goods expenditure figures net of expenditure spend via special forms of trading (SFT) at 9%. (5) Total expenditure is the product of population multiplied by per capita expenditure.

All monetary values are held constant at 2001 prices.

Page 1 of 21 LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY : RETAIL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Table 4.2 Baseline 2004 - Turnver Derived from the Study Area (£ millions)

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10 Zone 11 Zone 12 All Zones Total

£m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m %

LB HACKNEY CENTRES Dalston Kingsland 10.4 7.9 7.7 4.8 4.2 3.1 2.2 3.3 7.8 1.6 9.7 2.9 65.6 8.16 Hackney Mare Street 1.9 6.3 2.1 4.8 5.0 4.6 1.9 2.1 1.6 0.6 0.7 2.8 34.4 4.27 Stoke Newington 1.3 1.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 3.2 2.8 3.8 5.6 1.2 0.0 0.8 20.1 2.50 Stamford Hill 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.2 2.5 3.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.2 0.90 LB Hackney Total 13.6 15.5 10.2 9.9 9.7 11.1 9.4 12.3 15.4 3.4 10.4 6.4 127.3 15.8 OTHER CENTRES LOCATED BEYOND THE STUDY AREA West End 22.8 24.1 24.2 29.7 16.1 25.7 16.8 33.6 31.5 39.2 44.2 30.4 338.4 42.06 Wood Green 2.5 1.8 2.1 1.9 2.5 5.0 12.2 18.2 5.1 7.4 9.3 1.4 69.3 8.62 Stratford 0.0 1.9 0.3 0.7 4.7 0.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.5 11.0 1.37 Walthamstow 0.0 0.9 0.3 0.0 2.9 1.7 1.9 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.0 1.0 10.5 1.30 Angel 3.9 1.3 1.0 1.4 0.9 1.9 0.3 1.9 3.9 7.7 17.9 0.4 42.5 5.28 Nags Head 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.6 7.8 0.4 4.8 4.6 0.4 19.9 2.47 Bluewater 1.5 0.9 0.7 2.3 1.9 1.8 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.8 0.0 11.5 1.43 Finsbury Park 1.0 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.7 6.6 0.82 Lakeside 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 2.1 7.3 0.90 Other 12.3 9.7 15.7 13.0 14.2 9.4 9.7 19.8 9.4 13.3 16.2 17.6 160.3 19.92 Sub-Total 45.0 41.4 46.0 50.5 44.3 47.3 44.0 83.3 51.4 74.0 94.7 55.4 677.2 84.2 GRAND TOTAL 58.6 56.9 56.2 60.3 54.0 58.3 53.4 95.6 66.8 77.4 105.0 61.9 804.5 100.0

NOTES: (1) The market share data is the product of the amount of available expenditure in each zone (as calculated in Table 4.1 above) and the percentage market shares for each centre/zone as calculated in Table 2.6A of this report.

All monetary values are held constant at 2001 prices.

Page 2 of 21 LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY : RETAIL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Table 4.3 Baseline 2004 - Comparison Goods Centre Total Turnover and Sales Density

Turnover % Derived from Total Sales Current Sales Zone Derived from Study Area 2 Turnover Area 3 Density Study Area 1

£m % £m sqm net £/sqm LB HACKNEY CENTRES

Dalston Kingsland 65.6 90 72.9 17,747 4,108

Hackney Mare Street 34.4 95 36.2 9,585 3,773

Stoke Newington 20.1 95 21.2 7,651 2,769

Stamford Hill 7.2 95 7.6 2,962 2,562

LB Hackney Total 127.3 137.8 37,944

OTHER CENTRES LOCATED BEYOND THE STUDY AREA

West End 338.4 8 4,230.1 706,110 5,991

Wood Green 69.3 33 213.3 48,580 4,390

Stratford 11.0 7 169.4 40,410 4,192

Walthamstow 10.5 4 261.7 60,105 4,355

Angel 42.5 46 92.4 15,358 6,016

Nags Head 19.9 28 70.9 18,282 3,881

Bluewater 11.5 2 656.9 86,504 7,594

Finsbury Park 6.6 30 22.1 9,565 2,310

Lakeside 7.3 2 483.7 93,390 5,179

Other 160.3

NOTES: (1) Source: Table 4.2 'All Zones Total' column. (2) Source: RTP estimates, based on RTP studies carried out elsewhere and work from other consultants. (3) Source: For LB Hackney centres - RTP land use survey and GIS to obtain gross floorsapce, which has been netted down to a sales area by applying a 75:25 ratio for Dalston to reflect the modern space standards of the floorspace in the Kingsland Shopping Centre, and a 70:30 ratio for the other centres. For other centres - ODPM Defining Boundaries 2004 Report, which provides total A1 retail floorspace, with a proportion deducted to account for convenience goods floorspace. All monetary values are held constant at 2001 prices.

Page 3 of 21 LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY : RETAIL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Table 4.4 Comparison Goods Spending Patterns and Turnover - Constant Market Shares - 2006 (no development)

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10 Zone 11 Zone 12 All From Total Floor- Sales Zones Beyond Turnover space Density £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m sqm net £/sqm

LB HACKNEY CENTRES Dalston Kingsland 11.1 8.4 8.3 5.1 4.5 3.3 2.4 3.6 8.3 1.8 10.4 3.2 70.4 7.8 78.2 17,747 4,405 Hackney Mare Street 2.0 6.7 2.3 5.2 5.3 4.9 2.1 2.3 1.7 0.7 0.8 3.1 36.9 1.9 38.9 9,585 4,057 Stoke Newington 1.4 1.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 3.4 3.1 4.1 6.0 1.3 0.0 0.8 21.6 1.1 22.8 7,651 2,977 Stamford Hill 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.2 2.8 3.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.4 8.2 2,962 2,769 LB Hackney Total 14.5 16.7 10.9 10.6 10.4 11.9 10.3 13.2 16.4 3.7 11.1 7.1 136.7 11.3 148.0 37,944 OTHER CENTRES LOCATED BEYOND THE STUDY AREA West End 24.3 25.9 25.8 31.8 17.3 27.7 18.5 36.2 33.5 42.5 47.5 33.3 364.2 4,188.0 4,552.2 706,110 6,447 Wood Green 2.7 1.9 2.3 2.1 2.6 5.4 13.4 19.6 5.4 8.0 9.9 1.5 74.7 155.2 230.0 48,580 4,734 Stratford 0.0 2.0 0.4 0.8 5.0 0.9 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.6 11.9 170.5 182.4 40,410 4,513 Walthamstow 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.0 3.1 1.9 2.1 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.0 1.1 11.3 271.0 282.3 60,105 4,697 Angel 4.2 1.4 1.1 1.5 0.9 2.1 0.3 2.0 4.1 8.3 19.3 0.4 45.7 53.6 99.2 15,358 6,462 Nags Head 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.7 8.4 0.4 5.2 5.0 0.4 21.4 55.1 76.5 18,282 4,182 Bluewater 1.6 1.0 0.7 2.4 2.1 2.0 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.9 0.0 12.3 692.6 705.0 86,504 8,150 Finsbury Park 1.1 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.8 7.1 16.6 23.8 9,565 2,485 Lakeside 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 2.4 7.8 515.2 523.0 93,390 5,601 Other 13.1 10.4 16.9 13.9 15.1 10.1 10.7 21.3 10.0 14.4 17.4 19.3 172.6 Sub-Total 48.0 44.4 49.3 54.1 47.4 50.9 48.1 89.7 54.6 80.1 101.7 60.8 729.0 6,117.9 6,674.4 GRAND TOTAL 62.4 61.1 60.1 64.6 57.8 62.8 58.5 102.8 70.9 83.9 112.8 67.9 865.7 6,129.2 6,822.4

NOTES: Spending Patterns - The above table rolls forward the base year spending patterns and centre turnovers to 2006 by using the base year market shares (Table 2.6A) and the 2006 expenditure forecasts. Turnover derived rom beyond the Study Area is rolled froward at the same rate as the turnover from within the Study Area.

All monetary values are in millions of pounds (£m) and are held constant at 2001 prices.

Page 4 of 21 LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY : RETAIL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Table 4.5 Impact of the Kingsland Centre Extension, Dalston - Comparison Goods Scheme Turnover and Trade Draw Estimates - 2006

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10 Zone 11 Zone 12 All From Total Floor- Sales Zones Beyond Turnover space Density £m sqm net £/sqm

Trade Draw to the Scheme (%) 14.2 10.8 10.6 6.6 5.8 4.3 3.1 4.6 10.6 2.3 13.3 4.1 90.0 10.0 100

Trade Draw to the Scheme (£m) 2.6 2.0 1.9 1.2 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.8 1.9 0.4 2.4 0.7 16.6 1.8 18.4 3,800 4,846

NOTES: Floorspace - sourced from LB Hackney. Sales densities and turnover - based on RTP estimates. Trade draw to the scheme - the percentage trade draw figures are RTP estimates.

All monetary values are in millions of pounds (£m) and are held constant at 2001 prices.

Page 5 of 21 LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY : RETAIL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Table 4.6 Impact of the Kingsland Centre Extension, Dalston - Distribution of Trade Diversion - Weighting Factors and Comparison Goods Trade Draw Weighting Scores - 2006

Weighting Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10 Zone 11 Zone 12 Factor weighting score weighting score weighting score weighting score weighting score weighting score weighting score weighting score weighting score weighting score weighting score weighting score LB HACKNEY CENTRES Dalston Kingsland 6.0 107 83 82 48 47 32 25 21 70 13 55 28 Hackney Mare Street 4.0 13 44 15 32 37 32 14 9 10 3 3 18 Stoke Newington 4.0 98 02 022211634605 Stamford Hill 1.0 00 10 1 053 1000

OTHER CENTRES LOCATED BEYOND THE STUDY AREA West End 20.0 778 847 860 984 598 882 631 704 944 1013 842 982 Wood Green 10.0 43 31 38 32 45 86 229 190 76 95 88 22 Stratford 10.0 0 33 6 12 87 14 12 0 0 6 0 24 Walthamstow 10.0 0 16 6 0 54 30 35 6 12 4 0 17 Angel 6.0 40 14 11 14 9 20 3 12 35 60 103 4 Nags Head 6.0 4 0 7 0 0 2 7 49 3 38 26 4 Bluewater 10.0 26 16 12 37 36 31 12 6 0 4 8 0 Finsbury Park 4.0 74 55 2 034 2315 Lakeside 10.0 10 5 6 10 16 10 11 0 0 0 12 35 Other 6.0 126 102 168 129 157 97 109 124 84 103 93 170 TOTAL 1162 1203 1216 1306 1090 1258 1119 1144 1270 1346 1230 1313

NOTES: Zonal Weighting Scores - the figures are the 2004 market shares (Table 2.6A) multiplied by the relevant weighting factor (first column of this table).

Page 6 of 21 LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY : RETAIL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Table 4.7 Impact of the the Kingsland Centre Extension, Dalston - Distribution of Trade Diversion - Comparison Goods Pattern of Percentage Trade Diversion (%) - 2006

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10 Zone 11 Zone 12 % % % %% % % % % %%% LB HACKNEY CENTRES Dalston Kingsland 9.2 6.9 6.8 3.6 4.3 2.5 2.2 1.8 5.5 0.9 4.5 2.1 Hackney Mare Street 1.1 3.7 1.2 2.4 3.4 2.5 1.3 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.2 1.4 Stoke Newington 0.8 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.7 1.9 1.4 2.7 0.5 0.0 0.4 Stamford Hill 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

OTHER CENTRES LOCATED BEYOND THE STUDY AREA West End 67.0 70.4 70.7 75.3 54.9 70.2 56.4 61.5 74.3 75.2 68.4 74.8 Wood Green 3.7 2.6 3.1 2.4 4.2 6.9 20.4 16.7 6.0 7.1 7.2 1.7 Stratford 0.0 2.7 0.5 0.9 8.0 1.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.8 Walthamstow 0.0 1.3 0.5 0.0 5.0 2.4 3.2 0.5 0.9 0.3 0.0 1.3 Angel 3.5 1.1 0.9 1.1 0.9 1.6 0.3 1.0 2.7 4.4 8.3 0.3 Nags Head 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.6 4.3 0.3 2.8 2.2 0.3 Bluewater 2.3 1.3 1.0 2.9 3.3 2.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.0 Finsbury Park 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 Lakeside 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.4 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.6 Other 10.8 8.5 13.8 9.9 14.4 7.7 9.8 10.9 6.6 7.7 7.5 13.0 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

NOTES: Trade Diversion Percentages - the figures are the weighted scores from the previous table converted to percentages.

Page 7 of 21 LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY : RETAIL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Table 4.8 Impact of the Kingsland Centre Extension, Dalston - Distribution of Comparison Goods Monetary Trade Diversion (£ millions) - 2006

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10 Zone 11 Zone 12 All Zones £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m LB HACKNEY CENTRES Dalston Kingsland 0.24 0.14 0.13 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.02 0.88 Hackney Mare Street 0.03 0.07 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.26 Stoke Newington 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 Stamford Hill 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01

OTHER CENTRES LOCATED BEYOND THE STUDY AREA West End 1.75 1.40 1.38 0.91 0.59 0.55 0.32 0.52 1.45 0.31 1.67 0.56 11.40 Wood Green 0.10 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.12 0.14 0.12 0.03 0.18 0.01 0.93 Stratford 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.19 Walthamstow 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.16 Angel 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.20 0.00 0.45 Nags Head 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.13 Bluewater 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.22 Finsbury Park 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 Lakeside 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.12 Other 0.28 0.17 0.27 0.12 0.15 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.13 0.03 0.18 0.10 1.64 TOTAL 2.6 2.0 1.9 1.2 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.8 1.9 0.4 2.4 0.7 16.6

NOTES: Trade Diversion Money Values - The figures are the percentage trade draw (refer to previous table) multiplyied by the trade draw to the scheme (bottom row of Table 4.5).

All monetary values are in millions of pounds (£m) and are held constant at 2001 prices.

Page 8 of 21 LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY : RETAIL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Table 4.9 Impact of the Kingsland Centre Extension, Dalston - Inflow Turnover Trade Diversion Post-Kingsland Centre Extension, Dalston - 2006

Inflow Pre- Diversion to Proposal (2) Inflow Post- K'land Centre K'land Centre Extension (1) Extension (3)

£m % £m £m LB HACKNEY CENTRES Dalston Kingsland 7.8 1.8 0.1 7.7 Hackney Mare Street 1.9 1.8 0.0 1.9 Stoke Newington 1.1 1.8 0.0 1.1 Stamford Hill 0.4 - - 0.4

OTHER CENTRES LOCATED BEYOND THE STUDY AREA West End 4,188.0 0.0 0.8 4,187.2 Wood Green 155.2 0.2 0.3 154.9 Stratford 170.5 0.1 0.1 170.4 Walthamstow 271.0 0.1 0.1 270.9 Angel 53.6 0.1 0.0 53.6 Nags Head 55.1 0.1 0.0 55.0 1.6 Bluewater 692.6 - - 692.6 Finsbury Park 16.6 - - 16.6 Lakeside 515.2 - - 515.2 Other - - 0.2 TOTAL 1.8

NOTES: (1) Inflow Pre-Kingsland Centre Extension - RTP estimate based on results of the Visitors' Survey for the LB Hackney centres and in the case of the other centres, other published reports. (2) Inflow diversion - RTP estimates. (3) Inflow Post-Kingsland Centre Extension - (1) minus (2).

All monetary values are in millions of pounds (£m) and are held constant at 2001 prices.

Page 9 of 21 LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY : RETAIL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Table 4.10 Impact of the Kingsland Centre Extension, Dalston - Comparison Goods Impact - 2006

Post- No Development Centre Turnover Diversion Extension Kingsland Annual Rate of 2004 2006to Kingsland Centre Extension -2006 Extension Turnover Growth '04-06 No Post- From The From Development Development Turnover Turnover Study Area Beyond Total Turnover Impact £m £m £m £m £m £m % % %

LB HACKNEY CENTRES Dalston Kingsland 72.9 78.2 0.9 0.1 1.0 77.2 -1.3 3.56 2.88 Kingsland Centre Extension 18.4 Hackney Mare Street 36.2 38.9 0.3 0.0 0.3 38.6 -0.7 3.69 3.31 Stoke Newington 21.2 22.8 0.1 0.0 0.1 22.6 -0.6 3.68 3.35 Stamford Hill 7.6 8.2 0.0 - 0.0 8.2 -0.1 3.97 3.92

OTHER CENTRES LOCATED BEYOND THE STUDY AREA West End 4,230.1 4,552.2 11.4 0.8 12.2 4,540.0 -0.3 3.74 3.60 Wood Green 213.3 230.0 0.9 0.3 1.2 228.7 -0.5 3.84 3.56 Stratford 169.4 182.4 0.2 0.1 0.3 182.1 -0.2 3.77 3.69 Walthamstow 261.7 282.3 0.2 0.1 0.3 282.0 -0.1 3.86 3.80 Angel 92.4 99.2 0.5 0.0 0.5 98.8 -0.5 3.64 3.39 Nags Head 70.9 76.5 0.1 0.0 0.2 76.3 -0.2 3.81 3.71 Bluewater 656.9 705.0 0.2 - 0.2 704.7 -0.0 3.59 3.58 Finsbury Park 22.1 23.8 0.1 - 0.1 23.7 -0.2 3.73 3.62 Lakeside 483.7 523.0 0.1 - 0.1 522.9 -0.0 3.99 3.98 Other - - 1.6 0.2 1.9

TOTAL 6,338.3 6,822.4 16.6 1.8 18.4 6,824.3

NOTES: Turnover data - 'No development centre turnover' sourced from Tables 4.3 and 4.4. Post-Kingsland Centre Extension turnover is the product of the no dvelopment turnover minus the diversion. Diversion data - Diversion from the Study Area sourced from Table 4.8 Diversion turnover inflow sourced from Table 4.9. Impact - the total trade diversion as a percentage of the 2006 no development forecast centre turnover. Annual Turnover Growth Rates - growth rates for the 'no development' and 'post-development' scenarios.

All monetary values are in millions of pounds (£m) and are held constant at 2001 prices.

Page 10 of 21 LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY : RETAIL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Table 4.11 Impact of the Kingsland Centre Extension, Dalston - Comparison Goods Spending Patterns and Total Turnover Post-Kingsland Centre Extension, Dalston - 2006

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10 Zone 11 Zone 12 All From Total Zones Beyond Turnover £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m LB HACKNEY CENTRES Dalston Kingsland 10.84 8.29 8.13 5.08 4.48 3.32 2.40 3.55 8.17 1.77 10.28 3.15 69.5 7.7 77.2 Kingsland Centre Extension 2.61 1.99 1.95 1.21 1.07 0.79 0.57 0.84 1.95 0.42 2.45 0.75 16.6 1.8 18.4 Hackney Mare Street 1.97 6.64 2.24 5.13 5.27 4.92 2.07 2.26 1.73 0.65 0.75 3.05 36.7 1.9 38.6 Stoke Newington 1.38 1.21 0.00 0.29 0.00 3.42 3.07 4.11 5.92 1.29 0.00 0.84 21.5 1.1 22.6 Stamford Hill 0.00 0.30 0.35 0.00 0.56 0.19 2.76 3.22 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.8 0.4 8.2 LB Hackney Total 16.8 18.4 12.7 11.7 11.4 12.6 10.9 14.0 18.2 4.1 13.5 7.8 152.0 13.0 165.0

OTHER CENTRES LOCATED BEYOND THE STUDY AREA West End 22.54 24.48 24.47 30.90 16.69 27.14 18.13 35.68 32.02 42.15 45.80 32.77 352.8 4,187.2 4,540.0 Wood Green 2.57 1.84 2.20 2.03 2.58 5.36 13.25 19.45 5.29 7.97 9.77 1.50 73.8 154.9 228.7 Stratford 0.00 1.96 0.35 0.76 4.94 0.85 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.62 11.7 170.4 182.1 Walthamstow 0.00 0.95 0.35 0.00 3.09 1.84 2.06 0.61 0.80 0.32 0.00 1.12 11.1 270.9 282.0 Angel 4.10 1.38 1.07 1.53 0.90 2.06 0.33 1.98 4.04 8.32 19.08 0.41 45.2 53.6 98.8 Nags Head 0.37 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.68 8.34 0.39 5.23 4.93 0.41 21.3 55.0 76.3 Bluewater 1.59 0.95 0.70 2.38 2.05 1.95 0.68 0.61 0.00 0.32 0.89 0.00 12.1 692.6 704.7 Finsbury Park 1.07 0.60 0.70 0.86 0.28 0.00 0.51 0.99 0.39 0.57 0.34 0.77 7.1 16.6 23.7 Lakeside 0.58 0.30 0.35 0.67 0.89 0.61 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.33 2.34 7.7 515.2 522.9 Other 12.82 10.21 16.58 13.80 14.99 10.09 10.61 21.19 9.85 14.37 17.22 19.17 170.9 GRAND TOTAL 45.6 42.7 47.5 52.9 46.4 50.1 47.6 88.9 52.8 79.7 99.4 60.1 713.7 TOTAL 62.4 61.1 60.1 64.6 57.8 62.8 58.5 102.8 70.9 83.9 112.8 67.9 865.7

NOTES: Spending Patterns - the figures for the Zones are the post-development turnovers. Inflow - the turnover derived from beyond the zones is sourced from the "Total Inflow Post-Kingsland Centre Extension column in Table 4.10.

All monetary values are in millions of pounds (£m) and are held constant at 2001 prices.

Page 11 of 21 LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY : RETAIL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Table 4.12 Impact of the Kingsland Centre Extension, Dalston - Comparison Goods Market Shares Post-Kingsland Centre Extension, Dalston - 2006

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10 Zone 11 Zone 12 % % % %% % % % % %%% LB HACKNEY CENTRES Dalston Kingsland 17.4 13.6 13.5 7.9 7.8 5.3 4.1 3.5 11.5 2.1 9.1 4.6 Kingsland Centre Extension 4.2 3.2 3.2 1.9 1.8 1.3 1.0 0.8 2.7 0.5 2.2 1.1 Hackney Mare Street 3.2 10.9 3.7 7.9 9.1 7.8 3.5 2.2 2.4 0.8 0.7 4.5 Stoke Newington 2.2 2.0 - 0.4 - 5.4 5.3 4.0 8.3 1.5 - 1.2 Stamford Hill - 0.5 0.6 - 1.0 0.3 4.7 3.1 0.6 - - - LB Hackney Total 26.9 30.2 21.1 18.1 19.7 20.1 18.6 13.6 25.6 4.9 11.9 11.5 OTHER CENTRES LOCATED BEYOND THE STUDY AREA West End 36.1 40.1 40.7 47.8 28.9 43.2 31.0 34.7 45.1 50.3 40.6 48.3 Wood Green 4.1 3.0 3.7 3.1 4.5 8.5 22.7 18.9 7.5 9.5 8.7 2.2 Stratford - 3.2 0.6 1.2 8.6 1.4 1.2 - - 0.6 - 2.4 Walthamstow - 1.6 0.6 - 5.3 2.9 3.5 0.6 1.1 0.4 - 1.7 Angel 6.6 2.3 1.8 2.4 1.6 3.3 0.6 1.9 5.7 9.9 16.9 0.6 Nags Head 0.6 - 1.2 - - 0.4 1.2 8.1 0.5 6.2 4.4 0.6 Bluewater 2.5 1.6 1.2 3.7 3.5 3.1 1.2 0.6 - 0.4 0.8 - Finsbury Park 1.7 1.0 1.2 1.3 0.5 - 0.9 1.0 0.5 0.7 0.3 1.1 Lakeside 0.9 0.5 0.6 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.1 - - - 1.2 3.4 Other 20.5 16.7 27.6 21.4 25.9 16.1 18.1 20.6 13.9 17.1 15.3 28.2 Total Other Centres 73.1 69.8 78.9 81.9 80.3 79.9 81.4 86.4 74.4 95.1 88.1 88.5 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

NOTES: The post-Kingsland Centre Extension Market Shares- represent the post-development turnovers as a proportion of the available expenditure (Table 4.4).

Page 12 of 21 LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY : RETAIL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Table 4.13 Comparison Goods Spending Patterns and Turnover - 2011

ZONE 1 ZONE 2 ZONE 3 ZONE 4 ZONE 5 ZONE 6 ZONE 7 ZONE 8 ZONE 9 ZONE 10 ZONE 11 ZONE 12 All From Total Floor- Sales Zones Beyond Turnover space Density £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m sqm net £/sqm

LB HACKNEY CENTRES Dalston Kingsland 15.9 12.3 12.0 7.4 6.7 4.9 3.7 5.3 11.7 2.6 15.3 5.0 102.9 11.4 114.3 21,547 5,306 Hackney Mare Street 2.3 7.9 2.7 6.1 6.4 5.9 2.6 2.7 2.0 0.8 0.9 3.9 44.2 2.3 46.5 9,585 4,855 Stoke Newington 1.6 1.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 4.1 3.9 4.9 6.9 1.6 0.0 1.1 25.8 1.4 27.2 7,651 3,549 Stamford Hill 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.2 3.5 3.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.5 0.8 10.3 2,962 3,476 LB Hackney Total 19.8 22.0 15.2 13.8 13.8 15.2 13.7 16.8 21.0 5.0 16.2 9.9 182.4 15.9 198.3 41,744 OTHER CENTRES LOCATED BEYOND THE STUDY AREA West End 26.6 29.2 29.3 36.5 20.3 32.6 22.9 42.9 37.1 50.9 55.0 41.6 424.9 4,886.4 5,311.3 706,110 7,522 Wood Green 3.0 2.2 2.6 2.4 3.1 6.4 16.7 23.4 6.1 9.6 11.7 1.9 89.3 185.6 274.9 48,580 5,659 Stratford 0.0 2.3 0.4 0.9 6.0 1.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 2.1 14.2 204.4 218.6 40,410 5,409 Walthamstow 0.0 1.1 0.4 0.0 3.8 2.2 2.6 0.7 0.9 0.4 0.0 1.4 13.6 325.9 339.5 60,105 5,648 Angel 4.8 1.6 1.3 1.8 1.1 2.5 0.4 2.4 4.7 10.0 22.9 0.5 54.1 63.5 117.6 15,358 7,657 Nags Head 0.4 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.9 10.0 0.4 6.3 5.9 0.5 25.7 66.0 91.6 18,282 5,011 Bluewater 1.9 1.1 0.8 2.8 2.5 2.3 0.9 0.7 0.0 0.4 1.1 0.0 14.5 816.1 830.6 86,504 9,602 Finsbury Park 1.3 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.6 1.2 0.5 0.7 0.4 1.0 8.5 19.9 28.4 9,565 2,974 Lakeside 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.8 1.1 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 3.0 9.5 621.4 630.9 93,390 6,755 Other 15.1 12.2 19.8 16.3 18.2 12.1 13.4 25.5 11.4 17.4 20.7 24.3 206.5 - Total Other Centres 53.8 50.9 56.8 62.6 56.4 60.3 60.0 107.0 61.1 96.3 119.3 76.3 860.8 7,189.0 7,843.3 TOTAL 73.6 72.9 71.9 76.4 70.3 75.4 73.7 123.8 82.2 101.3 135.5 86.2 1,043.2 7,204.9 8,041.6

NOTES: The figures roll forward the 2006 centre turnovers to 2011 by using the post-Kingsland Centre Extension market shares (Table 4.13) and the 2011 expenditure forecasts (Table 5.3). All monetary values are in millions of pounds (£m) and are held constant at 2001 prices.

Page 13 of 21 LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY : RETAIL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Table 4.14 Impact of Stratford City - Comparison Goods Scheme Turnover and Trade Draw Estimates - 2011

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10 Zone 11 Zone 12 All From Total Floor- Sales Zones Beyond Turnover space Density £m sqm net £/sqm

Trade Draw to the Scheme (%) 2.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 1.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 22.0 78.0 100

Trade Draw to the Scheme (£m) 10.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 20.0 15.0 7.5 2.5 7.5 2.5 2.5 7.5 110.0 390.0 500.0 75,000 6,666

NOTES: Floorspace and turnover - Hillier Parker 'Stratford City Retail Study' prepared on behelf of Chelsfield Stanhope LCR in April 2003 in support of a planning application. Trade draw to the scheme - the percentage trade draw figures are RTP estimates, based on Hillier Parker's assessment of the likely trade draw pattern.

All monetary values are in millions of pounds (£m) and are held constant at 2001 prices.

Page 14 of 21 LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY : RETAIL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Table 4.15 Impact of Stratford City - Weighting Factors and Comparison Goods Trade Draw Weighting Scores - 2011

Weighting Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10 Zone 11 Zone 12 Factor weighting score weighting score weighting score weighting score weighting score weighting score weighting score weighting score weighting score weighting score weighting score weighting score LB HACKNEY CENTRES Dalston Kingsland 6.0 42 33 33 19 19 13 10 8 28 5 22 11 Hackney Mare Street 4.0 13 43 15 32 36 31 14 9 10 3 3 18 Stoke Newington 4.0 98 02 022211633605 Stamford Hill 1.0 00 10 1 053 1000

OTHER CENTRES LOCATED BEYOND THE STUDY AREA West End 20.0 722 801 814 956 577 865 620 694 903 1005 812 966 Wood Green 10.0 41 30 37 31 45 85 227 189 75 95 87 22 Stratford 10.0 0 32 6 12 86 14 12 0 0 6 0 24 Walthamstow 10.0 0 16 6 0 53 29 35 6 11 4 0 17 Angel 6.0 39 14 11 14 9 20 3 12 34 60 101 4 Nags Head 6.0 4 0 7 0 0 2 7 49 3 37 26 4 Bluewater 10.0 25 16 12 37 35 31 12 6 0 4 8 0 Finsbury Park 4.0 74 55 2 034 2315 Lakeside 10.0 9 5 6 10 15 10 11 0 0 0 12 34 Other 6.0 123 100 165 128 156 96 109 124 83 103 92 169 TOTAL 1035 1102 1116 1247 1035 1218 1089 1119 1183 1331 1163 1278

NOTES: Zonal Weighting Scores - the figures are the 2004 market shares (Table 2.6A) multiplied by the relevant weighting factor (first column of this table).

Page 15 of 21 LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY : RETAIL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Table 4.16 Impact of Stratford City - Comparison Goods Pattern of Trade Diversion - 2011

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10 Zone 11 Zone 12 % % % %% % % % % %%% LB HACKNEY CENTRES Dalston Kingsland 4.1 3.0 3.0 1.5 1.8 1.1 0.9 0.7 2.4 0.4 1.9 0.9 Hackney Mare Street 1.2 3.9 1.3 2.5 3.5 2.6 1.3 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.2 1.4 Stoke Newington 0.9 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.8 1.9 1.4 2.8 0.5 0.0 0.4 Stamford Hill 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

OTHER CENTRES LOCATED BEYOND THE STUDY AREA West End 69.8 72.7 73.0 76.7 55.8 71.0 56.9 62.0 76.3 75.5 69.8 75.6 Wood Green 4.0 2.7 3.3 2.5 4.3 7.0 20.8 16.9 6.3 7.1 7.4 1.7 Stratford 0.0 2.9 0.5 0.9 8.3 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.9 Walthamstow 0.0 1.4 0.5 0.0 5.2 2.4 3.2 0.5 1.0 0.3 0.0 1.3 Angel 3.8 1.2 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.6 0.3 1.0 2.9 4.5 8.7 0.3 Nags Head 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.6 4.3 0.3 2.8 2.3 0.3 Bluewater 2.5 1.4 1.0 3.0 3.4 2.5 1.1 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.0 Finsbury Park 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.4 Lakeside 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.5 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.7 Other 11.9 9.1 14.8 10.3 15.0 7.9 10.0 11.0 7.0 7.7 7.9 13.3 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

NOTES: Trade Diversion Percentages - the figures are the weighted scores from the previous table converted to percentages.

Page 16 of 21 LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY : RETAIL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Table 4.17 Impact of Stratford City - Comparison Goods Trade Diversion - 2011

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10 Zone 11 Zone 12 All Zones £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m LB HACKNEY CENTRES Dalston Kingsland 0.41 0.45 0.15 0.23 0.36 0.16 0.07 0.02 0.18 0.01 0.05 0.07 2.15 Hackney Mare Street 0.12 0.59 0.07 0.38 0.71 0.39 0.10 0.02 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.11 2.55 Stoke Newington 0.09 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.27 0.14 0.04 0.21 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.91 Stamford Hill 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 OTHER CENTRES LOCATED BEYOND 0.00 West End 6.98 10.90 3.65 11.50 11.16 10.65 4.27 1.55 5.72 1.89 1.74 5.67 75.67 Wood Green 0.40 0.41 0.16 0.38 0.86 1.05 1.56 0.42 0.47 0.18 0.19 0.13 6.21 Stratford 0.00 0.44 0.03 0.14 1.65 0.17 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.14 2.66 Walthamstow 0.00 0.21 0.03 0.00 1.03 0.36 0.24 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.10 2.06 Angel 0.38 0.18 0.05 0.17 0.18 0.24 0.02 0.03 0.22 0.11 0.22 0.02 1.82 Nags Head 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.11 0.02 0.07 0.06 0.02 0.42 Bluewater 0.25 0.21 0.05 0.44 0.68 0.38 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 2.14 Finsbury Park 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.32 Lakeside 0.09 0.07 0.03 0.12 0.30 0.12 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.20 1.03 Other 1.19 1.36 0.74 1.54 3.01 1.19 0.75 0.28 0.53 0.19 0.20 0.99 11.97 TOTAL 10.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 20.0 15.0 7.5 2.5 7.5 2.5 2.5 7.5 110.0

NOTES: Trade Diversion Money Values - The figures are the percentage trade draw (refer to previous table) multiplyied by the trade draw to the scheme (bottom row of Table 414).

All monetary values are in millions of pounds (£m) and are held constant at 2001 prices.

Page 17 of 21 LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY : RETAIL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Table 4.18 Impact of Stratford City - Inflow Turnover Trade Diversion Post-Stratford City - 2011

Inflow Diversion to Proposal (2) Inflow Post- Pre-Stratford Stratford City (3) City (1)

£m % £m £m LB HACKNEY CENTRES Dalston Kingsland 11.4 5.0 0.6 10.8 Hackney Mare Street 2.3 5.0 0.1 2.2 Stoke Newington 1.4 2.5 0.0 1.3 Stamford Hill 0.8 - - 0.8 15.9 OTHER CENTRES LOCATED BEYOND - West End 4,886.4 3.4 164.9 4,721.5 Wood Green 185.6 1.9 3.5 182.0 Stratford 204.4 10.0 20.4 183.9 Walthamstow 325.9 10.0 32.6 293.3 Angel 63.5 7.0 4.4 59.1 Nags Head 66.0 3.4 2.2 63.7 Bluewater 816.1 4.0 32.6 783.4 Finsbury Park 19.9 - - 19.9 Lakeside 621.4 5.0 31.1 590.3 Other - - 97.4 TOTAL 390.0

NOTES: (1) Inflow Pre-Stratford City from Table 4.13. (2) Inflow diversion - RTP estimates. (3) Inflow Post-Stratford City - (1) minus (2).

All monetary values are in millions of pounds (£m) and are held constant at 2001 prices.

Page 18 of 21 LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY : RETAIL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Table 4.19 Impact of Stratford City - Comparison Goods Impact - 2011

Pre-Stratford CityDiversion Post-Stratford Stratford Annual Rate of 2006 2011to Stratford City City - 2011 City Turnover Growth '06-11 No Post- From The From Development Development Turnover Turnover Study Area Beyond Total Turnover Impact £m £m £m £m £m £m % % %

LB HACKNEY CENTRES Dalston Kingsland 95.6 114.3 2.1 0.6 2.7 111.6 -2.4 3.65 3.15 Hackney Mare Street 38.6 46.5 2.5 0.1 2.7 43.9 -5.7 3.81 2.60 Stoke Newington 22.6 27.2 0.9 0.0 0.9 26.2 -3.5 3.72 2.98 Stamford Hill 8.2 10.3 0.1 - 0.1 10.2 -0.7 4.67 4.52

OTHER CENTRES LOCATED BEYOND THE STUDY AREA West End 4,540.0 5,311.3 75.7 164.9 240.6 5,070.7 -4.5 3.19 2.24 Wood Green 228.7 274.9 6.2 3.5 9.7 265.2 -3.5 3.75 3.00 Stratford 182.1 218.6 2.7 20.4 23.1 195.5 -10.6 3.72 1.43 Stratford City 500.0 Walthamstow 282.0 339.5 2.1 32.6 34.7 304.8 -10.2 3.78 1.57 Angel 98.8 117.6 1.8 4.4 6.3 111.3 -5.3 3.55 2.42 Nags Head 76.3 91.6 0.4 2.2 2.7 89.0 -2.9 3.73 3.12 Bluewater 704.7 830.6 2.1 32.6 34.8 795.8 -4.2 3.34 2.46 Finsbury Park 23.7 28.4 0.3 - 0.3 28.1 -1.1 3.70 3.46 Lakeside 522.9 630.9 1.0 31.1 32.1 598.8 -5.1 3.82 2.75 Other - - 12.0 97.4 109.3

TOTAL 6,824.3 8,041.6 110.0 390.0 500.0 8,151.0

NOTES: Turnover data - 'No development centre turnover' sourced from Tables 4.11 and 4.13. Post-Stratford City turnover is the product of the no dvelopment turnover minus the diversion. Diversion data - Diversion from the Study Area sourced from Table 4.16 Diversion turnover inflow sourced from Table 4.18. Impact - the total trade diversion as a percentage of the 2011 pre-Stratford City forecast turnover. Annual Turnover Growth Rates - growth rates for the 'no development' and 'post-development' scenarios.

All monetary values are in millions of pounds (£m) and are held constant at 2001 prices.

Page 19 of 21 LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY : RETAIL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Table 4.20 Impact of Stratford City - Comparison Goods Spending Patterns and Total Turnover Post-Stratford City - 2011

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10 Zone 11 Zone 12 All From Total Zones Beyond Turnover £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m LB HACKNEY CENTRES Dalston Kingsland 15.44 11.82 11.90 7.21 6.38 4.77 3.67 5.27 11.55 2.63 15.24 4.89 100.8 10.8 111.6 Hackney Mare Street 2.20 7.34 2.62 5.68 5.71 5.53 2.51 2.70 1.94 0.78 0.89 3.76 41.7 2.2 43.9 Stoke Newington 1.54 1.33 0.00 0.32 0.00 3.84 3.73 4.91 6.65 1.54 0.00 1.03 24.9 1.3 26.2 Stamford Hill 0.00 0.36 0.42 0.00 0.66 0.22 3.45 3.87 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.4 0.8 10.2 LB Hackney Total 19.2 20.8 14.9 13.2 12.8 14.4 13.4 16.8 20.6 5.0 16.1 9.7 176.8 15.1 191.9

OTHER CENTRES LOCATED BEYOND THE STUDY AREA West End 19.58 18.31 25.61 25.04 9.13 21.97 18.59 41.40 31.37 49.01 53.26 35.95 349.2 4,721.5 5,070.7 Wood Green 2.63 1.79 2.47 2.02 2.27 5.39 15.15 22.99 5.66 9.44 11.54 1.78 83.1 182.0 265.2 Stratford 0.00 1.90 0.39 0.76 4.36 0.86 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 1.91 11.6 183.9 195.5 Stratford City 10.00 15.00 5.00 15.00 20.00 15.00 7.50 2.50 7.50 2.50 2.50 7.50 110.0 390.0 500.0 Walthamstow 0.00 0.92 0.39 0.00 2.72 1.85 2.35 0.72 0.86 0.37 0.00 1.33 11.5 293.3 304.8 Angel 4.45 1.47 1.23 1.64 0.91 2.23 0.40 2.36 4.46 9.94 22.69 0.49 52.3 59.1 111.3 Nags Head 0.40 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.81 9.93 0.43 6.25 5.86 0.49 25.2 63.7 89.0 Bluewater 1.62 0.92 0.79 2.38 1.80 1.96 0.78 0.72 0.00 0.37 1.05 0.00 12.4 783.4 795.8 Finsbury Park 1.19 0.67 0.82 0.95 0.30 0.00 0.62 1.19 0.44 0.68 0.40 0.95 8.2 19.9 28.1 Lakeside 0.59 0.29 0.39 0.66 0.79 0.62 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.57 2.76 8.4 590.3 598.8 Other 13.92 10.83 19.09 14.78 15.22 10.94 12.62 25.23 10.88 17.16 20.48 23.35 194.5 Total Other Centres 54.4 52.1 57.0 63.2 57.5 61.1 60.4 107.0 61.6 96.3 119.4 76.5 866.5 TOTAL 73.6 72.9 71.9 76.4 70.3 75.4 73.7 123.8 82.2 101.3 135.5 86.2 1,043.2

NOTES: Spending Patterns - the figures for the Zones are the post-development turnovers. Inflow - the turnover derived from beyond the zones is sourced from the "Total Inflow Post-Stratford City column in Table 4.18.

All monetary values are in millions of pounds (£m) and are held constant at 2001 prices.

Page 20 of 21 LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY : RETAIL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Table 4.21 Impact of Stratford City - Comparison Goods Market Shares Post-Stratford City - 2011

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10 Zone 11 Zone 12 % % % %% % % % % %%% LB HACKNEY CENTRES Dalston Kingsland 21.0 16.2 16.5 9.4 9.1 6.3 5.0 4.3 14.1 2.6 11.3 5.7 Hackney Mare Street 3.0 10.1 3.6 7.4 8.1 7.3 3.4 2.2 2.4 0.8 0.7 4.4 Stoke Newington 2.1 1.8 - 0.4 - 5.1 5.1 4.0 8.1 1.5 - 1.2 Stamford Hill - 0.5 0.6 - 0.9 0.3 4.7 3.1 0.5 - - - LB Hackney Total 26.1 28.6 20.8 17.3 18.2 19.0 18.1 13.5 25.1 4.9 11.9 11.2 OTHER CENTRES LOCATED BEYOND THE STUDY AREA West End 26.6 25.1 35.6 32.8 13.0 29.1 25.2 33.4 38.2 48.4 39.3 41.7 Wood Green 3.6 2.5 3.4 2.6 3.2 7.1 20.5 18.6 6.9 9.3 8.5 2.1 Stratford - 2.6 0.5 1.0 6.2 1.1 1.1 - - 0.6 - 2.2 Stratford City 13.6 20.6 7.0 19.6 28.5 19.9 10.2 2.0 9.1 2.5 1.8 8.7 Walthamstow - 1.3 0.5 - 3.9 2.5 3.2 0.6 1.0 0.4 - 1.5 Angel 6.1 2.0 1.7 2.1 1.3 3.0 0.5 1.9 5.4 9.8 16.7 0.6 Nags Head 0.5 - 1.1 - - 0.3 1.1 8.0 0.5 6.2 4.3 0.6 Bluewater 2.2 1.3 1.1 3.1 2.6 2.6 1.1 0.6 - 0.4 0.8 - Finsbury Park 1.6 0.9 1.1 1.2 0.4 - 0.8 1.0 0.5 0.7 0.3 1.1 Lakeside 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.9 1.1 0.8 1.0 - - - 1.2 3.2 Other 18.9 14.8 26.5 19.3 21.7 14.5 17.1 20.4 13.2 16.9 15.1 27.1 Total Other Centres 73.9 71.4 79.2 82.7 81.8 81.0 81.9 86.5 74.9 95.1 88.1 88.8 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

NOTES: The post-Stratford City Market Shares - represent the post-development turnovers as a proportion of the available expenditure (Table 5.3).

Page 21 of 21

APPENDIX 5

RETAIL NEED TABULATIONS

LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY : RETAIL NEED ASSESSMENT

Table 5.1 Allowances for Claims on Expenditure - Comparison Goods Floorspace Uptake of Core Area Voids and Commitments - 2006

(i) Turnover of the LB Hackney Existing Provision All Zones Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10 Zone 11 Zone 12 Total £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m Existing Provision (£ millions) 2004 (1) 13.6 15.5 10.2 9.9 9.7 11.1 9.4 12.3 15.4 3.4 10.4 6.4 127.3 Existing Provision (£ millions) 2006 14.3 16.3 10.7 10.4 10.2 11.6 9.9 12.9 16.2 3.6 10.9 6.8 133.7 Existing Provision (£ millions) Growth 2004/2006 0.69 0.79 0.52 0.50 0.49 0.56 0.48 0.62 0.78 0.17 0.53 0.33 6.44

(ii) Uptake of Vacant LB Hackney Property Gross Floorspace Sales Sales Total Turnover Derived Floorspace (2) Ratio (3) Floorspace Density (3) Turnover from Study Area (3)

sqm % sqm net £/sqm £m % £m

Dalston Kingsland 0 70% 0 4,405 0.0 90% 0.0 Hackney Mare Street 253 70% 177 4,057 0.7 95% 0.7 Stoke Newington 428 70% 300 2,977 0.9 95% 0.8 Vacancy Uptake Total 681 477 1.6 1.5

(iii) Planning Commitments Gross Floorspace Sales Sales Total Turnover Derived Floorspace (2) Ratio (3) Floorspace Density (3) Turnover from Study Area (3)

sqm % sqm net £/sqm £m % £m

Kingsland Shopping Centre Extension 4,227 90% 3,800 4,846 18.4 90% 16.6

NOTES: (1) Source : Table 4.2 (2) Source: Vacanct floorspacedata from RTP land use survey, with 75% of vacant space alloted for comparison goods use. Data for commitments from LB Hackney. (3) Source: RTP estimates.

All monetary values are held constant at 2001 prices.

Page 1 of 10 LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY : RETAIL NEED ASSESSMENT

Table 5.2i Forecast Year - 2006 - Comparison Goods Floorspace Requirement - Adopting the Baseline Market Shares (Scenario A)

All Zones Beyond the Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10 Zone 11 Zone 12 Grand Total Total Study Area

Available Expenditure

Popluation (1) 21,202 22,371 22,285 23,489 23,111 21,559 23,826 36,537 21,369 23,932 34,216 26,426 300,322

Per Capita Expenditure (£) (2) 2,944 2,732 2,699 2,752 2,501 2,912 2,454 2,815 3,320 3,504 3,298 2,569

Total Available Expenditure (£ millions) (3) 62.4 61.1 60.1 64.6 57.8 62.8 58.5 102.8 70.9 83.9 112.8 67.9 865.7

LB Hackney Centres ' Market Share (%) (4) 23.2 27.3 18.1 16.4 18.0 19.0 17.7 12.8 23.1 4.4 9.9 10.4

LB Hackney Centres' Market Share (£ millions) (4) 14.5 16.7 10.9 10.6 10.4 11.9 10.3 13.2 16.4 3.7 11.1 7.1 136.7 Claims on Available Expenditure (5)

Existing Provision (£ millions) 14.3 16.3 10.7 10.4 10.2 11.6 9.9 12.9 16.2 3.6 10.9 6.8 133.7

Vacancy take up 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 1.5

Commitments 2.6 2.0 2.0 1.2 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.8 2.0 0.4 2.4 0.7 16.6

Residual Expenditure (£ millions) (6) -2.7 -1.8 -1.9 -1.1 -1.0 -0.6 -0.2 -0.6 -2.0 -0.3 -2.4 -0.5 -15.1 0.2 -14.9

(7) Floorspace Requirement -551 -374 -399 -231 -203 -118 -38 -125 -409 -70 -500 -102 -3,120 40 -3,080

NOTES: (1) The population figures are sourcd from the GLA Round 8.1 . (2) The per capita comparison goods expenditure figures are derived from 2001 estimates obtained from Mapinfo net of SFT at 8.4% and net of DIY and hardware goods expenditure at 8%, with a growth rate of 3.4%/annum applied as forecast by Mapinfo/Oxford Economic Forecasters. (3) Total expenditure is the product of population multiplied by per capita expenditure. (4) The percentage market shares for LB Hackney centres sourced from the 2004 household survey, and converted to the forecast year monetary values. (5) The claims on the available expenditure for which deductions need to be made - (i) The turnover of the existing provision at the forecast year, with an allowance of 2.5%/annum for growth, (ii) an allowance for the potentail takeup of currently vacant floorspace (as set out in the above table and distributed across the Study Area in accordance with existing market shares. (6) The residual expenditure is that which remains after the total for claims is deducted from the available expenditure. (7) The Borough-wide floorspace requirement is the residual expenditure divided by a sales density that we consider new floorspace would achieve. It is a sales area figure (ie a net floorspace requirement). All monetary values are held constant at 2001 prices.

Page 2 of 10 LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY : RETAIL NEED ASSESSMENT

Table 5.2ii Forecast Year - 2006 - Comparison Goods Floorspace Requirement - Adopting the Baseline Market Shares adjusted to reflect impact of the Extension to the Kingsland Shopping Centre and Stratford City (Scenario B)

All Zones Beyond the Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10 Zone 11 Zone 12 Grand Total Total Study Area

Available Expenditure

Popluation (1) 21,202 22,371 22,285 23,489 23,111 21,559 23,826 36,537 21,369 23,932 34,216 26,426 300,322

Per Capita Expenditure (£) (2) 2,944 2,732 2,699 2,752 2,501 2,912 2,454 2,815 3,320 3,504 3,298 2,569

Total Available Expenditure (£ millions) (3) 62 61 60 65 58 63 58 103 71 84 113 68 865.7

LB Hackney Centres ' Market Share (%) (4) 26.9 30.2 21.1 18.1 19.7 20.1 18.6 13.6 25.6 4.9 11.9 11.5

LB Hackney Centres' Market Share (£ millions) (4) 16.8 18.4 12.7 11.7 11.4 12.6 10.9 14.0 18.2 4.1 13.5 7.8 152.0 Claims on Available Expenditure (5)

Existing Provision (£ millions) 14.3 16.3 10.7 10.4 10.2 11.6 9.9 12.9 16.2 3.6 10.9 6.8 133.7

Vacancy take up 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 1.5

Commitments 2.6 2.0 2.0 1.2 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.8 2.0 0.4 2.4 0.7 16.6

Residual Expenditure (£ millions) (6) -0.3 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.2 -0.2 0.1 -0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4

(7) Floorspace Requirement -71 -10 -29 3 0 33 72 41 -43 15 -19 46 37 40 77

NOTES: (1) The population figures are sourcd from the GLA Round 8.1 . (2) The per capita comparison goods expenditure figures are derived from 2001 estimates obtained from Mapinfo net of SFT at 8.4%, with a growth rate of 3.4%/annum applied as forecast by Mapinfo/Oxford Economic Forecasters. (3) Total expenditure is the product of population multiplied by per capita expenditure. (4) The percentage market shares for LB Hackney centres sourced from the 2004 household survey, and converted to the forecast year monetary values. (5) The claims on the available expenditure for which deductions need to be made - (i) The turnover of the existing provision at the forecast year, with an allowance of 2.5%/annum for growth, (ii) an allowance for the potentail takeup of currently vacant floorspace (as set out in the above table and distributed across the Study Area in accordance with existing market shares. (6) The residual expenditure is that which remains after the total for claims is deducted from the available expenditure. (7) The Borough-wide floorspace requirement is the residual expenditure divided by a sales density that we consider new floorspace would achieve. It is a sales area figure (ie a net floorspace requirement). All monetary values are held constant at 2001 prices.

Page 3 of 10 LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY : RETAIL NEED ASSESSMENT

Table 5.2iii Forecast Year - 2006 - Comparison Goods Floorspace Requirement - Modest Upward Adjustments to some of the Market Shares (Scenario C)

All Zones Beyond the Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10 Zone 11 Zone 12 Grand Total Total Study Area

Available Expenditure

Popluation (1) 21,202 22,371 22,285 23,489 23,111 21,559 23,826 36,537 21,369 23,932 34,216 26,426 300,322

Per Capita Expenditure (£) (2) 2,944 2,732 2,699 2,752 2,501 2,912 2,454 2,815 3,320 3,504 3,298 2,569

Total Available Expenditure (£ millions) (3) 62.4 61.1 60.1 64.6 57.8 62.8 58.5 102.8 70.9 83.9 112.8 67.9 865.7

LB Hackney Centres ' Market Share (%) (4) 25.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 15.0 30.0 4.9 11.9 11.2

LB Hackney Centres' Market Share (£ millions) (4) 15.6 15.3 12.0 9.7 14.4 15.7 14.6 15.4 21.3 4.1 13.4 7.6 159.2 Claims on Available Expenditure (5)

Existing Provision (£ millions) 14.3 16.3 10.7 10.4 10.2 11.6 9.9 12.9 16.2 3.6 10.9 6.8 133.7

Vacancy take up 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 1.5

Commitments 2.6 2.0 2.0 1.2 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.8 2.0 0.4 2.4 0.7 16.6

Residual Expenditure (£ millions) (6) -1.5 -3.2 -0.8 -2.0 3.1 3.2 4.1 1.6 2.9 0.1 -0.1 0.1 7.4 0.2 7.6

(7) Floorspace Requirement -317 -662 -163 -411 632 665 847 338 600 10 -28 13 1,525 40 1,566

NOTES: (1) The population figures are based on the GLA Round 8.1figures for 2001 and 2006, with the annual growth rate over that period used to extrapolate the 2004 figures. (2) The per capita comparison goods expenditure figures are derived from 2001 estimates obtained from Mapinfo net of SFT at 8.4%, with a growth rate of 3.4%/annum applied as forecast by Mapinfo/Oxford Economic Forecasters. (3) Total expenditure is the product of population multiplied by per capita expenditure. (4) The percentage market shares for LB Hackney centres sourced from the 2004 household survey, and converted to the forecast year monetary values. (5) The claims on the available expenditure for which deductions need to be made - (i) The turnover of the existing provision at the forecast year, with an allowance of 2.5%/annum for growth, (ii) an allowance for the potentail takeup of currently vacant floorspace (as set out in the above table and distributed across the Study Area in accordance with existing market shares. (6) The residual expenditure is that which remains after the total for claims is deducted from the available expenditure. (7) The Borough-wide floorspace requirement is the residual expenditure divided by a sales density that we consider new floorspace would achieve. It is a sales area figure (ie a net floorspace requirement). All monetary values are held constant at 2001 prices.

Page 4 of 10 LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY : RETAIL NEED ASSESSMENT

Table 5.3i Forecast Year - 2011 - Comparison Goods Floorspace Requirement - Adopting the Baseline Market Shares (Scenario A)

All Zones Beyond the Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10 Zone 11 Zone 12 Grand Total Total Study Area

Available Expenditure

Popluation (1) 21,619 23,105 23,057 24,035 24,309 22,419 25,987 38,059 21,418 25,008 35,555 29,033 313,603

Per Capita Expenditure (£) (2) 3,403 3,157 3,119 3,180 2,890 3,365 2,836 3,253 3,837 4,050 3,811 2,969

Total Available Expenditure (£ millions) (3) 73.6 72.9 71.9 76.4 70.3 75.4 73.7 123.8 82.2 101.3 135.5 86.2 1,043.2

LB Hackney Centres ' Market Share (%) (4) 23.2 27.3 18.1 16.4 18.0 19.0 17.7 12.8 23.1 4.4 9.9 10.4

LB Hackney Centres' Market Share (£ millions) (4) 17.1 19.9 13.0 12.5 12.6 14.3 13.0 15.9 19.0 4.5 13.4 9.0 164.1 Claims on Available Expenditure (5)

Existing Provision (£ millions) 16.1 18.5 12.1 11.7 11.6 13.1 11.2 14.6 18.4 4.1 12.3 7.7 151.3

Vacancy take up 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.1 1.7

Commitments 3.0 2.2 2.2 1.4 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.9 2.2 0.5 2.8 0.8 18.8

Residual Expenditure (£ millions) (6) -2.3 -1.0 -1.5 -0.7 -0.2 0.2 1.1 0.3 -1.8 -0.1 -2.0 0.4 -7.7 0.2 -7.4

(7) Floorspace Requirement -427 -184 -271 -132 -43 35 205 49 -329 -18 -359 76 -1,399 46 -1,353

NOTES: (1) The population figures are based on the GLA Round 8.1figures for 2001 and 2006, with the annual growth rate over that period used to extrapolate the 2004 figures. (2) The per capita comparison goods expenditure figures are derived from 2001 estimates obtained from Mapinfo net of SFT at 8.4%, with a growth rate of 3.4%/annum applied as forecast by Mapinfo/Oxford Economic Forecasters. (3) Total expenditure is the product of population multiplied by per capita expenditure. (4) The percentage market shares for LB Hackney centres sourced from the 2004 household survey, and converted to the forecast year monetary values. (5) The claims on the available expenditure for which deductions need to be made - (i) The turnover of the existing provision at the forecast year, with an allowance of 2.5%/annum for growth, (ii) an allowance for the potentail takeup of currently vacant floorspace (as set out in the above table and distributed across the Study Area in accordance with existing market shares. (6) The residual expenditure is that which remains after the total for claims is deducted from the available expenditure. (7) The Borough-wide floorspace requirement is the residual expenditure divided by a sales density that we consider new floorspace would achieve. It is a sales area figure (ie a net floorspace requirement). All monetary values are held constant at 2001 prices.

Page 5 of 10 LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY : RETAIL NEED ASSESSMENT

Table 5.3ii Forecast Year - 2011 - Comparison Goods Floorspace Requirement - Adopting the Baseline Market Shares adjusted to reflect impact of the Extension to the Kingsland Shopping Centre and Stratford City (Scenario B)

All Zones Beyond the Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10 Zone 11 Zone 12 Grand Total Total Study Area

Available Expenditure

Popluation (1) 21,619 23,105 23,057 24,035 24,309 22,419 25,987 38,059 21,418 25,008 35,555 29,033 313,603

Per Capita Expenditure (£) (2) 3,403 3,157 3,119 3,180 2,890 3,365 2,836 3,253 3,837 4,050 3,811 2,969

Total Available Expenditure (£ millions) (3) 74 73 72 76 70 75 74 124 82 101 136 86 1,043.2

LB Hackney Centres ' Market Share (%) (4) 26.1 28.6 20.8 17.3 18.2 19.0 18.1 13.5 25.1 4.9 11.9 11.2

LB Hackney Centres' Market Share (£ millions) (4) 19.2 20.8 14.9 13.2 12.8 14.4 13.4 16.8 20.6 5.0 16.1 9.7 176.8 Claims on Available Expenditure (5)

Existing Provision (£ millions) 16.1 18.5 12.1 11.7 11.6 13.1 11.2 14.6 18.4 4.1 12.3 7.7 151.3

Vacancy take up 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.1 1.7

Commitments 3.0 2.2 2.2 1.4 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.9 2.2 0.5 2.8 0.8 18.8

Residual Expenditure (£ millions) (6) -0.2 -0.1 0.4 0.0 -0.1 0.3 1.5 1.2 -0.2 0.4 0.8 1.1 4.9 0.2 5.2

(7) Floorspace Requirement -40 -12 80 -3 -23 46 265 211 -37 67 142 206 902 46 948

NOTES: (1) The population figures are based on the GLA Round 8.1figures for 2001 and 2006, with the annual growth rate over that period used to extrapolate the 2004 figures. (2) The per capita comparison goods expenditure figures are derived from 2001 estimates obtained from Mapinfo net of SFT at 8.4%, with a growth rate of 3.4%/annum applied as forecast by Mapinfo/Oxford Economic Forecasters. (3) Total expenditure is the product of population multiplied by per capita expenditure. (4) The percentage market shares for LB Hackney centres sourced from the 2004 household survey, and converted to the forecast year monetary values. (5) The claims on the available expenditure for which deductions need to be made - (i) The turnover of the existing provision at the forecast year, with an allowance of 2.5%/annum for growth, (ii) an allowance for the potentail takeup of currently vacant floorspace (as set out in the above table and distributed across the Study Area in accordance with existing market shares. (6) The residual expenditure is that which remains after the total for claims is deducted from the available expenditure. (7) The Borough-wide floorspace requirement is the residual expenditure divided by a sales density that we consider new floorspace would achieve. It is a sales area figure (ie a net floorspace requirement). All monetary values are held constant at 2001 prices.

Page 6 of 10 LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY : RETAIL NEED ASSESSMENT

Table 5.3iii Forecast Year - 2011 - Comparison Goods Floorspace Requirement - Modest Upward Adjustments to some of the Market Shares (Scenario C)

All Zones Beyond the Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10 Zone 11 Zone 12 Grand Total Total Study Area

Available Expenditure

Popluation (1) 21,619 23,105 23,057 24,035 24,309 22,419 25,987 38,059 21,418 25,008 35,555 29,033 313,603

Per Capita Expenditure (£) (2) 3,403 3,157 3,119 3,180 2,890 3,365 2,836 3,253 3,837 4,050 3,811 2,969

Total Available Expenditure (£ millions) (3) 73.6 72.9 71.9 76.4 70.3 75.4 73.7 123.8 82.2 101.3 135.5 86.2 1,043.2

LB Hackney Centres ' Market Share (%) (4) 25.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 15.0 30.0 4.9 11.9 11.2

LB Hackney Centres' Market Share (£ millions) (4) 18.4 18.2 14.4 11.5 17.6 18.9 18.4 18.6 24.7 5.0 16.1 9.7 191.3 Claims on Available Expenditure (5)

Existing Provision (£ millions) 16.1 18.5 12.1 11.7 11.6 13.1 11.2 14.6 18.4 4.1 12.3 7.7 151.3

Vacancy take up 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.1 1.7

Commitments 3.0 2.2 2.2 1.4 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.9 2.2 0.5 2.8 0.8 18.8

Residual Expenditure (£ millions) (6) -1.0 -2.7 -0.1 -1.8 4.7 4.7 6.5 3.0 3.9 0.4 0.8 1.1 19.5 0.2 19.7

(7) Floorspace Requirement -183 -488 -22 -320 854 866 1,191 541 705 67 142 206 3,560 46 3,605

NOTES: (1) The population figures are based on the GLA Round 8.1figures for 2001 and 2006, with the annual growth rate over that period used to extrapolate the 2004 figures. (2) The per capita comparison goods expenditure figures are derived from 2001 estimates obtained from Mapinfo net of SFT at 8.4%, with a growth rate of 3.4%/annum applied as forecast by Mapinfo/Oxford Economic Forecasters. (3) Total expenditure is the product of population multiplied by per capita expenditure. (4) The percentage market shares for LB Hackney centres sourced from the 2004 household survey, and converted to the forecast year monetary values. (5) The claims on the available expenditure for which deductions need to be made - (i) The turnover of the existing provision at the forecast year, with an allowance of 2.5%/annum for growth, (ii) an allowance for the potentail takeup of currently vacant floorspace (as set out in the above table and distributed across the Study Area in accordance with existing market shares. (6) The residual expenditure is that which remains after the total for claims is deducted from the available expenditure. (7) The Borough-wide floorspace requirement is the residual expenditure divided by a sales density that we consider new floorspace would achieve. It is a sales area figure (ie a net floorspace requirement). All monetary values are held constant at 2001 prices.

Page 7 of 10 LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY : RETAIL NEED ASSESSMENT

Table 5.4i Forecast Year - 2016 - Comparison Goods Floorspace Requirement - Adopting the Baseline Market Shares (Scenario A)

All Zones Beyond the Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10 Zone 11 Zone 12 Grand Total Total Study Area

Available Expenditure

Popluation (1) 21,934 23,558 23,346 24,619 25,007 23,177 28,574 39,830 21,564 26,083 37,360 31,595 326,646

Per Capita Expenditure (£) (2) 3,931 3,647 3,603 3,674 3,339 3,887 3,276 3,757 4,432 4,678 4,402 3,429

Total Available Expenditure (£ millions) (3) 86.2 85.9 84.1 90.4 83.5 90.1 93.6 149.7 95.6 122.0 164.5 108.4 1,253.9

LB Hackney Centres ' Market Share (%) (4) 23.2 27.3 18.1 16.4 18.0 19.0 17.7 12.8 23.1 4.4 9.9 10.4

LB Hackney Centres' Market Share (£ millions) (4) 20.0 23.4 15.2 14.8 15.0 17.1 16.5 19.2 22.1 5.4 16.2 11.3 196.3 Claims on Available Expenditure (5)

Existing Provision (£ millions) 18.3 20.9 13.7 13.3 13.1 14.9 12.7 16.5 20.8 4.6 14.0 8.7 171.2

Vacancy take up 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.1 2.0

Commitments 3.4 2.5 2.5 1.5 1.4 1.0 0.7 1.1 2.5 0.5 3.1 0.9 21.2

Residual Expenditure (£ millions) (6) -2.0 -0.2 -1.2 -0.2 0.5 1.1 3.1 1.5 -1.4 0.2 -1.1 1.6 1.9 0.2 2.1

(7) Floorspace Requirement -356 -40 -216 -31 82 203 561 279 -263 40 -205 292 344 52 396

NOTES: (1) The population figures are based on the GLA Round 8.1 figures for 2001 and 2006, with the annual growth rate over that period used to extrapolate the 2004 figures. (2) The per capita comparison goods expenditure figures are derived from 2001 estimates obtained from Mapinfo net of SFT at 8.4%, with a growth rate of 3.4%/annum applied as forecast by Mapinfo/Oxford Economic Forecasters. (3) Total expenditure is the product of population multiplied by per capita expenditure. (4) The percentage market shares for LB Hackney centres sourced from the 2004 household survey, and converted to the forecast year monetary values. (5) The claims on the available expenditure for which deductions need to be made - (i) The turnover of the existing provision at the forecast year, with an allowance of 2.5%/annum for growth, (ii) an allowance for the potentail takeup of currently vacant floorspace (as set out in the above table and distributed across the Study Area in accordance with existing market shares. (6) The residual expenditure is that which remains after the total for claims is deducted from the available expenditure. (7) The Borough-wide floorspace requirement is the residual expenditure divided by a sales density that we consider new floorspace would achieve. It is a sales area figure (ie a net floorspace requirement). All monetary values are held constant at 2001 prices.

Page 8 of 10 LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY : RETAIL NEED ASSESSMENT

Table 5.4ii Forecast Year - 2016 - Comparison Goods Floorspace Requirement - Adopting the Baseline Market Shares adjusted to reflect impact of the Extension to the Kingsland Shopping Centre and Stratford City (Scenario B)

All Zones Beyond the Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10 Zone 11 Zone 12 Grand Total Total Study Area

Available Expenditure

Popluation (1) 21,934 23,558 23,346 24,619 25,007 23,177 28,574 39,830 21,564 26,083 37,360 31,595 326,646

Per Capita Expenditure (£) (2) 3,931 3,647 3,603 3,674 3,339 3,887 3,276 3,757 4,432 4,678 4,402 3,429

Total Available Expenditure (£ millions) (3) 86 86 84 90 83 90 94 150 96 122 164 108 1,253.9

LB Hackney Centres ' Market Share (%) (4) 26 29 21 17 18 19 18 14 25 5 12 11

LB Hackney Centres' Market Share (£ millions) (4) 22.5 24.6 17.5 15.6 15.2 17.2 17.0 20.3 23.9 6.0 19.6 12.2 211.3 Claims on Available Expenditure (5)

Existing Provision (£ millions) 18.3 20.9 13.7 13.3 13.1 14.9 12.7 16.5 20.8 4.6 14.0 8.7 171.2

Vacancy take up 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.1 2.0

Commitments 3.4 2.5 2.5 1.5 1.4 1.0 0.7 1.1 2.5 0.5 3.1 0.9 21.2

Residual Expenditure (£ millions) (6) 0.5 0.9 1.1 0.7 0.6 1.2 3.5 2.6 0.4 0.8 2.2 2.5 16.9 0.2 17.2

(7) Floorspace Requirement 97 163 194 121 106 217 638 475 77 143 403 455 3,088 52 3,139

NOTES: (1) The population figures are based on the GLA Round 8.1 figures for 2001 and 2006, with the annual growth rate over that period used to extrapolate the 2004 figures. (2) The per capita comparison goods expenditure figures are derived from 2001 estimates obtained from Mapinfo net of SFT at 8.4%, with a growth rate of 3.4%/annum applied as forecast by Mapinfo/Oxford Economic Forecasters. (3) Total expenditure is the product of population multiplied by per capita expenditure. (4) The percentage market shares for LB Hackney centres sourced from the 2004 household survey, and converted to the forecast year monetary values. (5) The claims on the available expenditure for which deductions need to be made - (i) The turnover of the existing provision at the forecast year, with an allowance of 2.5%/annum for growth, (ii) an allowance for the potentail takeup of currently vacant floorspace (as set out in the above table and distributed across the Study Area in accordance with existing market shares. (6) The residual expenditure is that which remains after the total for claims is deducted from the available expenditure. (7) The Borough-wide floorspace requirement is the residual expenditure divided by a sales density that we consider new floorspace would achieve. It is a sales area figure (ie a net floorspace requirement). All monetary values are held constant at 2001 prices.

Page 9 of 10 LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY : RETAIL NEED ASSESSMENT

Table 5.4iii Forecast Year - 2016 - Comparison Goods Floorspace Requirement - Modest Upward Adjustments to some of the Market Shares (Scenario C)

All Zones Beyond the Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10 Zone 11 Zone 12 Grand Total Total Study Area

Available Expenditure

Popluation (1) 21,934 23,558 23,346 24,619 25,007 23,177 28,574 39,830 21,564 26,083 37,360 31,595 326,646

Per Capita Expenditure (£) (2) 3,931 3,647 3,603 3,674 3,339 3,887 3,276 3,757 4,432 4,678 4,402 3,429

Total Available Expenditure (£ millions) (3) 86.2 85.9 84.1 90.4 83.5 90.1 93.6 149.7 95.6 122.0 164.5 108.4 1,253.9

LB Hackney Centres ' Market Share (%) (4) 25.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 15.0 30.0 4.9 11.9 11.2

LB Hackney Centres' Market Share (£ millions) (4) 21.6 21.5 16.8 13.6 20.9 22.5 23.4 22.4 28.7 6.0 19.6 12.2 229.1 Claims on Available Expenditure (5)

Existing Provision (£ millions) 18.3 20.9 13.7 13.3 13.1 14.9 12.7 16.5 20.8 4.6 14.0 8.7 171.2

Vacancy take up 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.1 2.0

Commitments 3.4 2.5 2.5 1.5 1.4 1.0 0.7 1.1 2.5 0.5 3.1 0.9 21.2

Residual Expenditure (£ millions) (6) -0.4 -2.2 0.4 -1.4 6.3 6.6 9.9 4.8 5.2 0.8 2.2 2.5 34.7 0.2 34.9

(7) Floorspace Requirement -71 -398 75 -254 1,149 1,196 1,813 875 939 143 403 455 6,324 52 6,376

NOTES: (1) The population figures are based on the GLA Round 8.1figures for 2001 and 2006, with the annual growth rate over that period used to extrapolate the 2004 figures. (2) The per capita comparison goods expenditure figures are derived from 2001 estimates obtained from Mapinfo net of SFT at 8.4%, with a growth rate of 3.4%/annum applied as forecast by Mapinfo/Oxford Economic Forecasters. (3) Total expenditure is the product of population multiplied by per capita expenditure. (4) The percentage market shares for LB Hackney centres sourced from the 2004 household survey, and converted to the forecast year monetary values. (5) The claims on the available expenditure for which deductions need to be made - (i) The turnover of the existing provision at the forecast year, with an allowance of 2.5%/annum for growth, (ii) an allowance for the potentail takeup of currently vacant floorspace (as set out in the above table and distributed across the Study Area in accordance with existing market shares. (6) The residual expenditure is that which remains after the total for claims is deducted from the available expenditure. (7) The Borough-wide floorspace requirement is the residual expenditure divided by a sales density that we consider new floorspace would achieve. It is a sales area figure (ie a net floorspace requirement). All monetary values are held constant at 2001 prices.

Page 10 of 10 LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY : RETAIL NEED ASSESSMENT

Table 5.5 Baseline 2004 - Population and Convenience Goods Expenditure

All Zones Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10 Zone 11 Zone 12 Total

Popluation (1) 21,042 22,034 22,020 23,188 22,846 21,182 23,002 35,915 21,287 23,351 33,680 25,460 295,007

2001 Per Capita Convenience goods Expenditure (£) (2) 1,745 1,655 1,647 1,653 1,539 1,716 1,462 1,653 1,895 1,976 1,892 1,569

2004 Per Capita Convenience goods Expenditure (£) (3) 1,869 1,772 1,763 1,770 1,648 1,838 1,565 1,770 2,029 2,115 2,026 1,680

2004 Per Capita Convenience goods Expenditure (£) (4) 1,809 1,716 1,707 1,714 1,595 1,779 1,515 1,714 1,964 2,048 1,961 1,626

Total Expenditure (£ millions) (5) 38.1 37.8 37.6 39.7 36.4 37.7 34.8 61.5 41.8 47.8 66.1 41.4 520.8 Expenditure Available to Supermarkets (£ millions) (6) 22.8 22.7 22.5 23.8 21.9 22.6 20.9 36.9 25.1 28.7 39.6 24.8 312.5 Expenditure Available to Local Convenience Stores (£ millions) (6) 15.2 15.1 15.0 15.9 14.6 15.1 13.9 24.6 16.7 19.1 26.4 16.6 208.3

NOTES: (1) The population figures are based on the GLA Round 8.1 figures for 2001 and 2006, with the annual growth rate over that period used to extrapolate the 2004 population figures. (2) The 2001 per capita convenience goods expenditure sourced from Mapinfo. (3) The 2004 per capita convenience goods expenditure figures are based on the 2001 estimates, with growth applied at a rate of 1.2%/annum applied as recommended by Mapinfo/Oxford Economic Forecasters. (4) The 2004 per capita convenience goods expenditure figures net of expenditure spend via special forms of trading (SFT) of 3.2%. (5) Total expenditure is the product of population multiplied by per capita expenditure. (6) We sub-divide the total convenience goods expenditure figure into that which is available for supermarkets (60%) and that which is available to localconvenience stores (40%) in accordance with current supermarket market shares as set out in the latest ONS Family Expenditure Survey, 2003, with an adjustment made to take account of the significant proportion of local ethnic non-supermarket provision in the LB Hackney centres, which is considerably higher than the UK average.

All monetary values are held constant at 2001 prices.

Page 1 of 7 LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY : RETAIL NEED ASSESSMENT

Table 5.6 Baseline 2004 - Turnover Derived from the Study Area (£ millions)

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10 Zone 11 Zone 12 All Zones Total

£m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m %

LB HACKNEY CENTRES Dalston 11.7 3.7 6.2 3.2 2.5 3.8 2.4 1.7 7.0 0.4 9.6 1.3 53.6 17.1 Hackney Mare Street 4.3 11.3 5.1 9.8 10.2 7.1 1.5 1.2 1.0 2.2 0.8 3.8 58.2 18.6 Stoke Newington 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.1 2.6 8.5 9.8 7.3 0.7 0.8 0.9 32.2 10.3 Stamford Hill 0.7 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.8 2.4 6.3 1.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 12.2 3.9 Other Hackney 0.2 1.8 2.7 5.4 3.4 1.3 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 16.6 5.3 Sub-Total 17.3 17.5 14.8 18.4 16.3 15.7 15.5 19.0 16.7 3.8 11.5 6.4 172.8 55.3 OTHER IN THE STUDY AREA BUT BEYOND LB HACKNEY Sub-Total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.4 1.3 0.4 OTHER STORES BEYOND THE STUDY AREA Angel 0.8 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.8 1.9 5.5 15.6 0.7 27.0 8.6 Holloway 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 3.5 0.8 7.2 2.4 0.1 15.6 5.0 Other 3.4 3.8 5.7 4.1 4.8 5.1 4.9 12.9 4.7 9.7 9.2 16.6 85.0 27.2 Internet and home delivery 0.5 0.8 1.2 0.8 0.7 1.6 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.8 1.0 0.7 10.9 3.5 Sub-Total 5.6 5.2 7.8 5.5 5.6 7.0 5.4 17.9 8.2 24.2 28.1 18.0 138.4 44.3 Total 22.8 22.7 22.5 23.8 21.9 22.6 20.9 36.9 25.1 28.7 39.6 24.8 312.5 100.0

NOTES: (1) The market share data is the product of the amount of available expenditure in each zone (as calculated in Table 5.5 above) and the percentage market shares for each centre/zone as calculated in Table 2.23A of this report.

All monetary values are held constant at 2001 prices.

Page 2 of 7 LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY : RETAIL NEED ASSESSMENT

Table 5.7 Baseline 2004 - Convenience Goods Centre Total Turnover and Sales Density

Turnover % Derived from Total Sales Current Sales Zone Derived from Study Area 2 Turnover Area 3 Density Study Area 1

£m % £m sqm net £/sqm LB HACKNEY CENTRES

Dalston 53.6 95 56.4 3,784 14,898

Hackney Mare Street 58.2 95 61.2 3,958 15,471

Stoke Newington 32.2 95 33.9 3,583 9,450

Stamford Hill 12.2 95 12.9 3,258 3,956

Other Hackney 16.6 100 16.6 -

LB HACKNEY TOTAL 172.8 181.0 14,583 12,410

NOTES: (1) Source: Table 5.6 'All Zones Total' column. (2) Source: RTP estimates. (3) Source: RTP land use survey and GIS to obtain gross floorsapce, which has been netted down to a sales area by applying a 65:35 ratio. All monetary values are held constant at 2001 prices.

Page 3 of 7 LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY : RETAIL NEED ASSESSMENT

Table 5.8 Allowances for Claims on Expenditure - Convenience Goods Floorspace Uptake of Core Area Voids and Commitments - 2006

(i) Growth in Turnover of the Existing LB Hackney Provision All Zones Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10 Zone 11 Zone 12 Total £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m Existing Provision (£ millions) 2004 (1) 17.3 17.5 14.8 18.4 16.3 15.7 15.5 19.0 16.7 3.8 11.5 6.4 172.8 Existing Provision (£ millions) 2006 17.4 17.7 14.9 18.5 16.4 15.8 15.6 19.2 16.9 3.8 11.6 6.5 174.5 Existing Provision (£ millions) Growth 0.17 0.18 0.15 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.19 0.17 0.04 0.12 0.06 1.73 2004/2006

(ii) Uptake of Vacant LB Hackney Property Gross Floorspace Sales Sales Total Turnover Derived Floorspace (2) Ratio (3) Floorspace Density (3) Turnover from Study Area (3)

sqm % sqm net £/sqm £m % £m

None 0 000000

(iii) Planning Commitments Gross Floorspace Sales Sales Total Turnover Derived Floorspace (2) Ratio (3) Floorspace Density (3) Turnover from Study Area (3)

sqm % sqm net £/sqm £m % £m

None 0 000000

NOTES: (1) Source : Table 5.6. (2) Source: None. (3) Source: None.

All monetary values are held constant at 2001 prices.

Page 4 of 7 LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY : RETAIL NEED ASSESSMENT

Table 5.9 Floorspace Requirements - 2006

All Zones Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10 Zone 11 Zone 12 Total sqm net sqm net sqm net sqm net sqm net sqm net sqm net sqm net sqm net sqm net sqm net sqm net sqm net Centre

Dalston 36 21 25 27 3 23 22 37 14 12 50 14 284

Hackney Mare Street 5 35 3 31 27 30 22 650614184

Stoke Newington 5 7 03083349241860153

LB Hackney Centres' Total 47 63 28 61 30 61 77 92 42 30 63 27 622 Other Beyond Study Area 5 7 34 7 30 15 33 31 5 89 63 110 428

Grand Total 52 70 62 68 59 76 111 123 47 118 126 137 1,049

NOTES: (1)

Page 5 of 7 LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY : RETAIL NEED ASSESSMENT

Table 5.10 Floorspace Requirements - 2011

All Zones Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10 Zone 11 Zone 12 Total sqm net sqm net sqm net sqm net sqm net sqm net sqm net sqm net sqm net sqm net sqm net sqm net sqm net Centre

Dalston 132 72 94 88 13 79 82 131 45 38 181 52 1,007

Hackney Mare Street 19 120 12 99 121 106 82 22 15 0 23 52 670

Stoke Newington 19 24 0 11 0 26 123 175 74 56 23 0 531

LB Hackney Centres' Total 170 217 106 199 135 211 286 328 134 94 226 103 2,207 Other Beyond Study Area 19 24 129 22 135 53 123 109 15 281 226 412 1,548

Grand Total 189 241 235 221 269 264 409 437 148 375 451 515 3,755

NOTES: (1)

Page 6 of 7 LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY : RETAIL NEED ASSESSMENT

Table 5.11 Floorspace Requirements - 2016

All Zones Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10 Zone 11 Zone 12 Total sqm net sqm net sqm net sqm net sqm net sqm net sqm net sqm net sqm net sqm net sqm net sqm net sqm net Centre

Dalston 224 116 145 154 22 135 154 239 80 65 343 91 1,767

Hackney Mare Street 32 193 18 174 196 180 154 40 27 0 43 91 1,148

Stoke Newington 32 39 0 19 0 45 231 319 133 97 43 0 958

LB Hackney Centres' Total 288 348 163 347 218 360 539 598 240 161 429 182 3,874 Other Beyond Study Area 32 39 199 39 218 90 231 199 27 484 429 729 2,716

Grand Total 319 387 361 386 436 450 770 798 267 646 857 912 6,589

NOTES: (1)

Page 7 of 7