Giltbrook Retail Park, Nottingham Limited
Planning and Retail Statement Unit 8, Giltbrook Retail Park
December 2011
5th Floor, Longcross Court, 47 Newport Road, Cardiff, CF24 0AD Tel: 02920 829000 Fax: 02920 455321
www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
Document Control
Project: Giltbrook Retail Park, Nottingham Limited
Client:
Job Number: A073999
File Origin: Reports/A073999 Giltbrook Retail Park Dec 2011.doc
Document Checking:
Prepared by: Peter Waldren Signed:
Checked by: Owen Francis Signed:
Verified by: Peter Waldren Signed:
Issue Date Status
1 07 12 11 Draft
2 19.12.11 Final
3
4
www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
Contents Page
1.0 Planning and Retail Statement...... 1 1.1 Introduction...... 1 2.0 Site and Relevant Planning History...... 2 2.1 Introduction...... 2 2.2 Relevant Planning History...... 2 3.0 Planning Policy Context...... 4 3.1 Introduction...... 4 3.2 National Planning Policy ...... 5 3.3 Emerging National Policy...... 7 4.0 Sequential Analysis...... 9 4.1 Introduction...... 9 4.2 The Lord Nelson 18-20 Nottingham Road, Eastwood ...... 11 4.3 13 Nottingham Road, Eastwood...... 12 4.4 39 Nottingham Road, Eastwood...... 13 4.5 G&M Motor Co. 59 Nottingham Road, Eastwood...... 14 4.6 18 Main Street, Kimberley ...... 14 4.7 57 Main Street, Kimberley ...... 15 4.8 Concluding Comments ...... 16 5.0 Impact ...... 17 5.1 Introduction...... 17 5.2 EC10.2 (a) Whether the proposal has been planned over the lifetime of the development to limit carbon dioxide emissions, and minimise vulnerability and provide resilience to climate change17 5.3 EC10.2 (b) The accessibility of the proposal by a choice of means of transport and the effect on local traffic levels and congestion...... 17 5.4 EC10.2 (c) Whether the proposal secures a high quality and inclusive design which takes the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area and way it functions... 18 5.5 EC10.2 (d) The impact on economic and physical regeneration in the area including the impact on deprived areas and social inclusion objectives...... 18 5.6 EC10.2 (e) Impact on local employment ...... 18 5.7 Policy EC10 Conclusions...... 18 5.8 EC16.1 (a) Impact of proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal ...... 19
www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
5.9 EC16.1 (b) Impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability including local consumer choice and the range and quality of the comparison retail offer...... 20 5.10 EC16.1 (c) Impact of the proposal on allocated sites outside town centres being developed in accordance with the Development Plan ...... 20 5.11 EC16.1 (d) Impact of the proposal on in-centre trade/ turnover and on trade in the wider area ...... 20 5.12 EC16.1 (e) Appropriateness of scale if located on the edge or within a town centre...... 21 5.13 EC16.1 (f) Any locally important impacts on centres ...... 21 5.14 Policy EC16 Conclusions...... 21 6.0 Conclusions ...... 22
Appendices Appendix A – Sequential Analysis Photographs Appendix B – Impact Analysis
www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands
Giltbrook Retail Park, Nottingham Limited
1.0 Planning and Retail Statement
1.1 Introduction
1.1.1 This report has been prepared by WYG Planning and Design on behalf of its client, Giltbrook Retail Park Nottingham Limited. The report provides the planning and retail justification in support of a full planning application for the insertion of a new trading mezzanine floor into Unit 8 of the Giltbrook Retail Park. The report assesses the requirement of local and national planning policy relevant to this location and is structured as follows:
Section 2 describes the site and the relevant planning history of both the unit in question and the retail park as a whole, where relevant; Section 3 sets out the local and national planning policy context; Section 4 sets out the search for a sequentially preferable site that has been undertaken; Section 5 addresses the specific impact tests set out in national planning policy PPS4; and Section 6 provides conclusions.
1
A073999 21/12/2011
Giltbrook Retail Park, Nottingham Limited
2.0 Site and Relevant Planning History
2.1 Introduction
2.1.1 The application site comprises a mid-terrace retail unit at the Giltbrook Retail Park just north of the A610. The Retail Park is now well established following its construction in 2007/2008. The Retail Park comprises a terrace of 12 newer retail units and 3 refreshment units sharing a car park with 3 older retail units occupied by Ikea, Next and Decathlon.
2.1.2 Unit 8 is occupied by Carpet Right with other occupiers comprising BHS, Barker and Stonehouse, Laura Ashley, CSL, Next Home, Mamas and Papas, Boots, SCS, Comet, Pets at Home and Escape.
2.1.3 The unit currently has no mezzanine floor and provides 895 sq m of floor space. The requirement is to have additional floorspace in the form of a trading mezzanine. The proposal is to insert a mezzanine of 697 sq m (7,500 sq ft) into the unit.
2.2 Relevant Planning History
2.2.1 The planning history for the Giltbrook Retail Park is complex, comprising a full planning permission for the retail terrace and a second full planning permission for an area of car parking, both of which were granted on 14 February 2007. These permissions were then subject to various variations of condition in relation to a number of different matters and overriding full planning permissions in relation to amendments and changes to the originally conceived form of development. The relevant history specific to Unit 8 is as follows:
The floor space comprising Unit 8 was created as a consequence of permission 06/00896/FUL, granted on 14 February 2007, subject to various variations.
The sub-division of the terrace, as built, was approved under permission 07/00702/FUL, granted on the 14 January 2008.
Condition 6 (the Restrictive Goods Condition) was subsequently amended by permission 08/00696/ROC, granted on 10 October 2008.
2.2.2 Condition 7 of permission 07/00702/FUL restricts the provision of any internal floor space, whether by constructing a mezzanine floor or by any other means. Accordingly, full planning permission is sought.
2
A073999 21/12/2011
Giltbrook Retail Park, Nottingham Limited
2.2.3 It is also relevant to consider planning history in respect of adjacent units at the Retail Park where additional mezzanine floors have recently been permitted. The first of these relates to Units 12 and 15 which were granted permission on 10 October 2008 for the insertion of a total of 1,161 sq m of mezzanine floor space.
2.2.4 A more recent permission was granted on 3 February of this year in respect of Unit 10 (Next Home). This application proposed 836 sq m of mezzanine space (ie 20% larger than that proposed by the current application for Unit 8). Permission was granted under reference 10/00721 with the Decision Notice recording that “the proposal generally accords with the objectives of Policy S2 of the Broxtowe Local Plan 2004 and PPS4, and in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority there are no other material considerations that indicate the decision should be taken at variance with these policies”. The Officer’s report in respect of this proposal records that there were no objections from any consultees (including the planning policy section of the Council), that the retail assessment submitted for the application was vetted by an independent advisor to the Council who agreed the findings of the report and advised that there was no cogent argument for examining cumulative impact, and that any impact on Kimberley and Eastwood would be considered to be minimal. The recommendation of the report was that “ …..having regard to the relevant policies of the local plan and to all other material considerations … the development is acceptable and that there are no circumstances which otherwise would justify the refusal of permission”.
3
A073999 21/12/2011
Giltbrook Retail Park, Nottingham Limited
3.0 Planning Policy Context
3.1 Introduction
3.1.1 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that:
“If regard is to be had to the Development Plan for any purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.
3.1.2 When the Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 was enacted it provided for the policies in existing adopted development plans to be saved and contained provisions for applications to be made to the Secretary of State for a direction that policies in a plan be saved until adoption of the Local Development Framework for that area.
3.1.3 The Development Plan for Broxtowe is the Broxtowe Local Plan adopted in 2004. In September 2007 the Head of Housing, Planning and Urban Policy at the Government Office for the East Midlands scrutinised the Local Plan policies to select those which should be “saved” under the legal process outlined above with the aim of ensuring that such Policies are kept up to date. Amongst the up to date policies that were saved was Policy S2 “Sites for Retail and Associated Development” which reads as follows:
“The following town centre areas are identified for new retail and associated development: (a) Beeston: area east of Station Road centred on the former Shaw and Marvin works site. (b) Stapeleford: area west and east of Derby Road south of Sandyacre Road. (c) Outside town centre: Giltbrook: Nottingham Road on site of former Dyggor Gaylord Offices, adjacent to Ikea (non-food goods only).”
3.1.4 The explanatory wording of Policy S2 at paragraph 7.37 of the Local Plan states that:
“The site (c) Nottingham Road, Giltbrook is intended for non-food bulky goods retailing to compliment the existent adjacent Ikea Retail Park. In the absence of identifiable sites within or on the edge of the existing centres of Eastwood and Kimberley, this site at Giltbrook represents the next most sustainable option for bulky comparison goods retail development. Any future application for retail development would need to be accompanied by its own sequential analysis to demonstrate that this remains the case”.
3.1.5 The additional floor space proposed by this application is intended for occupation by a bulky goods retailer. It is clear therefore, that this use accords with Policy S2 of the Local Plan which allocates
4
A073999 21/12/2011
Giltbrook Retail Park, Nottingham Limited
the site for such uses and that the application is therefore in accordance with the saved policies of the Local Plan.
3.2 National Planning Policy
3.2.1 The National Planning Policy of relevance to this proposal is Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth. This Policy Statement was issued in December 2009 and provides the framework for considering applications for town centres and town centre uses in England.
3.2.2 PPS4 sets out the Government’s overarching objective to support sustainable economic growth and states at paragraph EC10.1 that “Local Planning Authorities should adopt a positive and constructive approach towards planning applications for economic development. Planning applications that secure sustainable economic growth should be treated favourably”.
3.2.3 Policies EC10 – EC17 should be taken into consideration when determining applications for planning permissions for main town centre uses. Policies EC10 (impact of relevance to all economic development), Policy EC15 (sequential approach) and Policy EC16 (impact for town centre uses) are of particular relevance.
3.2.4 Policy EC10 states that all planning applications for economic development should be assessed against the following impact considerations:
(a) whether the proposal has been planned over the lifetime of the development to limit carbon dioxide emissions and minimise vulnerability and provide resilience to climate change;
(b) the accessibility of the proposal by a choice of means of transport including walking, cycling, public transport and the car, and the effect on local traffic levels and congestion;
(c) whether the proposal secures a high quality and inclusive design which takes the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area in the way it functions;
(d) the impact on economical and physical regeneration in the area including the impact on deprived areas and social inclusion objectives; and
(e) the impact on local employment.
3.2.5 Policy EC15 relates to the sequential approach to site selection, the provisions of which remain largely unchanged since the publication of PPG6 in June 1996. It is worth noting this fact as we note that in the determination of the mezzanine floor proposed by Next Home (application ref.
5
A073999 21/12/2011
Giltbrook Retail Park, Nottingham Limited
10/00721/FUL) there was a suggestion that the publication by Central Government of PPS6 and subsequently PPS4 since the adoption of the Broxtowe Local Plan in some way brought in to question whether Local Plan Policy S2 was up to date. Given that the sequential approach to site selection (the “town centre first” policy) has remained effectively unchanged since the publication of the Local Plan, coupled with the fact that Policy S2 has been specifically “saved” clarifies that Policy S2 can be considered up to date.
3.2.6 Policy E15 requires developers of town centre uses to consider in-centre and then edge of centre sites before considering out of centre sites for such development. Developers must also demonstrate flexibility in terms of scale, format, car parking and disaggregation of different components of the proposed development. Local Planning Authorities are required to take into account “any genuine difficulties which the Applicant can demonstrate are likely to occur in operating the business model from a sequentially preferable site”.
3.2.7 Policy EC16 sets out a further impact test in respect of town centre uses specifically. This test relates to uses which would result in a “significant impact”, which are not in a town centre and, importantly, are not in accordance with an up to date development plan. As set out above, it is considered that the proposed development is in accordance with Policy S2 of the Local Plan and, furthermore, that Policy S2 is up to date. If applicable, Policy EC16 requires that development proposals be assessed against the following impacts on centres:
(a) impact on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in the centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal;
(b) impact on the vitality and viability of a town centre, including local consumer choice and the range in quality of comparison and convenience retail offer;
(c) impact on allocated sites outside town centres being developed in accordance with the Development Plan;
(d) impact on in-centre trade/turnover and on trade in the wider area, taking account of current and future consumer expenditure capacity in the catchment area up to five years from the time the application is made;
(e) appropriateness of scale (only relevant if located in or on the edge of a town centre); and
(f) any locally important impacts on centres.
3.2.8 Policy EC17 again relates to development which is not in accordance with an up to date development plan. As set out above, the development proposals the subject of this assessment are
6
A073999 21/12/2011
Giltbrook Retail Park, Nottingham Limited
considered to be in accordance with an up to date Development Plan. Nonetheless, Policy EC17 states that applications for main town centre uses which are not in an existing centre and not in accordance with an updated Development Plan should be refused permission where:
(a) The applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the requirements of the sequential approach (Policy EC15); or
(b) There is clear evidence that the proposal is likely to lead to significant adverse impact in terms of any one of the impacts set out in Policies EC10.2 and EC16.1, taking account of the likely cumulative effect of recent permissions, developments under construction and completed developments.
3.2.9 Policy EC17.2 of PPS4 requires that where there is no significant adverse impact identified under the criteria set out in Policy EC10 and EC16, planning applications should be determined by taking account of:
(a) The positive and negative impacts of the proposal in terms of Policies EC10.2 and EC16.1 and any other material consideration; and
(b) The likely cumulative effects of recent permissions, developments under construction and completed developments.
3.2.10 Paragraph EC17.3 of PPS4 sets out what constitutes a significant impact as follows: “judgements about the extent and significance of any impact should be informed by the Development Plan (where it is up to date). Recent local assessments of the health of town centres which take account of the vitality and viability indicators in Annex D ….. and any published local information (such as a town centre or retail strategy), would also be relevant”.
3.3 Emerging National Policy
3.3.1 Appeal decisions are increasingly taking account of the Government’s emerging agenda including the Ministerial Statement of March 2011: “Planning for Growth” and the draft National Planning Policy Framework. For example, an appeal decision relating to a retail park in Manchester dated 1 November 2011 (ref APP/Q4245/A/11/2155937) noted at paragraph 20 that the removal of restrictive goods conditions (which is what the appeal related to) “would accord with the thrust of the Government’s “Planning for Growth” Ministerial Statement of March 2011 that economic growth should be encouraged and unnecessary burdens on development are not imposed”.
3.3.2 The draft National Planning Policy Framework was published on 25 July 2011 and is due to published in final form in the spring of 2012. Paragraph 77 of the draft document continues to require local
7
A073999 21/12/2011
Giltbrook Retail Park, Nottingham Limited
planning authorities to apply a sequential approach for retail applications that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up to date local plan. Paragraph 78 goes on to state that:
“Local planning authorities should prefer applications for retail and leisure uses to be located in town centres where practical, then in edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered. In applying the sequential approach, local planning authorities should ensure the potential sites are assessed for their availability, suitability and viability and for their ability to meet the full extent of assessed quantitative and qualitative needs”.
3.3.3 Paragraph 79 of the draft document notes that if retail proposals are located outside of a town centre and are not in accordance with an up to date local plan an impact assessment will be required “If the development is over a proportionate, locally set floor space threshold. If there is no locally set threshold, the default threshold is 2,500 sq m”.
8
A073999 21/12/2011
Giltbrook Retail Park, Nottingham Limited
4.0 Sequential Analysis
4.1 Introduction
4.1.1 Policy EC15.1 of PPS 4 (Planning for Sustainable Growth) requires that a sequential assessment is undertaken for all town centre uses proposed in out of centre locations which are not in accordance with an up to date development plan. The same qualification is also set out in Policy EC14.3.
4.1.2 The development Plan for Broxtowe is the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004). In September 2007 the head of Housing, Planning and Urban Policy at the Government Office for the East Midlands scrutinised the Local Plan’s policies to select those which should be "saved" under a legal process required for all local plans to ensure that they are kept up-to-date. Amongst the up-to-date policies that were saved was policy S2 “Sites for retail and associated development”, which allocates:
“ ……(c) Giltbrook: Nottingham Road, on site of former Dyggor Gaylord offices, adjacent to Ikea (non- food goods only).”
4.1.3 Given the site’s allocation for non-food retail (paragraph 7.37 of the Local Plan makes it clear the allocation is for non-food bulky goods), it is not strictly necessary to undertake a sequential analysis for the proposed development. However, experience suggests that the application determination will be delayed if no sequential analysis is undertaken, notwithstanding Policy S2. Accordingly, and without prejudice to the applicability of PPS4 policy EC15.1, the following sequential analysis is undertaken.
4.1.4 Policy EC15.1 states that sites must be assessed for their suitability, availability and viability. The policy requires flexibility to be shown in respect of scale (i.e. assessing smaller than ideal units/sites), format (e.g. multi storey developments), car park provision (reduced or reconfigured), and scope for disaggregation (in this case, the possibility to separate the amount of floorspace sought).
4.1.5 PPS 4 also requires local planning authorities to take into account “any genuine difficulties which the applicant can demonstrate are likely to occur in operating the proposed business model from a sequentially preferable site, for example where a retailer would be limited to selling a significantly reduced range of products” (para EC15.2).
9
A073999 21/12/2011
Giltbrook Retail Park, Nottingham Limited
4.1.6 The PPS 4 companion guide also notes:
local planning authorities should consider the relative priorities and needs of different main town centre uses, particularly recognising their differing operational and market requirements (para 6.9);
In determining the appropriate area of search for an application, including whether it is appropriate to consider sites within or on the edge of established centres, it will be relevant to consider the scale and form of development proposed (para 6.24);
There will be instances where a specific need for a certain type and form of development can only realistically be accommodated in specific locations (para 6.25);
It is important that assessments are proportionate to the nature of the proposal (para 6.51).
4.1.7 Further detailed guidance on suitability and viability are also given in the companion guide:
It is not necessary to demonstrate that a potential town centre or edge of centre site can accommodate precisely the scale and form of development being proposed, but rather to consider what contribution more central sites are able to make, either individually or collectively, to meeting the same requirements;
Those promoting less central sites should not discount more central locations as unsuitable unless they are able to clearly demonstrate that a development on the site in question would be unable to satisfactorily meet the need/demand their proposal is intended to serve.
Viability will be influenced by:
Market factors – such as adjacent uses, economic return of existing, proposed and alternative uses in terms of land values, attractiveness of the locality and level of potential market demand; Cost factors – including site preparation costs relating to any physical constraints, any exceptional works necessary, relevant planning standards or obligations, prospect of funding or investment to address identified constraints or assist development.
10
A073999 21/12/2011
Giltbrook Retail Park, Nottingham Limited
4.1.8 With regard to the current policy position, as set out above, and bearing in mind the need for flexibility, the physical requirements necessary to meet the identified need are:
A single unit of c.1300sqm GIA over either one floor or two floors (i.e. the ground floor footprint could be as small as c.650sqm, providing a usable upper floor existed);
Parking in the immediate vicinity, on-site if possible (to allow bulky goods to be driven away);
Level pedestrian access or Equality Act compliant ramps (or the ability to install these);
Servicing access, preferably separate to the customer access, and large enough to allow delivery and collection of bulky goods;
Room for separate storage of two 1100 ltr refuse bins;
Room to accommodate plant/air handling unit(s).
4.1.9 The search has been undertaken in Kimberley and Eastwood and was carried out on Monday 21 November 2011. The following sites were considered:
4.2 The Lord Nelson 18-20 Nottingham Road, Eastwood
4.2.1 Former 'The Lord Nelson' public house (now boarded up and vacant). Two storey terrace building. Shop front / building in average condition and has been the subject of exterior changes (window openings / frame replacement etc). However the windows are not of modern shop front window design (i.e. do not provide an open shop front) and so limit potential views of goods displayed within. Building is of Edwardian character, likely to be compartmentalised internally rather than an open plan layout. The building is in a reasonable condition; however it would require a fair amount of redevelopment at the ground and first floor in order to accommodate the intended use. The grounds extend to the rear where a small beer garden is located, via a shared unkempt access / alleyway.
4.2.2 Narrow lane leading from Nottingham Road provides access to the beer garden and rear of adjacent residential properties. Very limited parking opportunities to rear and service vehicle / turning space would be extremely compromised, both in terms of physical constraint and future operating constraint (in terms of noise and residential amenity). While the site previously operated as a public house in proximity to residential properties, it would be open to residents to seek action against any noise nuisance that may result from future A1 use of the property (building works to bring the
11
A073999 21/12/2011
Giltbrook Retail Park, Nottingham Limited
property into line with proposed use, deliveries, unloading and loading of stock) and this would be a significant consideration for prospective future occupiers.
4.2.3 The building directly fronts Nottingham Road, a busy traffic and bus route with no on street parking. Albert Street Short Stay Car Park (22 + 2 disabled spaces, well used on date of visit) is located in the locality but charges are incurred after first hour’s parking which, in some cases, would not be long enough to allow for visitors to the store to view all products, consult with staff and make any required decisions, orders and purchases.
4.2.4 In summary the building requires renovation, is located on a constrained site with no on-site or on- street parking and no viable service access. In terms of availability, the site is currently vacant and being marketed. Accordingly, the site is considered to be available. The requirement to renovate the property externally and internally in order for it to trade as a bulky goods retailer would incur additional costs, suggests the site is unviable. The requirement of internal and external redevelopment required due to the character of the building and lack of delivery, loading and unloading facilities render it unsuitable to meet the identified need.
Please see photographs: 1 & 2 in Appendix A
4.3 13 Nottingham Road, Eastwood
4.3.1 Medium sized two storey unit with residential flats above. A shared archway / gate appears to provide rear access to the flats above. The shop front and building are in good condition and appear to have been recently refurbished and ready to let. The size of property is considered too small for the proposed need, residential flats on the first floor of the property clearly prevent trading at that level. In order for the property to house the required facilities needed by the intended retailer it would require significant extension, which is clearly not possible at this property.
4.3.2 The narrow archway providing rear access does not accommodate large delivery vehicles and the hard standing to the rear of the property would not be able to accommodate car parking and delivery facilities. Accordingly, deliveries would need to be taken on-street via the customer entrance. Considering there are no formal on street parking facilities, this would not be a viable option. Albert Street Short Stay Car Park (22 + 2 disabled spaces, well used on date of visit) is in the locality but charges are incurred after first hour’s parking which, in some cases, would not provide a sufficient amount of time for visitors to view all products, consult with staff and make any required decisions, orders and purchases.
12
A073999 21/12/2011
Giltbrook Retail Park, Nottingham Limited
4.3.3 In terms of availability, the site was currently vacant and being marketed. Accordingly, the site is considered to be available. The lack of delivery and parking facilities, as well as the unlikelihood of the unit being capable of accommodating the required floorspace, all render it unsuitable to meet the identified need. The requirement to renovate/extend the property in order for it to trade as a bulky goods retailer would incur additional costs, suggests the site is unviable.
Please see photographs: 3 & 4 in Appendix A
4.4 39 Nottingham Road, Eastwood
4.4.1 Small three storey terraced unit in reasonable condition (previously 'Marble Arch' Chinese restaurant), with what appears to be residential accommodation above, results in the inability to form a first floor trading area. The size of the unit is unlikely to be able to appropriately house a suitable storage and sales area required by a bulky goods retailer.
4.4.2 No on-site parking and, while access is possible from Albert Street car park, deliveries would be difficult and have to take place through the customer entrance, thus causing an obstruction to the pedestrian walkway.
4.4.3 Building directly fronts Nottingham Road, a busy traffic and bus route with little formal on street parking. Albert Street Short Stay Car Park (22 + 2 disabled spaces, well used on date of visit) is in the locality but charges are incurred after first hour’s parking which, in some cases, would not provide a sufficient amount of time for visitors to view all products, consult with staff and make any required decisions, orders and purchases.
4.4.4 In summary the small unit is unlikely to be able to accommodate adequately the proposed use, extension of the unit is not possible because it is located on a constrained site, it provides no on-site or on-street parking and it has no viable delivery access. In terms of availability, the site is thought to potentially be available; however there are no marketing signs to suggest it is available to buy or let. The absence of delivery and car parking facilities coupled with the unit’s in-ability to physically house the intended use render the property unsuitable to meet the identified need. If the unit was considered large enough, which is not accepted, a significant amount of renovation externally and internally and the provision of formal delivery facilities would be required in order for it to trade as a bulky goods retailer. These costs versus the commercial takings from such an unsuitable site render the premises unviable.
Please see photograph: 5 at Appendix A
13
A073999 21/12/2011
Giltbrook Retail Park, Nottingham Limited
4.5 G&M Motor Co. 59 Nottingham Road, Eastwood
4.5.1 Victorian/Edwardian style two storey detached building set within its own plot, with on site parking to the front and side of the property. Space for parking is provided at the front of the plot, which fronts onto the Nottingham Road. While a large car park is located to the west side of the site, it would appear from the site visit that this was in the control of the neighbouring retailer (Iceland). Delivery/servicing facilities are poorly catered for at present with all deliveries apparently being taken through the front of the store (i.e. utilising the customer entrance/parking area with no ability for larger vehicles to enter and leave in a forward gear). The subject property is considerably smaller than the floorspace sought and, while it appears to be in a fair condition, its internal layout is likely to be compartmentalised on the first floor (which appears to be of residential character and scale). Accordingly, use of the first floor for trading purposes is unlikely to be suitable or, at least, would require significant remodelling.
4.5.2 The building is set back from Nottingham Road, to allow for on site parking to the front of the property. Albert Street Short Stay Car Park (22 + 2 disabled spaces, well used on date of visit) is also in the locality.
4.5.3 In terms of availability, although the site appears to have ceased trading, no marketing material could be found to suggest the property is on the market. Its availability, therefore, is in question. The size and compartmentalisation of the upper floor is considered unsuitable to accommodate a bulky goods retailer. The requirement to significantly renovate the property and make formal provision for required deliveries would result in substantial costs, which would still leave suitability in question. Accordingly, the unit is considered unviable.
Please see photographs: 6 & 7 at Appendix A
4.6 18 Main Street, Kimberley
4.6.1 Former shop (now boarded up and vacant), with flats above. Very small three storey corner building. Shop front / façade in poor condition. Building as a whole and flats above appear to be in average condition. Numerous window opening alterations, mixture of original and replacement PVCu windows and more recent areas of brickwork evident.
4.6.2 Narrow lane leading from Orchard Street provides access to flats above. Very limited parking / servicing opportunities to rear.
14
A073999 21/12/2011
Giltbrook Retail Park, Nottingham Limited
4.6.3 Building directly fronts Main Street, a busy traffic and bus route. No on-street parking although Main Street Short Stay Car Park (7 + 2 disabled spaces, full and large turnover of vehicles on date of visit) and Victoria Street Long Stay Car Park (31 + 2 disabled not used at time of visit) in the vicinity. However, charges are incurred (after first hour’s parking in the case of Main Street car park) which, in some cases, would not be long enough to allow for visitors to the store to view all products, consult with staff and make any required decisions, orders and purchases.
4.6.4 In summary, this is a very small, constrained unit with no scope for extension or provision of a mezzanine floor/additional space, therefore its ability to house the intended retailer is very limited. No meaningful on site parking or servicing facilities exist or could be provided. These points and the site’s location at the periphery of the centre all contribute to the site being unsuitable. In terms of availability, the site appears vacant and being marketed and therefore is considered to be available. The costs of conversion versus the commercial takings from such an unsuitable premises render the site unviable.
Please see photograph: 8at Appendix A
4.7 57 Main Street, Kimberley
4.7.1 A small two storey mid-terrace unit, which appears to be a former tanning shop with flats above. Shop façade and building are considered to be in generally good condition. The floorspace available at the property is unlikely to be able to house the facilities required by a bulky goods retailer, and preclude creation of a mezzanine floor area/additional space.
4.7.2 While access to rear can be gained from Victoria Street no significant on-site parking is available. The delivery area is shared with neighbouring properties and therefore constrained, the loading and unloading of bulky goods are likely to cause obstruction. Servicing from street would also be difficult due to change in levels and raised area to the front. Parking associated with shopping area / retail units on Greens Lane is located opposite.
4.7.3 In summary this unit is very small with no scope for extension; it is therefore unlikely that any amount of remodelling or refurbishment would assist in providing the amount of floor space required. The unit provides no on site parking facilities, and only a constrained servicing area. All this renders the site unsuitable. In terms of availability, the site is currently vacant and is being marketed and therefore available. The costs of conversion versus the commercial takings from such an unsuitable premises render the site unviable.
Please see photographs: 9 & 10 at Appendix A
15
A073999 21/12/2011
Giltbrook Retail Park, Nottingham Limited
4.8 Concluding Comments
4.8.1 Notwithstanding the inapplicability of PPS4 policy EC15.1, the forgoing analysis shows that there are no sequentially preferable sites that are suitable, viable and available.
4.8.2 The analysis set out above is an update of a survey carried out in March 2011. A number of units identified during that earlier survey have since found new tenants, such as 10 Main Street, Kimberley; Churchill’s Bar, Kimberley; 57 Main Street Kimberley; 83 Nottingham Road, Eastwood; and 85 Nottingham Road, Eastwood. There were also properties that were being advertised as vacant that have now been fully let, such as Onsite Lodge, Mansfield Road, Eastwood.
4.8.3 Whilst carrying out the current survey it would appear that vacancies have reduced and that both Eastwood and Kimberley are trading well, perhaps better than the national average (the national average vacancy rate being 13.49% in October 2011).
4.8.4 The survey found a few vacant properties such as 18 Mansfield Road, Eastwood and 158 Nottingham Road, Eastwood where floorspace provision was considered far too low (approx 30sqm) to justifiably house a bulky goods retailer, even taking a very flexible approach. Accordingly, it was not considered that a full review was required.
16
A073999 21/12/2011
Giltbrook Retail Park, Nottingham Limited
5.0 Impact
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 Section 3 of this report sets out the relevant impact considerations that local planning authorities should take into account in determining an application such as this comprise; namely those considerations referred to in Policies EC10 and EC16 of PPS4. Below we deal with each of criteria listed under these policies in turn.
5.1.2 Before considering the individual criteria of Policy EC10 it is worth noting that paragraph EC10.1 of PPS4 notes that LPAs should adopt a positive and constructive approach towards planning applications for economic development and that applications that secure sustainable economic growth should be treated favourably.
5.2 EC10.2 (a) Whether the proposal has been planned over the lifetime of the development to limit carbon dioxide emissions, and minimise vulnerability and provide resilience to climate change
5.2.1 As set out in Section 2 of this report the Giltbrook Retail Park was allocated in the Local Plan in 2004, granted consent in 2007 and constructed and opened by September 2008. The development the subject of this application proposes internal alterations only of an existing retail unit. The alterations will allow a more efficient use of an existing facility and an increased range of goods to be displayed at the store, thus reducing the need for customers to travel elsewhere. Accordingly, the proposed development can be seen to limit carbon dioxide emissions and minimise vulnerability and provide resilience to climate change.
5.3 EC10.2 (b) The accessibility of the proposal by a choice of means of transport and the effect on local traffic levels and congestion
5.3.1 The application site and the wider Giltbrook Retail Park can both be easily accessed by a variety of modes of transport including walking, cycling, public transport and private car. As set out above, this site also provides ideal opportunities for linked trips. The site is located on a bus route and bus stops were included as part of the original retail park development proposals (including a bus stop on site). Buses also serve this site from the nearby Phoenix Park ‘Park and Ride’ site which also links into the Nottingham Express Transit (NET) system. Footpath networks and cycle parking provision were all incorporated as part of the site’s original design and layout. Accordingly, the site can be held to be accessible by a choice of means of transport.
17
A073999 21/12/2011
Giltbrook Retail Park, Nottingham Limited
5.3.2 The effect of local traffic levels and congestion is considered in the accompanying Transport Statement produced by BWB Consulting Limited. Section 3 of the BWB report deals with traffic generation and confirms that the proposed development will have a negligible effect on traffic generation, even if one were to assume the floorspace would attract trips to the site in the same proportion as principal ground level floor space. Accordingly, it is not considered the proposed development will have a significant effect on local traffic levels or congestion.
5.4 EC10.2 (c) Whether the proposal secures a high quality and inclusive design which takes the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area and way it functions
5.4.1 The development proposed is principally associated with internal alterations comprising the insertion of a mezzanine floor. Clearly, such development would have no substantive effect on the character and quality of the area or, indeed, the way it functions. However, first floor glazing is also proposed to provide natural light to the mezzanine area (beneficial in sustainability terms) and in this respect the proposed windows would match other first floor windows at the retail park in terms of design, materials and colour. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be of high quality design and will fully accord with the character of the local area.
5.5 EC10.2 (d) The impact on economic and physical regeneration in the area including the impact on deprived areas and social inclusion objectives
5.5.1 The proposed development would allow more efficient use of an existing unit and will consequently increase the retention of trade in the local area. The development will ensure that employment continues to be created at this unit and will be likely to increase (additional staff for the additional floorspace). These positive economic impacts should not be underestimated in the current economic downturn.
5.6 EC10.2 (e) Impact on local employment
5.6.1 As set out above the continued occupation of this unit and increased floorspace will ensure that employment continues to be generated. Such jobs are likely to benefit the local labour market primarily and will no doubt be welcome at a time of high unemployment. Accordingly, the impact on employment will be positive.
5.7 Policy EC10 Conclusions
5.7.1 As can be seen from the above it is clear that the proposed development fully accords with the impact criteria set out under Policy EC10 of PPS4. Indeed, insofar as the criteria are relevant to the
18
A073999 21/12/2011
Giltbrook Retail Park, Nottingham Limited
development proposed, the associated impacts can be seen to be positive and particularly welcome at this point in the economic cycle.
5.7.2 Before going on to consider the criteria set out at Policy EC16 of PPS4 it is worth noting again that these impact criteria area only relevant where a proposal is not in accordance with an up to date development plan. As set out in Section 3 above, it is considered that the phased development is in accordance with Policy S2 of the Local Plan and that Policy S2 is “up to date”.
5.7.3 Furthermore, paragraph EC14.5 of PPS4 notes that Policy EC16 only relate to development below 2,500 sq m that would be “likely to have a significant impact on other centres”. The proposed development comprises a mezzanine floor of just 697 sq m, very substantially below the 2,500 sq m threshold referred to in PPS4. Furthermore, the floorspace is required to facilitate continued occupation of the unit by a bulky goods retailer. Neither Kimberley nor Eastwood, the two town centres in closest proximity to the application site, have a substantive bulky goods offering and no in-centre carpet retailers. Accordingly the proposal for a very small percentage increase in floorspace at this site is unlikely to have any “significant impact” on other centres.
5.7.4 Notwithstanding the above two very significant points, we consider the individual criteria set out at Policy EC16 of PPS4 below. However, we do have regard to the policy set out in paragraph EC14.7 of PPS4 which notes that “the level of detail and type of evidence and analysis required in impact assessments should be proportionate to the scale and nature of the proposal and its likely impact”.
5.7.5 Considerations of catchment area, turnover, trade draw and trade diversion is set out at Appendix B and has informed the response to the individual EC16 criteria below.
5.8 EC16.1 (a) Impact of proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal
5.8.1 The development of 697 sq m of additional floor space at this site is very small indeed, both in absolute terms and when considered as a percentage of the floorspace already present at the Giltbrook Retail Park. Such a small addition is unlikely to have any material effect on public or private sector investment considerations nor any effect on any town centre redevelopment proposal.
5.8.2 The guidance accompanying PPS4 notes that factors which will determine whether a proposal is likely to undermine committed or planned investment include the effects on forecast turnovers, current turnovers, operator demand and investor confidence. Notwithstanding the findings of section 4 (i.e. that there are no suitable, viable and available sequentially preferable sites) the proposal is
19
A073999 21/12/2011
Giltbrook Retail Park, Nottingham Limited
for additional floorspace in an existing retail unit to benefit the existing operator. Operator demand and invested confidence in such centres will remain unchanged and undiminished. Furthermore, as stated above, Kimberley and Eastwood have no substantive bulky goods retailers and no carpet retailers and accordingly the effect of the proposed development on the turnover of the existing centres is likely to be minimal (trade draw is likely to be more from like for like facilities such as those on Giltbrook Retail Park and retail parks elsewhere in the locality).
5.9 EC16.1 (b) Impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability including local consumer choice and the range and quality of the comparison retail offer
5.9.1 Advice on how to judge the effects of a proposal on the vitality and viability of a centre is provide in the PPS4 Practice Guidance document in the text box following paragraph 7.25. The advice principally relates to impacts on planned investment in centres which have been considered above. However, the Guidance also notes that loss of a key town centre use or loss of demand from a prospective operator may be significant. As already set out above, the proposal will result in no loss of demand from the occupier of unit 8 for a unit or units in centre such as Kimberley and Eastwood. Furthermore, and perhaps of greater significance, the proposal will not result in any significant “cross-over” of goods sold nor any substantive trade diversion from the local designated centres.
5.9.2 Given the above considerations, it can be concluded that there will be no significant adverse effect on vitality and viability or the range in quality of the existing retail offer.
5.10 EC16.1 (c) Impact of the proposal on allocated sites outside town centres being developed in accordance with the Development Plan
5.10.1 The only out of centre site allocated in the Development Plan is the application site itself, allocated under Policy S2. Accordingly, the proposed development will actively fulfil the continued development of the allocation in accordance with the aims and objectives of the Local Plan.
5.11 EC16.1 (d) Impact of the proposal on in-centre trade/ turnover and on trade in the wider area
5.11.1 A qualitative and quantitative assessment, proportionate to the scale of the development proposed, is set out in Appendix B.
5.11.2 The assessment demonstrates that the proposed small scale mezzanine floor would not result in any significant adverse retail impact on existing facilities in the PCA, particularly the nearby Eastwood and Kimberly town centres. There is no evidence that the proposed development would lead to a
20
A073999 21/12/2011
Giltbrook Retail Park, Nottingham Limited
significant adverse impact on these established town centres or the wider area. The scheme therefore complies with Policy EC16.1(d) of PPS4 in terms of retail impact.
5.12 EC16.1 (e) Appropriateness of scale if located on the edge or within a town centre
5.12.1 The application site is not located on the edge or within a town centre and accordingly this impact criterion is not relevant. However, as a partial (697 sq m) mezzanine within an existing unit on a site allocated in the Local Plan, we consider the scale of the proposed development to be entirely appropriate to its location.
5.13 EC16.1 (f) Any locally important impacts on centres
5.13.1 This criterion relates to PPS4 Policy EC3.1 (e) which calls upon local planning authorities to define any locally important impacts on centres which should be tested as a part of the consideration of retail proposals. The Local Plan, which predates PPS4, has no stated locally important impacts. Accordingly, this impact criterion is not relevant to the current proposals.
5.14 Policy EC16 Conclusions
5.14.1 The above assessment confirms that there are no significant adverse impacts resulting from the proposed development and that the modest size of the development proposed is acceptable in this regard.
21
A073999 21/12/2011
Giltbrook Retail Park, Nottingham Limited
6.0 Conclusions
6.1.1 The proposed development seeks an increase in the floorspace of Unit 8 from 895sqm to 1,592sqm by the insertion of a 697sqm mezzanine floor.
6.1.2 The site is situated in an out of centre location, allocated for bulky goods retailing by “saved” policy S2 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004). The proposal is in compliance with this policy. Furthermore, the small size of the proposed mezzanine floor is substantially below the nominal threshold for requiring impact assessments set out in PPS4 and the draft National Planning Policy Framework.
6.1.3 Notwithstanding the above points, a sequential search was carried out which concluded there were no sequentially preferable sites which were suitable, viable and available in either Eastwood or Kimberley. An impact assessment has also been carried out which confirmed that the estimated turnover of the additional floorspace would be insignificant when set against the growth in comparison goods expenditure over the course of the next five years. Furthermore, trade diversion would be spread over a wide area and would primarily come from ‘like for like’ facilities (other predominantly bulky retailers located at Retail Park within the catchment area). Accordingly, there are considered to be no unacceptable impact considerations.
6.1.4 Policy EC17.2 of PPS4 requires that where there is no significant adverse impact identified under the criteria set out in Policy EC10 and EC16, planning applications should be determined by taking account of:
(c) The positive and negative impacts of the proposal in terms of Policies EC10.2 and EC16.1 and any other material consideration; and
(d) The likely cumulative effects of recent permissions, developments under construction and completed developments.
6.1.5 Paragraph EC17.3 of PPS4 sets out what constitutes a significant impact as follows: “judgements about the extent and significance of any impact should be informed by the Development Plan (where it is up to date). Recent local assessments of the health of town centres which take account of the vitality and viability indicators in Annex D ….. and any published local information (such as a town centre or retail strategy), would also be relevant”.
6.1.6 In February 2011 the Local Planning Authority considered an application at Unit 10 for a mezzanine floor which was 20% larger than that proposed by this application. That proposal was found to be in accordance with Policy S2 of the Local Plan and PPS 4 and there were considered to be no
22
A073999 21/12/2011
Giltbrook Retail Park, Nottingham Limited
material considerations which outweighed that policy compliance. Permission was granted under delegated powers. It is considered that the current proposal is also in compliance with these policies and, once again, there are no material considerations which suggest permission should be refused.
6.1.7 It is concluded, therefore, that planning permission should be granted.
23
A073999 21/12/2011
Giltbrook Retail Park, Nottingham Limited
Appendix A
Sequential Analysis Photographs
1
A073999 21/12/2011 Sequential Analysis
A073999: Unit 8 Giltbrook Retail Park, Nottingham
Photograph 1: The Lord Nelson 18-20 Nottingham Road, Eastwood
Photograph 2: The Lord Nelson 18-20 Nottingham Road, Eastwood
WYG Group creative minds safe hands www.wyg.com
Sequential Analysis
A073999: Unit 8 Giltbrook Retail Park, Nottingham
Photograph 3: 13 Nottingham Road, Eastwood
Photograph 4: 13 Nottingham Road, Eastwood
WYG Group creative minds safe hands www.wyg.com
Sequential Analysis
A073999: Unit 8 Giltbrook Retail Park, Nottingham
Photograph 5: 39 Nottingham Road, Eastwood
WYG Group creative minds safe hands www.wyg.com
Sequential Analysis
A073999: Unit 8 Giltbrook Retail Park, Nottingham
Photograph 6: G&M Motor Co. 59 Nottingham Road, Eastwood
Photograph 7: G&M Motor Co. 59 Nottingham Road, Eastwood
WYG Group creative minds safe hands www.wyg.com
Sequential Analysis
A073999: Unit 8 Giltbrook Retail Park, Nottingham
Photograph 8: 18 Main Street, Kimberley
WYG Group creative minds safe hands www.wyg.com
Sequential Analysis
A073999: Unit 8 Giltbrook Retail Park, Nottingham
Photograph 9: 57 Main Street, Kimberley
Photograph 10: 57 Main Street, Kimberley
WYG Group creative minds safe hands www.wyg.com
Retail Impact Assessment
Appendix B
Impact Assessment
1
A073999 21/12/2011
Retail Impact Assessment
Introduction
This quantitative retail impact assessment has been prepared by WYG Planning & Design in relation to the proposed installation of a mezzanine sales floor in unit 8, Giltbrook Retail Park. It assesses the likely trading impact of the proposed development on trading patterns and in-centre trade/turnover in the wider area, addressing the requirements of Policy EC16.1(d) of PPS4. The assessment takes account current and future consumer expenditure capacity in the catchment area in the 5 year period from the 2011 base year, as set out in PPS4 and the accompanying Practice Guidance.
The Proposed Development
The retail unit forming the subject of the application is occupied by Carpet Right. The installation of the proposed mezzanine will facilitate continued trading at the unit. The mezzanine itself measures 698 sq m net sales in total.
Giltrbook Retail Park is a well established shopping destination with a range of predominantly bulky comparison goods retailers, albeit there are some non-bulky retailers. Occupiers currently include IKEA, Next Home, British Homes Stores, SCS and Laura Ashley. Broxtowe Borough Council has granted planning permission for the installation of mezzanine trading floors in three of the units since the retail park first opened: units 12, 15 and most recently the Next Home at unit 10 in January 2011.
Quantitative Impact Assessment
It is important to note at the outset that Policy EC5.4a of PPS4 states that a retail impact assessment should be carried out for developments over 2,500 sq m gross. Policy EC14.5 considers developments smaller than this require an impact assessment only if they not in accordance with the development plan and are likely to have a significant impact on other centres. PPS4 is also clear that the information and level of detail submitted as an impact assessment should be proportional to the scale and nature of the development proposed.
The application proposal is significantly smaller than the PPS4 impact threshold, is in accordance with Local Plan policy S2 and is unlikely to have any significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of established town centres in the catchment area. An impact assessment is not therefore required in this instance. However, in the interests of robustness and following pre-application discussion with officers at Broxtowe Borough Council, such an assessment is set out below.
2
A073999 21/12/2011
Retail Impact Assessment
The Greater Nottingham Retail Study (January 2008) carried out by DTZ following a joint commission by Broxtowe Borough Council and neighbouring authorities provides the relevant retail evidence base for the catchment area. Reference has been made to the document in producing this impact assessment. In addition, and following pre-application discussions with the Council, particular reference has been given to the Planning and Retail Statement (December 2010) written by Roger Tym & Partners (RTPPS) in support of the approved planning application for a mezzanine floor at the neighbouring Next Home unit (LPA ref: 10/00721/FUL). The methodology adopted and findings of the assessment were independently audited by a retail consultant on behalf of the Council and found to be an acceptable and robust analysis of the development which was subsequently approved.
The impact assessment below therefore adopts similar methodology, as agreed with officers at the Council. It follows a widely accepted step by step approach having regard to PPS4 and accompanying Practice Guidance. The population and expenditure per capita data used are derived from an Experian MMG3 GIS report and are an update of the RTPPS figures. The price base is also updated from 2006 to 2010.
Quantitative impact is calculated in terms of the percentage reduction in trade at existing centres and retail parks at 2016 and the percentage change in turnover of the established destinations between 2011 and 2016. The likely pattern of trade draw to the proposed new store is based on our experience of trading patterns in similar circumstances. It takes into account the scale and form of the proposed new store and nature of existing provision. The assessment adopts the widely accepted basis that retail facilities tend to compete on a ‘like for like’ basis.
Primary Catchment Area
The RTPPS defined a PCA comprised of 4 zones based on postcode sectors. The PCA is adopted for this assessment as the area from which the proposed floorspace is likely to draw the majority of its trade. The area is shown on the accompanying catchment plan, below.
The IKEA store is the main anchor and attraction on the Giltbrook Retail Park. The store is likely to serve a very wide catchment and draw customers from areas beyond the PCA identified. It is reasonable to conclude that people coming from such a wide geographic area to visit the IKEA are also likely to visit other stores in the retail park as part of a linked trip. The result of this pattern is that the retail park as a whole draws a substantial proportion of trade from beyond the PCA. It is likely that the proportion will be significantly above the 10% trade draw from outside of the PCA adopted in the RTPPS. However, to be robust, we have adopted the 10% figure used in the RTPPS and accepted by the Council.
3
A073999 21/12/2011
Retail Impact Assessment
Turnover of the Proposed Development
Table 1 in the accompanying statistical tables (below) sets out the turnover of the proposed development, which is estimated to be £0.8m, £0.7m of which will be drawn from the PCA (90%).
The turnover is calculated using benchmark sales density figure for Carpetright derived from Mintel Retail Rankings (2011) (MRR). The sales density figure of 1,151 £/sq m (2010 prices) results in the annual turnover from the proposed floorspace of £0.8m. This is considered a reasonable and robust basis for the assessment of likely turnover.
In our view, the proposed mezzanine is unlikely to trade at the intensity of the main floorspace in the store. It would be reasonable to assume a reduced sales density for the mezzanine relative to the remainder of the unit. However, we have not taken this into account in our statistical analysis of likely retail impact. The analysis therefore represents a worst case and robust scenario in this instance.
Population and Expenditure Growth
Tables 2 and 2A, below, set out the current and forecast population and expenditure per capita (taking account of Special Forms of Trading) growth in the PCA in the period 2011-2016. The figures are derived from an Experian MMG3 Report obtained in December 2011, with Special Forms of Trading deducted and annual growth rates applied on the basis of Experian Retail Planner 9 (August 2011).
Table 2B combines the population and expenditure per capita to provide total available comparison goods retail expenditure in the PCA. This figure is £799.8m in 2011 across the four zones. The figure is forecast to rise by 3.8% to £829.9m in 2014 and again by 11.1% to £888.2m in 2016.
It is noted that the £0.8m PCA derived turnover of the proposed development represents just 0.9% of the growth in total available comparison goods retail expenditure in the PCA in the period 2011-2016. The figure is a clear early indication of the small scale and likely insignificant retail impact of the proposed development.
Trade Diversion
Table 3 sets out the forecast trade diversion to the proposed development, that is, the zones of the PCA from which the proposed floorspace is likely to derive its trade. Trade diversion is a WYG Planning & Design assumption taking account of the location of the proposed development and the strength of competing facilities, both inside and outside the PCA. It is also based on our experience of similar developments elsewhere.
4
A073999 21/12/2011
Retail Impact Assessment
The proposed floorspace is likely to display a dispersed pattern of trade draw. People are likely to travel to the store (as they do the existing retail park) from across the PCA. On this basis, the assessment adopts the assumption that the store will divert trade as follows:
35% (£0.28m) from Zone 1; 25% (£0.20m) from Zone 2; 25% (£0.20m) from Zone 3; and 15% (£0.12m) from Zone 4.
Combined with the minimal turnover of the proposed floorspace, the dispersed pattern of trade diversion demonstrates the likely insignificant impact of the proposed development on the turnover of existing town centres and facilities in the PCA. This is effectively illustrated by comparing the trade diversion to the total available expenditure in the 4 zones of the PCA in 2016, calculating a market penetration rate. The highest market penetration would be in 0.1% (Zones 1, 2 and 3) and just 0.05% in Zone 4. Such small figures for market penetration indicate a likely negligible retail impact.
Trade Draw
Table 4 sets out the likely trade draw from existing facilities in the PCA and beyond.
Colum 1 of Table 4 sets out the 2011 turnover of existing retail parks and town centres included in the PCA and prominent facilities outside the area. The turnover figures are derived from the RTPPS (Table IS5) on the basis that they were accepted by the Council as a robust basis for assessment. The figures have been price indexed to 2010 prices to ensure consistency throughout the assessment and projected to a 2011 base by applying the 0.1% annual sales efficiency rate adopted in the RTPPS.
Column 2 projects the 2011 turnover figures forward to 2016 on the basis that all facilities benefit on a pro rata basis from the growth in total available comparison goods expenditure in the PCA over this period (Table 2B). This is consistent with standard methodology and that adopted in the RTPPS.
Column 3 of Table 4 sets out the likely trade draw of the proposed development from existing facilities. Column 4 converts the percentage trade draw to actual monetary figures. The trade draw takes account of, and is consistent with, the trade diversion analysis. It is based on WYG assumptions of the relative compatibility of competing facilities in other locations, their strength of attraction and distance from the application site.
It is considered that there will be very little trade draw from either Eastwood or Kimberley Town Centres. This is the case due to there being no carpet retailers and, indeed, relatively little bulky goods retailing.
5
A073999 21/12/2011
Retail Impact Assessment
There is therefore unlikely to be any substantial cross over in trade between the town centres and the proposed floorspace.
In contrast, the majority of trade is likely to be drawn from other bulky retailers on the Giltbrook Retail Park (e.g. IKEA and Next Home) and retail parks elsewhere. As competing out-of-centre retail destinations, these facilities are not afforded any policy protection.
Assessed Level of Impact
Columns 8 and 9 of Table 4 illustrate the impact of the proposed floorspace on the calculated 2016 turnover of centres/retail facilities in the PCA.
The proposed development is assessed to have a 0.04% and 0.09% impact on Eastwood and Kimberley town centres respectively. Albeit still marginal, the largest impact will be on competing retailers in the Chilwell Retail Park (0.59%) and Giltbrook Retail Park (0.22%).
The minimal level of impact on 2016 turnover will also be off-set by the substantial level of projected growth in total available expenditure in the PCA from 2011 to 2016. Column 6 and 7 calculate this change in turnover of Eastwood and Kimberly town centres. The comparison goods turnover of Eastwood Town Centre is forecast to grow by £3.1m and Kimberly Town Centre by £0.4m over this period. The increase is attributable to the growth in expenditure over this period and will have a mitigating effect in combating the small impact on in-centre turnover associated with the proposed development.
Summary
The assessment has demonstrated that the proposed small scale mezzanine floor would not result in any significant adverse retail impact on existing facilities in the PCA, particularly the nearby Eastwood and Kimberly town centres. There is no evidence that the proposed development would lead to a significant adverse impact on these established town centres. The scheme therefore complies with Policy EC16.1(d) of PPS4 in terms of retail impact.
6
A073999 21/12/2011
Retail Impact Assessment
Catchment Plan
A073999 21/12/2011
B6407 B6031 B5057 A617 B6038 B6035 B6034 M1 B6417
A617 A60 B6030
B6039 A6191 B6030 B6036
MANSFIELD B6014 B6014 B6028
B6025 A617 A617 SUTTON IN ASHFIELD A617
B6023 A38 ALFRETON B6020 A614
B5035 B6018
A6097 B6016 ZONE 3 B600 ZONE 4 B683 A60 B6011 B6386 RIPLEY A614 B6013
B6009 BELPER
B600 B6179 HEANOR B683 B684 ZONE 1 B6010 A6 A60 M1 ZONE 2 ILKESTON A6514
B686 B6007 A609 NOTTINGHAM A38
A61 A52 A52 A52 DERBY B6464 B5010 A453 B6000 A52 A6005 B6002 A5111 A6 A606 B6540
A6 A453
B6540 A50 A453 A50
B587 A453 A6 B5006
Giltbrook Retail Park, Nottingham Limited
Statistical Tables
A073999 21/12/2011
Unit 8, Giltbrook Retail Park, Nottingham Statistical Tables
Table 1: Turnover of Proposed Development
Floorspace Net Sales Area (sq m) Benchmark Sales Density (£/sq m) Turnover (£m) Turnover from PCA (£m)
Comparison 698 1151 0.8 0.7
Notes
Net sales area dervied from planning application drawings.
Benchmark sales density for Carpetright derived from Mintel Retail Rankings (September 2011).
Turnover = net sales area x sales denisty.
Turnover from PCA = 90% of total turnover.
2010 Prices
Net Sales Area Sq ft Sq m 7508.0 697.5 Source: planning application drawings
Retail Rankings Sales Densities (2010 Prices) Carpetright 1151 Bulky Good Average 3200 Furniture Retailers 2472 Dreams 1567 Source: Mintel Retail Rankings (Sept 2011) Unit 8, Giltbrook Retail Park, Nottingham Statistical Tables
Table 2: Population
Year Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 PCA Total
2011 97,404 72,596 74,980 100,049 345,029 2012 97,808 72,999 75,506 100,686 346,999 2013 98,360 73,360 75,922 101,490 349,132 2014 99,061 73,684 76,468 102,228 351,441 2015 99,557 74,179 76,826 103,042 353,604 2016 100,215 74,635 77,394 103,742 355,986
Notes
Population derived from Experian MMG3 report.
2010 Prices
Table 2A: Expenditure Per Capita Comparison Goods Expenditure
Year Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4
2011 2,469 2,300 2,287 2,209 2012 2,459 2,290 2,278 2,200 2013 2,478 2,308 2,296 2,217 2014 2,515 2,343 2,330 2,250 2015 2,583 2,406 2,392 2,311 2016 2,657 2,475 2,462 2,377
Notes
2010 comparison goods expenditure per capita taken from Experian MMG3 report. Subsequent years projected forward using the forecast annual growth rates set out in the Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note 9 (August 2011) (Figure 1).
2010 Prices
Table 2B: Total Available Expenditure in the PCA
Year Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 PCA Total
2011 240.5 166.9 171.5 221.0 799.8 2012 240.5 167.2 172.0 221.5 801.1 2013 243.7 169.3 174.3 225.0 812.4 2014 249.1 172.6 178.1 230.0 829.9 2015 257.1 178.4 183.8 238.1 857.4 2016 266.3 184.7 190.5 246.6 888.2
Growth 2011-2014 Growth 2011-2016 £m % £m %
30.1 3.8 88.4 11.1
Notes
Total available expenditure = population (Table 2) x expenditure per capita (Table 2A) Subsequent years projected forward using the forecast annual growth rates set out in the Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note 9 (August 2011) (Figure 1).
2010 Prices Unit 8, Giltbrook Retail Park, Nottingham Statistical Tables
Table 3: Trade Diversion to Application Proposal
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Total Location Zone % £m % £m % £m % £m £m
[1] [2] [1] [2] [1] [2] [1] [2] [3]
Eastwood Town Centre 1 1.5 0.00 1.5 0.00 1.5 0.00 1.5 0.00 0.01 Kimberley Town Centre 1 0.5 0.00 0.5 0.00 0.5 0.00 0.5 0.00 0.00 Giltbrook Retail Park 1 45 0.13 25 0.05 23 0.05 30 0.04 0.26 Chillwell Retail Park 1 25 0.07 35 0.07 25 0.05 5 0.01 0.20 Illkeston Town Centre 2 0 0.00 2 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 Ripley Town Centre 3 0 0.00 3 0.01 5 0.01 0 0.00 0.02 Alfreton Town Centre 3 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 0.01 0 0.00 0.01 Springfield Retail Park 4 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 Hucknall Town Centre 4 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 0.01 5 0.01 0.02 Kirkby in Ashfield Town Centre 4 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 0.01 5 0.01 0.02
Total from PCA 72 0.20 67 0.13 70 0.14 47 0.06 0.53
Victoria Retail Park - 13 0.04 8 0.02 0 0.00 10 0.01 0.06 Nottingham City Centre - 10 0.03 5 0.01 10 0.02 33 0.04 0.10 Derby City Centre - 0 0.00 15 0.03 10 0.02 0 0.00 0.05 Other - 5 0.01 5 0.01 10 0.02 10 0.01 0.06
Total 100 0.28 100 0.20 100 0.20 100 0.12 0.80
Notes
[1] % trade diversion from each zone a WYG assumption based on nature of the proposed development and existing retail faciliteis in the PCA. [2] Trade diversion as a proportion of total available expenditure in the particular zone of the PCA (Table 2B). [3] Total trade draw from existing facilities.
2010 Prices Unit 8, Giltbrook Retail Park, Nottingham Statistical Tables
Table 4: Trade Draw and Impact
Total Turnover Trade Draw Residual Turnover Impact 2011 2016 to Proposal 2016 Change 2011-2016 2016 Impact £m £m % £m £m £m % £m %
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
Eastwood Town Centre 28.9 32.1 1.5 0.01 32.1 3.1 10.8 0.0 -0.04 Kimberley Town Centre 3.9 4.3 0.5 0.00 4.3 0.4 10.7 0.0 -0.09 Giltbrook Retail Park 119.2 132.0 32.3 0.26 131.7 12.5 10.5 -0.3 -0.20 Chillwell Retail Park 30.0 33.2 24.5 0.20 33.0 3.0 10.0 -0.2 -0.59 Illkeston Town Centre 69.5 77.2 0.5 0.00 77.2 7.6 11.0 0.0 -0.01 Ripley Town Centre 30.0 33.2 2.0 0.02 33.2 3.3 10.9 0.0 -0.05 Alfreton Town Centre 46.6 51.7 1.3 0.01 51.7 5.1 11.0 0.0 -0.02 Springfield Retail Park 15.0 16.7 0.0 0.00 16.7 1.6 10.9 0.0 0.00 Hucknall Town Centre 17.1 19.0 2.0 0.02 19.0 1.8 10.7 0.0 -0.08 Kirkby in Ashfield Town Centre 8.6 9.5 2.0 0.02 9.5 0.9 10.5 0.0 -0.17
Total from PCA 368.9 408.9 66.5 0.5 408.3 39.4 10.7 -0.5 -0.13
Victoria Retail Park 40.9 45.3 8.1 0.06 45.2 4.4 10.7 -0.1 -0.14 Nottingham City Centre 754.0 837.3 12.2 0.10 837.2 83.2 11.0 -0.1 -0.01 Derby City Centre 632.3 702.2 6.3 0.05 702.1 69.8 11.0 -0.1 -0.01 Other - - 7.0 0.06
Total 1796.0 1993.6 93.0 0.7 1992.8 196.8 11.0 -0.7 -0.04
Notes
[1] Total turnover of existing facilities based on accepted Roger Tym & Partners Planning and Retail Statement (December 2010) submitted in evdience as part of planning permission 10/00721/FUL. with turnover indexed to 2010 prices and projeted forward to 2011 base date using a sales efficiency rate of 0.1% pa (2010-2011) [2] Increase in turnover based on the assumption that all operators gain pro-rata from the growth in comparison (11.1%) expenditure between 2011-2016. Allowance made for impact of permitted Next. Home mezzanine in line with trade draw assumptions accepted in the determination of planning permisison 10/00721/FUL [3] % pattern of trade draw to proposed development estimated on the strength, nature and geogrpahical location of competing facilities. [4] = [3]/1.0 x 100 [5] 2016 change in turnover of existing facilities following the application development. [6] = [5] - [1] [7] = [6] / [1] x 100 [8] = [5] - [2] [9] = [8] / [2] x 100
2010 Prices