Lancaster City Council Planning Applications Reference 10 ... · 2.09 In considering retail...

Lancaster City Council

Planning Applications Reference

10/00366/OUT and 10/00251/FUL

Appraisal of Retail Planning Issues

April 2011

Address: Quay West at MediaCityUK, Trafford Wharf Road, Trafford Park, Manchester, M17 1HH

Tel: 0161 872 3223

E-Mail: [email protected]

Web: www.wyg.com

WYG Planning and Design creative minds safe hands

Document Control

Project: Scotforth Road, Lancaster

Client: Lancaster City Council

Job Number: A064404

File Origin: T:\Job Files - Manchester\A064404 - Scotforth Road, Lancaster\Reports\Final\Scotforth Road Applications Appraisal.doc

Document Checking:

Prepared by: Richard Shepherd Signed:

Checked by: Keith Nutter Signed:

Verified by: Keith Nutter Signed:


Contents Page

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 Planning Policy Context.............................................................................................................. 3

3.0 CEP Application......................................................................................................................... 10

4.0 Booths Application..................................................................................................................... 27

5.0 Cumulative Retail Impact Assessment.......................................................................................... 35

1


1.0 Introduction

1.01 WYG Planning & Design has been instructed by Lancaster City Council to provide consultancy advice to

manage the determination of two planning applications for food retail development at Scotforth Road,

Lancaster.

1.02 This report focuses specifically on the retail planning policy of relevance to the applications’

determination and has significant regard to Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable

Economic Growth, as well as the statutory development plan.

1.03 The two applications which are the subject of our advice can be summarised as follows:

� Planning Application Reference 10/00366/OUT, which has been submitted by Commercial

Estates Projects (CEP) and seeks outline planning permission for a mixed-use development

comprising:

- a foodstore of up to 7,250 sq.m gross floorspace (4,350 sq.m net), with approximately 400

car parking spaces and accompanying petrol filling station;

- a 50-bed hotel, with associated public house/restaurant, with around 99 car parking spaces;

- a new roundabout on Scotforth Road and access into the site (including provision for access

to land to the west of the railway line); and

- associated hard and soft landscaping, including the retention of the southern portion of the

site as open space.

� Planning Application Reference 10/00251/FUL, which has been submitted by EH Booth and Co.

Limited (Booths) and seeks full planning permission for a supermarket of 3,230 sq.m gross (2,052

sq.m net), the construction of a new access, servicing and parking area, footways, cycle facilities

and landscaping.

1.04 Given that this report concerns itself with the merits of the respective applications in retail planning

terms only, the remainder of the report is structure as follows:

Section 2 sets out the retail planning policy which will be material to the consideration of both of the

applications.

2


Section 3 considers the compliance of the CEP application with retail planning policy.

Section 4 considers the compliance of the Booths application with retail planning policy.

Section 5 addresses the potential cumulative impact of both developments.

Section 6 provides a summary of the key issues in respect of retail planning policy and sets out our

conclusions.

3


2.0 Planning Policy Context

The Development Plan

2.01 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides that:

‘…if regard is to be had to the Development Plan for the 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.’

2.02 The statutory development plan for Lancaster comprises the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North

West (‘the North West of England Plan’, published September 2008), read together with the Lancaster

District Core Strategy (adopted July 2008) and the policies of the Lancaster District Local Plan

(adopted April 2004), which were ‘saved’ under the provisions of the Planning and Compulsory

Purchase Act 2004 by virtue of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government’s

Direction of 18 September 2007. The saved policies of the Local Plan are still of relevance given the

early stage in production of Lancaster’s Development Management Development Plan Document and

Land Allocations Development Plan Document.

Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West

2.03 Whilst the Secretary of State announced the revocation of all Regional Spatial Strategies with

immediate effect on 6 July 2010, this decision has subsequently been overturned following the legal

challenge by Cala Homes and the High Court’s ruling of 10 November 2010. Accordingly, at the time

of writing, the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West (RSS) still forms part of the development

plan and is of relevance in the consideration of the two applications.

2.04 The RSS provides a framework for development and investment in the region over the next fifteen to

twenty years. It establishes a broad vision for the region and its sub regions, priorities for growth and

regeneration, and policies to achieve sustainable development across a wide range of topics, from

jobs, housing and transport to climate change, waste and energy.

2.05 Policy DP1 identifies the following principles which underpin the RSS:

4


� Promote sustainable communities;

� Promote sustainable economic development;

� Make the best use of existing resources and infrastructure;

� Manage travel demand, reduce the need to travel, and increase accessibility;

� Marry opportunity and need;

� Promote environmental quality;

� Mainstreaming rural issues; and

� Reduce emissions and adapt to climate change.

2.06 With specific regard to retail development, Policy W5 states that:

‘Plans and strategies should promote retail investment where it assists in the regeneration and

economic growth of the North West’s towns and City Centres. In considering proposals and

schemes any investment made should be consistent with the scale and function of the centre,

should not undermine the vitality and viability of any other centre or result in the creation of

unsustainable shopping patterns.’

2.07 In this respect, the RSS identifies that Manchester/Salford and Liverpool City Centre will continue to

function as the North West’s primary retail centres. A further 26 ‘second tier’ centres – of which

Lancaster is one – are also identified where comparison retailing should be enhanced and encouraged

to ensure a sustainable distribution of high quality facilities.

Lancaster District Core Strategy

2.08 Policy SC2 of the Core Strategy seeks to promote sustainable communities by focusing development

where it will support the vitality of existing settlements, regenerate areas of need and minimise the

need to travel. To this end, the policy indicates that 98% of new retail floorspace will be

accommodated within the existing urban area of Lancaster, Morecambe, Heysham and Carnforth.

2.09 In considering retail development, paragraph 5.24 of the Core Strategy indicates that Lancaster is a

major sub-regional centre for most comparison goods. The Core Strategy indicates that:

‘It is stable and successful with low vacancy rates. It attracts investment. Managing growth whilst

enhancing its historic fabric is the key issue. Because there are few development opportunities,

retail and other development needs will need to be met in a planned expansion to the primary

shopping area.’

5


2.10 Policy ER4 seeks to provide services as locally as possible and to minimise the need to shop by car in

order to maintain the vitality and viability of the District’s centres. The policy also sets out the

following hierarchy for the District’s retail centres:

� Lancaster City Centre will be a sub-regional City Centre – the main comparison shopping

destination for Lancaster District and adjoining areas.

� Morecambe Town Centre will continue to develop as a Town Centre providing local comparison

and convenience shopping goods for the District north of the River Lune and retaining an

important role as a visitor destination.

� Carnforth Town Centre will develop a District Centre role.

� Bare (Princes Crescent), Caton, Heysham Road, Heysham, Lancaster University, Silverdale,

Torrisholme, West End and Wetgate will develop as local service centres providing key services to

local communities.

2.11 Policy ER5 indicates that new comparison goods retailing will be focused on a planned expansion of

Lancaster’s Primary Shopping Area and on meeting the regeneration needs of Central Morecambe.

With regard to convenience goods retailing, Policy ER5 states that:

‘In order to address existing and future needs and to ensure that day-to-day shopping needs are

met locally, the Council proposes that, between 2005 and 2021, new local food retailing be provided

in town or local centres or at an appropriate scale in areas of deficiency.’

Lancaster Local Plan

2.12 With regard to the location of new shopping facilities, Policy S1 of the Local Plan states that:

‘New shopping development, other than small local shops, village shops, farm shops and shopping

development which satisfies the requirements of Policy S2 will be permitted only within the city,

district and local centres identified on the Local Plan Proposals Map…Within these centres proposals

for retail development will only be permitted which are appropriate to the size and function of the

centre concerned.’

2.13 A footnote accompanying the above policy indicates that the policy is, in part, superseded by policies

of the Core Strategy. Policy 2, referred to above, has been deleted from the saved version of the

Plan.

6


2.14 The adopted Local Plan Proposals Map indicates that neither application site is allocated for any

specific purpose, and that neither site subject to any particular protective designations.

National Planning Policy

2.15 Relevant national planning policy in terms of the retail issues of pertinence to the applications’

determination is contained in Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1)

(January 2005) and Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth

(December 2009).

PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development (January 2005)

2.16 PPS1 sets out the Government’s overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable

development through the planning system. Paragraph 5 of PPS1 recognises that planning should

facilitate and promote sustainable patterns of urban and rural development by:

� Making suitable land available for development in line with economic, social and environmental

objectives to improve people’s quality of life;

� Contributing to sustainable economic development;

� Ensuring high quality development through good and inclusive design, and the efficient use of

resources;

� Ensuring that development supports existing communities and contributes to the creation of safe,

sustainable, liveable and mixed communities with good access to jobs and key services for all

members of the community.

2.17 Amongst the Government’s objectives is ensuring access for all to employment, heath, housing,

education, shops, leisure and community facilities (paragraph 16), and it is committed to encouraging

patterns of development which minimise the need to travel (paragraph 27).

PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth (December 2009)

2.18 PPS4 provides direction in order to achieve the Government’s overarching goal of sustainable

economic growth. In order to achieve this, the guidance sets out a number of key objectives for

planning, which include the following:

7


� To build prosperous communities by improving economic performance.

� To promote regeneration and tackle deprivation.

� To deliver more sustainable patterns of development and reduce the need to travel.

� To promote the vitality and viability of established towns and other centres.

� To raise the quality of life and the environment in rural areas.

2.19 In determining planning applications for economic development, PPS4 requires local planning

authorities to adopt a positive and constructive approach, particularly where a proposal would secure

sustainable economic growth. In seeking to assess planning applications for all economic

development, Policy EC10 of PPS4 states that such applications should be assessed against the

following impact considerations:

� 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.

� 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 travel levels and congestion.

� Whether the proposal secures a high quality and inclusive design which takes the opportunities

available for improving the character of an area and the way it functions.

� The impact on economic and physical regeneration in the area.

� The impact on local employment.

2.20 In dealing with applications for main town centre uses (including retail) which are not within an

established centre nor allocated within an up-to-date development plan, Policy EC14 of PPS4 sets out

the key retail tests which need to be satisfied. Policy EC14 effectively replaces the previous five tests

set out by Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centre and, as a consequence, when

considering application for retail development, it is now only necessary for the applicant to

demonstrate that a proposal accords with the requirements of the sequential approach to

development and that the proposal will not lead to significant adverse impacts on existing centres.

Whilst scale and need no longer form specific separate tests which need to be assessed (as was the

case with PPS6) they remain important considerations in assessing the likely impact of development

proposals.

2.21 In providing further information in terms of the requirements of the sequential assessment, Policy

EC15 instructs local planning authorities to ensure that:

8


� Sites are assessed for their availability, suitability and viability.

� All in-centre options have been thoroughly assessed before less central sites are considered.

� Where it has been demonstrated that there are no town centre sites to accommodate a proposed

development, preference is given to edge-of-centre locations which are well connected to the

centre by means of easy pedestrian access.

� In considering sites in or on the edge of existing centres, developers and operators have

demonstrated flexibility in terms of:

i. scale: reducing the floorspace of their development;

ii. format: more innovative site layouts and store configurations such as multi-storey

developments with smaller footprints;

iii. car parking provision: reduced or reconfigured car parking areas.

� The scope for disaggregating specific parts of a retail or leisure development, including those

which are part of a group of retail or leisure units, onto separate, sequentially preferable sites.

However, local planning authorities should not seek the arbitrary sub-division of proposals.

2.22 In terms of the requirements in respect of the assessment of impact, Policy EC16 indicates that the

following criteria should be considered:

� The impact of the development on existing, committed and planned public and private investment

in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal.

� The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice

and the range and quality of the comparison and convenience retail offer.

� The impact of the development on allocated sites outside town centres being developed in

accordance with the development plan.

� The impact of the proposal 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.

� If located in or on the edge of a town centre, whether the proposal is of an appropriate scale in

relation to the size of the centre and its role in the hierarchy of centres.

2.23 Policy EC17 suggests that planning applications for main town centre uses which are not in an existing

centre and not in accordance with an up-to-date development plan should generally be refused

planning permission where the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the sequential

approach, or where there is clear evidence that the proposal is likely to lead to significant adverse

impacts (having regard to both Policy EC10 and Policy EC16).

9


Interpretation of Policy

2.24 As established at paragraph 2.14 of this report, neither of the application sites is allocated for any

single purpose by the adopted Lancaster District Local Plan Proposals Map, being ‘white land’ which is

not the subject of any particular protective designations.

2.25 The provisions of PPS4 postdate and largely supersede the retail policy set out in the adopted Local

Plan and will therefore be of critical importance in terms of our appraisal of the retail issues which

impact on the Council’s determination of the application. The proposals’ compliance with the key

national retail policy tests is considered in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of this report which follow.

10


3.0 CEP Application

Application Proposal

3.01 The CEP application site is bounded to the north by the proposed Booths supermarket site, the east by

Scotforth Road, to the south by open land and then the former Lancaster City Garages premises which

are now vacant, and the west by the west coast main railway line.

3.02 The application site is not allocated for any specific purpose by the development plan and is denoted

as ‘white land’ by the Local Plan Proposals Map, where application proposals will be subject to the

plan’s general policies and to material considerations, such as those set out in national planning policy.

3.03 The submitted planning application seeks outline planning permission for a 7,250 sq.m gross

foodstore, with approximately 400 car parking space and accompanying petrol filling station; a 50 bed

hotel, together with associated public house/restaurant and around 99 car parking spaces; and

associated highways and landscaping works.

3.04 In terms of the wider context for the development, paragraph 2.7 of the submitted PPS4 Statement,

prepared by Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners (NLP) indicates that:

‘The site forms the eastern portion of a larger site of approximately 30 hectares known as ‘Whinney

Carr’. This site, which is divided by the railway line, was previously the subject of an application for

535 dwellings which was refused planning permission by the Secretary of State in February 2002,

primarily on issues of housing need. It was acknowledged, however, that the site is well located in

terms of access to jobs and social infrastructure, and recognised the proposed improvements to

public transport in south Lancaster.’

3.05 The assessment which follows is based upon NLP’s submitted PPS4 Statement of March 2010, the

subsequent Supplementary PPS4 Statement of July 2010, and the Capacity and Impact Note of

November 2010.

11


Expenditure Capacity for New Retail Development

3.06 Although PSS4 removes the requirement for applicants to satisfy a test of ‘need’ in justifying proposals

for town centre uses, it is evident that need still informs the conclusions reached in terms of the

impact test. Accordingly, NLP has assessed the need for new food retail development in setting out its

view that the proposal accords with the provisions of PPS4.

3.07 NLP undertakes its assessment of potential capacity for the proposed development in its

Supplementary PPS4 Statement of June 2010, as revised by the Capacity and Impact Note of

November 2010. Further information was submitted (April 2011) in relation to impact but this will be

dealt with in the relevant section in this report.

3.08 The approach relies on new survey research which is more up to date then the survey research

gathered as part of the Retail and Leisure Study undertaken for Lancaster City Council in 2006.

Therefore, although the initial analysis for the Booths proposal relies on the 2006 Study, further

analysis has been submitted by SAA (on behalf of Booths) which utilised the NLP survey data.

3.09 In terms of NLP’s initial methodological approach to their assessment, we have the following

observations in terms of the key methodological inputs:

� Assessment Period

The NLP assessment adopts a base year of 2010 and assesses capacity for additional convenience

and comparison goods floorspace at 2013 and 2015. In this regard we note that the Practice

Guidance which accompanies PPS4 suggests at paragraph 7.1 that the impact of development

should focus on the five years after a proposal’s implementation. Accordingly, in assessing impact

at 2015, NLP’s methodology is considered to represent a relatively cautious approach in terms of

the advice provided by the Practice Guidance.

� Catchment

The primary catchment area (PCA) adopted by NLP is based upon the findings of a household

survey undertaken by NEMS in April 2009, which in turn was based upon Zones 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 of

the Lancaster Retail Study (undertaken by WYG in 2006). NLP indicates that the PCA was

precisely defined having regard to the trade draw of existing foodstores located in Lancaster.

The PCA is drawn so as to exclude the northern part of the city but include areas to the south and

12


east which benefit from relatively short travel times and form part of the south of the city’s natural

catchment. In WYG’s view this approach is entirely reasonable and the methodology in this

regard is considered robust.

� Population

For the purposes of the assessment, population data at 2001 has been sourced from Experian,

with the estimated population at base year 2010 and design years 2013 and 2015 being calculated

using ONS mid-year estimates and 2008-based sub-national population projections. Whilst more

contemporary population data is available post 2001, WYG considers this to be a broadly

appropriate approach.

� Expenditure

Per capita expenditure at 2008 has been sourced from Experian, with NLP stating that growth

over the period 2008 to 2011 has been calculated using Experian’s forecast annual growth rates

as set out by Retail Planner Briefing Note 7.0, and the increase from 2011 to 2015 being derived

from the long-term growth projections from the same Briefing Note.

We are unaware of any such Briefing Note issue and therefore, are uncertain as to the exact

origin of the growth rates which have been utilised, both in terms of convenience and comparison

goods expenditure.

Notwithstanding this, we note that NLP has calculated the total growth in convenience goods

expenditure to be around 1.3% between 2010 and 2013, and around 2.0% between 2010 and

2015. For comparison goods, the identified growth equates to an increase of around 10.4%

between 2010 and 2013, and around 21.0% between 2010 and 2015.

Accordingly, whilst there is some ambiguity as to the exact source of the growth rates which have

been deployed, it is considered that the overall increase in expenditure is broadly commensurate

to what WYG would expect. We do not consider that any amendment which we could suggest in

terms of NLP’s methodology would have a material effect and the expenditure growth identified is

therefore considered acceptable.

Furthermore, in their April 2011 assessment, NLP have now provided an assessment based on the

appropriate growth rates now included within Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note 8.1 which WYG believe is

robust.

13


� Special Forms of Trading

In making an allowance for special forms of trading, NLP applies what it states is the forecast

provided by Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note 6.0. NLP states that an allowance of 1.8% at

2008 and 2.8% at 2015 has been made to account for convenience expenditure through special

forms of trading. A stated allowance of 7.7% at 2008 rising to 8.9% at 2015 has been made to

account for comparison expenditure through special forms of trading.

However, in our reading, Table 5.1 of the Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note actually suggests

that, by 2015, convenience goods expenditure made through special forms of trading will reach

8.0% and comparison goods 13.9%.

In any event, Experian’s most up-to-date estimates in terms of special forms of trading

expenditure are provided by Retail Planner Briefing Note 8.1, which now suggests that

convenience goods special forms of trading will reach 9.4% and that comparison goods special

forms of trading will reach 13.9% by 2015.

Notwithstanding this, it is our view that the Experian figures actually overestimate claims on

expenditure which will be made by special forms of trading. This is because a significant

proportion of trade undertaken via the internet is actually ‘picked’ from stores rather than from

warehouses. In this regard, it is also relevant to note that Mapinfo’s estimate of expenditure

claimed by special forms of trading is significantly more circumspect than Experian’s and, indeed,

more circumspect that the allowances made by NLP in its model.

Accordingly, we consider that the allowance made by NLP in considering special forms of trading

is broadly appropriate.

� Turnover of Existing Floorspace

NLP has estimated the expected (or benchmark) turnovers of existing retail floorspace throughout

the defined PCA based on a sales area estimated through a site visit to which company average

sales densities sourced from Verdict Grocery Retailers Report (2009) have been applied. On this

basis, NLP estimates that existing convenience goods provision in the PCA has a benchmark

turnover of £46.9m at 2010 and of £47.4m at 2015; and that, the existing comparison goods

provision in the PCA has a benchmark turnover of 143.9m at 2010 and of £155.7m at 2015.

An allowance of 0.3% per annum for increases in the turnover efficiency of convenience goods

14


floorspace, and of 2.0% per annum for comparison goods haws been made.

WYG considers that company average turnovers have been appropriately sourced and deployed,

and that appropriate account has been taken to increases in floorspace efficiency; NLP’s

methodology is therefore considered robust in this respect.

In their April 2011 assessment, the sales densities adopted by NLP are updated using the latest evidence

from Verdict.

� Outstanding Commitments

In identifying future capacity for additional floorspace within the catchment area it is important to

take into account outstanding commitments and planned development. Within the defined PCA,

there is one significant convenience goods commitment, this being the extension of the

Sainsbury’s store at Cable Street to provide a total convenience sales area of 3,055 sq.m, with

additional convenience goods commitments providing a further 451 sq.m of net sales.

Since the preparation of NLP’s retail assessment in November 2011, permission for a Tesco Express store in

Lancaster City Centre has been granted (albeit the floorspace amounts to just 280 sqm).

There are four comparison goods commitments identified, these being the Sainsbury’s extension,

Luneside East, the former Regal Cinema, and Lawsons Quay, which together provide an additional

2,206 sq.m of comparison goods sales floorspace.

In order to estimate the likely turnover of identified commitments, NLP has applied company

average (where known) and typical sales densities to the approved floorspace. The sales

densities used are considered broadly accurate and therefore it is considered that proper account

has been taken of outstanding commitments.

3.10 In identifying the quantitative need for additional convenience goods floorspace (at November 2011),

NLP has assessed four separate scenarios, these variously being based upon the rate of expenditure

retention within the PCA remaining static at 48.5%, the retention rate increasing to 75% by 2015, the

rate increasing to 80% by 2015, and the rate increasing to 85% by 2015. For comparison goods, two

scenarios are considered – the retention rate increasing to 74% by 2015 and the retention rate

increasing to 77% by 2015.

15


3.11 In our view, although we consider that the provision of a significant foodstore in the south of the city

will have a considerable effect on shopping patterns, it is prudent to assume that the more cautious of

the uplifts in the retention rate will prove prescient, i.e. the expenditure retention rate within the PCA

will rise to 75% for convenience goods and to 74% for comparison goods by 2015.

3.12 Based on this achievable increase in retention, NLP finds that – taking into consideration the turnover

of the proposed CEP development and existing committed development, but excluding the turnover of

the proposed Booths store – there would be a residual capacity of around £4.6m of convenience

goods expenditure and around £98.1m of comparison goods expenditure at 2015.

3.13 Whilst we query NLP’s approach to its calculation of quantitative need in a couple of respects (most

notably in terms of assumptions made with regard to the PCA population and expenditure growth) we

consider that such issues are minor in nature and that NLP’s findings in terms of quantitative need are

broadly robust. Accordingly, they are accepted as such for the purposes of the appraisal which

follows.

3.14 In their most recent assessment (which allows for the additional commitment of the Tesco Express

and updating key data inputs) NLP suggest that in 2015 there would a slight deficit of -£1.6m

(excluding the Booths proposal) based on the 75% scenario. The significance of this is discussed in

the section of this report dealing with the impact of the proposed store (as the applicant does not

have to demonstrate a retail need for the development).

Qualitative Need for the Proposed Development

3.15 In terms of the qualitative need for additional food retail development, NLP reiterates the findings of

the 2006 Lancaster Retail Study, which was undertaken by WYG. The study identified a qualitative

deficiency in provision to the south of the city which manifested in trips being made to the north,

through the City Centre, with a resultant impact on City Centre congestion.

3.16 It is accepted that the sole existing provision – the current Booths store – provides only a limited offer

which has a select appeal and that many shoppers would not be able to service all of their

convenience goods requirements from this store. Such shoppers are effectively forced to travel to the

Sainsbury’s store at Cable Street, the Asda at Ovangle Road and possibly even the Morrisons at

Morecambe to undertake a ‘main food shop’.

16


3.17 In this regard, it is relevant to note that one of the overarching themes of PPS4 is to ensure genuine

choice to meet the needs of the whole community and WYG recognises that the provision of additional

facilities at Scotforth Road would accord with this aspiration. Furthermore, it is also accepted that the

existing Booths, Sainsbury’s and Asda stores overtrade significantly and that the further provision

would alleviate any problems which exist due to the popularity of these stores.

3.18 WYG therefore accepts that there is a compelling and pressing qualitative need for a more substantial

and comprehensive foodstore offer to serve residents of the south of the city.

PPS4 Policy EC15 Sequential Approach to Development

3.19 In respect of the sequential approach to development, NLP identifies and considers a number of

alternative sites, these being:

� Former Regal Cinema, King Street, Lancaster;

� Canal Corridor North Site, Lancaster (the ‘Centros site’);

� Lawsons Quay, Land between Caton Road and Bulk Road, Lancaster;

� Land between Parliament Street and Bulk Road, Lancaster;

� Former ‘Liquidation Centre’, Penny Street, Lancaster;

� Luneside East, Lancaster;

� Vacant Warehouse Site, North Road, Lancaster

� YMCA Building, China Street, Lancaster;

� Rosemary House, Rosemary Lane, Lancaster;

� Sainsbury’s, Cable Street, Lancaster;

� Former Frontierland, Marine Road West, Morecambe;

� Central Promenade Site, Marine Road Central; and

� Vacant Units with defined centres within the primary catchment area.

3.20 Our consideration of the above sites is predicated on the assumption that it is reasonable to assume

that the proposed foodstore can be disaggregated from the remainder of the scheme. Whilst

paragraphs 6.10 to 6.12 of the submitted PPS4 statement provide justification for the siting and scale

of the development proposed, no substantive argument is provided to suggest why the foodstore

needs to be developed on the same site as the hotel and the public house and vice versa.

17


3.21 In considering the ability of other sites to accommodate elements of the proposed development, it is

relevant to note paragraph 6.42 of the Practice Guidance which accompanies PPS4. In this regard,

the Guidance indicates that it is not necessary to demonstrate that a potential town centre or edge of

centre site can accommodate precisely the same scale and form of development being proposed, but

rather to consider what contribution more central sites can make to meeting the same requirement

the application is intended to meet.

3.22 However, it is accepted that the hotel and public house will service a very particular and localised

need to the south of Lancaster, providing for visitors to the University and to friends and family of

students studying there. We do not consider that it would be viable to service this localised need from

Lancaster City Centre and it is therefore accepted that the consideration of the sequential test should

focus on the possibility of the foodstore being disaggregated from the remainder of the development

and provided at an alternative site.

3.23 Whilst we also recognise that the retail floorspace will predominantly serve residents of the south of

the city, due to the objective of PPS4 to direct such development to town centre locations, we

consider it appropriate to consider in detail the sequential test in respect of this element of the

proposal.

3.24 Accordingly, our below review of the sites identified by NLP considers whether there is a sequentially

preferable site to accommodate the type of retail floorspace proposed by the application (or a variant

thereof). In accordance with the requirements of PPS4, the availability, suitability and viability of each

of the identified sites is considered in turn.

Former Regal Cinema

3.25 The former Regal Cinema site is 0.2 hectares in size and is edge-of-centre for the purposes of PPS4,

being located just beyond the Primary Retail Frontages and Other Key Frontages, as defined by the

adopted Local Plan Proposals Map. The premises benefit from an extant planning permission

(reference 08/01129/FUL) for a six storey development, comprising 1,999 sq.m gross class A1 retail at

ground and first floors and a 115-bed hotel above. NLP indicates that the retail floorspace is

conditioned to permit the sale of comparison goods only, and that an application which was submitted

last year to vary the condition was refused on servicing grounds.

18


3.26 Since NLP prepared their assessment, we understand that permission has now been granted to vary

the condition which will allow the development of a small convenience store which is likely be

occupied by Tesco Express. The commitment has now been factored into more recent assessments

undertaken by NLP in April 2011. Nevertheless, it is evident that the site is too small to meet the

need for an additional main food shopping destination as highlighted above.

Canal Corridor North Site

3.27 The Canal Corridor site comprises around 8 hectares of land and is located to the north east of

Lancaster City Centre, in what is accepted by NLP to be an edge-of-centre location for the purposes of

PPS4.

3.28 The site was the subject of a series of planning applications (most significantly, planning application

reference 08/00866/OUT) for the redevelopment of the site for a major, retail-led mixed-use

development to provide circa 25,000 sq.m net comparison goods floorspace and circa 2,500 sq.m net

convenience goods retail floorspace. Following the Council’s resolution to approve the application in

October 2008, the application was called-in for determination by the Secretary of State and was

subsequently refused planning permission in December 2009. The application was refused on the

basis of a number of heritage issues, including the impact upon the setting of listed buildings, the

absence of a detailed design for the proposed pedestrian bridge, and the absence of an assessment of

unlisted buildings within the Conservation Area proposed for demolition.

3.29 The Council is currently undertaking its own assessment of the character and quality of historic

buildings within the Canal Corridor site and there is therefore currently significant uncertainty both in

terms of the area of the site which is available for redevelopment and the programme for any such

development. Accordingly, whilst the Canal Corridor site may be able at some point in the future to

accommodate a quantum of food retail development, the availability of the site within the reasonable

timeframe required by the PPS4 Practice Guidance (generally three to five years, but determined on

the merits of the particular case) is not established. Moreover, given the complications associated

with the site, it is also not certain that it is suitable to accommodate the development proposed.

Lawsons Quay

3.30 The Lawsons Quay site is 0.6 hectares in size and is edge-of-centre for the purposes of PPS4, being

located within 200 metres of the defined Primary Shopping Area.

19


3.31 The site is the subject of a January 2009 Council resolution for the approval of planning permission

subject to Section 106 legal agreement for a mixed-use development comprising a 120-bed hotel,

office and retail uses. The retail development proposed by this scheme totals 1,695 sq.m gross (1,063

sq.m net), divided into five units.

3.32 Whilst we are aware that the viability of the approved scheme is uncertain and that it may not now

proceed, it is accepted that the site is too small to accommodate the type of development proposed at

Scotforth Road.

Land Between Parliament Street and Bulk Road, Lancaster

3.33 The Parliament Street site is 0.8 hectares in size and is also located at an edge-of-centre location to

the north east of Lancaster’s Primary Shopping Area. We understand from NLP’s submitted PPS4

Statement that site is in more than one ownership and that a previous attempt to assemble the site

for redevelopment was not successful.

3.34 In any event, as with the Lawsons Quay site, we are of the opinion that the site is too small to

accommodate the type of development proposed at Scotforth Road.

Former ‘Liquidation Centre’, Penny Street, Lancaster

3.35 The former ‘Liquidation Centre’ site is just 0.1 hectares in size and the site is again not suitable to

accommodate the type of retail development proposed.

Luneside East

3.36 The Luneside East site comprises 6.5 hectares of land on the south banks of the River Lune. Although

closer to Lancaster City Centre than the CEP application site, it is similarly out-of-centre for the

purposes of PPS4 and would not meet the need for additional retail facilities in the south of Lancaster.

It is therefore not considered to offer any sequential advantage over the application site.

3.37 Moreover, Luneside East is the subject of significant contamination and requires public sector

intervention in order to be brought forward for development. The programme for the required

remediation works and the site’s subsequent redevelopment has yet to be finalised, and the

20


availability of the site within the reasonable timeframe required by the PPS4 Practice Guidance is

therefore not established.

Vacant Warehouse Site, North Road

3.38 The vacant warehouse site at North Road is 0.3 hectares in size and the site is not suitable to

accommodate the type of retail development proposed.

YMCA Building, China Street

3.39 NLP states that the former YMCA premises comprise just 1,394 sq.m of floorspace over three floors

and it is again evident that these premises are not suitable to accommodate the type of retail

development proposed.

Rosemary House, Rosemary Lane

3.40 The Rosemary House premises comprise offices with vacant restaurant accommodation below at

ground floor level. NLP identifies that the available floorspace at ground floor measures 222 sq.m and

it is again evident that the available premises are again not suitable to accommodate the type of retail

development proposed.

Sainsbury’s Cable Street

3.41 The Sainsbury’s store at Cable Street is subject to an extant planning permission to extend the

existing floorspace by 1,297 sq.m net. We note and concur with NLP’s view that this additional

floorspace will help reinforce Lancaster’s shopping role but will not meet the requirement to resolve

existing deficiency in main foodstores to the south of the city. We also accept that full account has

been made of the commitment in considering the impact of the proposed CEP development and that it

is the applicant’s case that proposals at Scotforth Road can be accommodated alongside the proposed

extension. It is therefore accepted that the Sainsbury’s extension site is not suitable to meet the need

which the proposal is intended to serve.

21


Former Frontierland and Central Promenade Sites, Morecambe

3.42 NLP identifies sites in the town centres of Morecambe, Carnforth and Garstang within the wider study

area have been considered. NLP indicates that any such sites ‘…could clearly not meet the identified

requirement to enhance provision in south Lancaster given their location outwith the defined PCA.’

3.43 WYG concurs with this view and finds that the Frontierland and Central Promenade sites are not

suitable to meet the need for food retail facilities to the south of the city which the proposal is

intended to meet.

Vacant Units within Defined Centres within the Primary Catchment

3.44 WYG concurs with NLP’s view that there are no vacant units in a sequentially preferable location which

are capable of providing for the type of development proposed at Scotforth Road.

PPS4 Policy EC10 General Impact Considerations

3.45 Policy EC10.2 of PPS4 sets out five general impact considerations which should be assessed during the

consideration of economic development proposals and each is considered with regard to the CEP

proposal in turn below.

Limiting Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Minimising Vulnerability and Providing Resilience

to Climate Change

3.46 It is noted that the applicant sets out a variety of measures intended to ensure that the proposed

development would be energy efficient and that the applicant aspires to achieve a BREEAM rating of

at least ‘very good’ for the development. Moreover, it is recognised that the proposed foodstore

would provide residents of the south of the city with a local foodstore with a significant product range,

which would reduce the need to travel further afield in order to undertake food shopping.

3.47 Accordingly, it is considered that the application proposal provides an opportunity to reduce carbon

dioxide emissions and is therefore in accordance with the above criterion.

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

22


3.48 It is accepted that the site is accessible by a range of means of transport – being located along a main

transport corridor – including by foot, by bus and by car. However, in considering the application,

County Highways has indicated that the additional traffic movements generated as a result of the

development would have a detrimental impact on local movements on the A6 or to/from its side roads

to both motorised and non-motorised modes.

3.49 It is concluded by Highways that this impact is significantly adverse and, accordingly, we find that the

application proposal fails to comply with the above policy criterion.

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 the way it

functions

3.50 The design of the proposal is considered in detail by the committee report which sets out the

recommendation to members.

The impact on economic and physical regeneration in the area including the impact on

deprived areas and social inclusion objectives

3.51 WYG generally accepts that there will be some economic benefits resulting from the proposed

development, although the impact of development in terms of physical regeneration would be, at best,

limited given the Greenfield nature of the site.

The impact on local employment

3.52 NLP states at paragraph 7.13 of its PPS4 Statement that the proposed development would create

approximately 300 direct jobs and 400 indirect jobs which would be accessible to residents of

Lancaster. The Statement also indicates that investment will be made in the training and

development of employees, and that the proposed development represents a major investment in the

economic output of the area. Therefore, WYG would agree that there would be a positive impact in

terms of job creation.

23


PPS4 Policy EC16 Town Centre Impact Considerations

3.53 Policy EC16 sets out criteria which should be applied in order to assess the impact of planning

proposals for main town centre uses which are not in accordance with an up to date development

plan. The criteria are considered in turn below.

The impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private

investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal

3.54 We are aware of five significant proposed developments in or at the edge of Lancaster City Centre

which have been progressed with significant intent. These are as follows:

� The former Regal Cinema, which is currently being redeveloped as a Travelodge with retail

accommodation below;

� The Canal Corridor North Site, the development of which has stalled following the decision of the

Secretary of State to refuse planning permission;

� The Lawsons Quay site, which is the subject of a Council resolution to grant planning permission,

subject to Section 106 agreement, but which has also stalled following the failure to sign a hotel

operator to the scheme;

� The proposed St Nicholas Arcade redevelopment, for which an application has been submitted to

provide additional floorspace and the reconfiguration of existing units to provide larger floorplate

accommodation; and

� The extension of the Sainsbury’s Cable Street store, for which planning permission has been

approved to extend the net sales area from 2,777 sq.m to 4,074 sq.m.

3.55 Of the above, all but the St Nicholas Arcade development are situated at an edge-of-centre rather

than in-centre location. Moreover, it is accepted that the application proposal seeks to serve a need

for additional food retail premises to the south of the city and will only have relatively limited overlap

with each of the above schemes.

3.56 In terms of the likely impact of additional retail floorspace at Scotforth Road on the above proposed

development, we note that no objection has been received from the developers of the Regal Cinema,

Lawsons Quay and St Nicholas Arcade sites, and that no objection has been received from

Sainsbury’s. Whilst a letter of objection has been received from Centros (dated 17 August 2010), the

24


correspondence principally focuses on the perceived impact of the proposals on Lancaster City Centre

as a whole. No detail is provided in terms of the programme for bringing for the Canal Corridor North

site for development and, consequently, no indication is provided as to how the development could

have a prejudicial impact upon any such programme.

3.57 In this regard, we note that Policy EC17.2 of PPS4 provides for the refusal of applications only where

there is clear evidence that the proposal is likely to lead to significant adverse impacts in any one of

the impact tests set out in Policy EC10 and EC16. In this instance, we note the need for additional

foodstore development to the south of the City Centre and do not consider that any such clear

evidence of a significant adverse impact on planned in-centre investment has been established.

The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer

choice and the range and quality of the comparison and convenience retail offer

3.58 In judging the impact of the proposed development in vitality and viability it is important to consider

the health of existing centres against the potential trade draw of the proposal. Lancaster City Centre

currently performs well, with its role and function being underpinned by its sub-regional comparison

goods offer.

3.59 It is recognised that foodstore development at Scotforth Road will have some impact upon the existing

Sainsbury’s store at Cable Street and the Marks & Spencer in the City Centre, but given the

Sainsbury’s store’s current strong performance it is not considered that the loss of any convenience

goods trade would significantly impact on the overall vitality and viability of Lancaster City Centre.

Furthermore, although the proposed development provides an element of comparison goods

floorspace, it is not considered to be of a sufficient scale to threaten the centre’s established role. In

fact, most shoppers would expect to find a range of comparison goods available (which will include

pet and pet products, cosmetics, household items, baby product, etc) which is no different to the

current offer which exists at the existing out of centre Asda store in Lancaster.

3.60 In considering the impact of the proposal on Lancaster vitality and viability, it is also relevant to note

that the applicant has also offered to provide a contribution to planned City Centre public realm works

which would act to improve the attractiveness of the centre to shoppers and help mitigate any impact.

3.61 Accordingly, WYG believes it unlikely that any impact upon Lancaster City Centre’s vitality and viability

would be of the ‘significant adverse’ level which would merit the application’s refusal.

25


The impact of the proposal on allocated sites outside town centres being developed in

accordance with the development plan

3.62 WYG is unaware of any sites allocated for development by the adopted development plan which could

be affected by the proposed development.

The impact of the proposal 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

3.63 As with any major foodstore proposal, it is anticipated that the majority of the impact will fall upon

rival main food shopping destinations elsewhere within Lancaster and to some extent Morecambe.

Based on the survey evidence and the likely shopping patterns that would occur the majority of the

impact would fall upon the existing Asda (estimated by NLP in July 2010 to be 23%) and Sainsbury

(estimated by NLP in July 2010 to be 14%) stores in Lancaster. Whilst the Asda store is out of centre

(and therefore is afforded no protection by planning policy) the Sainsbury’s store is edge of centre.

Therefore, if a significant impact was to occur then this could impact on linked trips with the rest of

the city centre.

3.64 However, given the forecasts trade draw estimated by NLP, we do not believe that the impact arising

at Sainsbury’s would be significantly adverse. Furthermore, the Sainsbury’s store is currently

overtrading and therefore, any potential loss of trade would bring the store more in line with company

averages and would reduce congestion at peak times. There are also plans for an extension of the

store and there is no indication from Sainsbury’s that the proposed CEP store would undermine this

investment.

If located in or on the edge of a town centre, whether the proposal is of an appropriate

scale (in terms of gross floorspace) in relation to the size of the centre

3.65 The application proposal seeks the development of an out-of-centre site and the above policy criterion

is therefore not relevant to the consideration of the application.

26


Any Locally Important Impacts on Centres

3.66 Neither the saved policies of the adopted Local Plan nor the LDF Core Strategy identify any locally

important impacts which should be taken into consideration. Accordingly, the application proposal is

therefore not considered to be contrary to this final impact policy criterion.

27


4.0 Booths Application

Application Proposal

4.01 The Booths application site is bounded to the north by the rear of residential dwellings at Ray’s Drive,

to the east by Scotforth Road, to the south by the Commercial Estates Projects application site and to

the west by the west coast main railway line.

4.02 Again, as with the CEP application, the subject application site is not allocated for any single purpose

by the development plan and is denoted as a ‘white land’ by the Local Plan Proposals Map, where

application proposals will be subject to the plan’s general policies.

4.03 The submitted planning application seeks full planning permission for a new Booths supermarket of

3,230 sq.m gross (2,052 sq.m net), the construction of a new access, servicing and parking areas,

footways, cycle facilities and landscaping.

4.04 The Retail Planning Statement submitted in support of the application has been prepared by Steven

Abbot Associates (SAA) and sets out the rationale for development (at paragraph 2.4) as follows:

‘The proposed development will replace the existing outdated Booths food store, to provide a

modern and substantially enhanced facility for residents of south Lancaster. The existing store is

cramped and it is increasingly difficult for Booths to provide its customers with an attractive,

accessible and modern shopping environment within the existing premises. The existing store does

not provide the level of customer service and facilities shoppers expect from modern food stores.

The site is fully developed and offers very little scope for providing any physical improvements to

the existing building, car park or servicing arrangements.’

4.05 In considering the accordance of the Booths proposal with planning policy, it should be noted that

relatively limited information was originally submitted to address the key retail tests set out by PPS4

(i.e. the March 2010 Assessment). Since then SAA submitted a Cumulative Impact Statement (CIS) in

August 2010 on dealing with the impact of both the Booths proposal and the proposed development

submitted by CEP. Following this, SAA then submitted a further CIS in December 2010 which now

assessed the fact that the existing Hala Road store would be retained and operated by another

convenience store operator once Booths had vacated.

28


4.06 However, all of this evidence was prepared using the 2006 Lancaster Retail and Leisure Study

compared to NLP’s approach which was based on more up to date survey evidence. Although WYG

note that SAA approach was not invalid and that WYG had previously used the 2006 study to assess

other applications in the past, in assessing these applications, we would prefer to rely on the most up

to date survey evidence available and therefore, preference is given to NLP’s research as baseline

evidence.

4.07 Having highlighted this to SAA in written correspondence, SAA then produced a further CIS in March

2010 which included an assessment based on NLP’s survey research. As a result it is evident that

there is some common ground between the two retail experts in terms of catchment, population, etc.

4.08 Accordingly, it seems unnecessary to explore in detail the approach previously taken by SAA in

exploring potential capacity for the proposed Booths. As highlighted in Section 3 of this report we

would agree that there is a proven need for additional footsore provision within South Lancaster. This

conclusion is equally valid when dealing with the proposed Booths development albeit that the store is

a replacement of the existing store Booths store at Hala Road and that the new store would still have

a more select appeal than store proposed by CEP. However, we recognise that the relocation of the

Booths store would enable a new operator to occupy the existing Hala Road store which will deliver

qualitative benefits – particularly given that WYG believe that such a store would appeal to a discount

operator which would appeal to a different sector of the community than the proposed Booths

development.

Sequential Approach

4.09 SAA indicates in the submitted Retail Planning Statement that the proposed development would

provide a comprehensive range of convenience goods which would not be possible in smaller shops.

Furthermore, it is also stated that the approach with regard to the sequential test is predicated on a

requirement for the site to:

i) Accommodate a building with a gross floorspace of 3,230 sq.m;

ii) Be suitable for the sale of convenience goods of a scale, nature and type consistent with Booths’

preferred business model;

iii) Be accessible to delivery vehicles; and

iv) Be accessible to alternative travel modes to shoppers and households in its catchment area.

29


4.06 WYG notes the existence of the current Booths store and is aware of the popularity of the store. It is

therefore accepted that, in terms of the sequential test, given the existing circumstances and the fact

that Booths provides a predominantly convenience goods offer, it would unreasonable to assume that

parts of the proposed store can be disaggregated. Accordingly, in order to provide a qualitative

advantage over its existing premises, the rationale in Booths seeking a site capable of accommodating

a gross floorspace of 3,230 sq.m (or thereabouts) is also broadly accepted.

4.07 SAA identify three sites which were allocated for retail or mixed-use development in the adopted

Lancaster Local Plan, these being: the Brewery site; Dalton Square/Penny Street; and King Street.

SAA indicate that each of these sites has now been built out and are no longer available for

development and this is accepted by WYG.

4.08 Consideration is also given to the Canal Corridor North site, which was assessed at paragraphs 3.15 to

3.17 of this appraisal in respect to the CEP proposal. With regard to the this site, SAA states that:

‘The proposals by Centros (Canal Corridor site) were refused planning permission by the Secretary

of State in December 2009. At the present time, Centros are considering an appropriate course of

action to address the issues raised in the Secretary of State’s decision. As a comprehensive City

Centre redevelopment scheme for predominantly comparison shopping affecting an historic

patterns of streets and buildings it is inappropriate for a discreet food store development. This

leads to a conclusion that this site can therefore be discounted an alternative sequential site for

new retail development due to it being unrealistic as an opportunity.’

4.09 Whilst it is WYG’s view that the above commentary is slightly simplistic in dismissing the suitability of

the Canal Corridor site to accommodate an element of convenience goods retail floorspace at some

point, we do accept that issues associated with the site in terms of its historic buildings are such that

the availability of the site within the reasonable timeframe required by the PPS4 Practice Guidance

(generally three to five years) is not established.

4.12 Accordingly, WYG agrees with SAA’s conclusion that the Centros site cannot at present to be

considered a realistic sequential alternative.

4.13 Although no further sites have been considered by SAA, we have undertaken a further review of the

additional sites previously considered at paragraphs 3.13 to 3.32 of this assessment. Notwithstanding

the fact that the Booths proposal obviously requires a smaller development site than the adjacent CEP,

30


all of these sites are either too small – the former Liquidation Centre, the vacant warehouse site at

North Road, the YMCA buildings, and others – or are not suitable to accommodate the need identified

– Lawsons Quay, land between Parliament Street and Bulk Road, and others.

4.14 Accordingly, we do not consider that there is any sequentially superior site which is available, suitable

and viable to accommodate development of similar type to that proposed by the Booths application.

PPS4 Policy EC10 General Impact Considerations

4.15 Policy EC10 of PPS4 sets out five general impact considerations which should be assessed during the

consideration of economic development proposals. Paragraph 2.19 of this report identifies each

criterion and each is considered in turn with regard to the Booths proposal below.

Limiting Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Minimising Vulnerability and Providing Resilience

to Climate Change

4.16 The Design and Access Statement submitted in support of the application suggests three particular

measures which will minimise the proposal’s carbon footprint, these, in summary being:

� The building will be built to a BREEAM Excellent rating.

� The store will have an energy efficient design and will exceed current building regulations. One

key feature will be the partial burying of the store below ground level, which will reduce heating.

� The new store will pioneer energy efficiency, in that: 100% of the heat of the heat rejected from

refrigeration can be reused for underfloor heating; and, Booths are phasing out the use of HCFC

refrigerant gasses and better control systems.

4.17 Given Booths’ commitment to these measures and the fact that the proposed foodstore provides

residents of the south of the city with a foodstore with an extended product range and this negates

the need to travel further afield, it is considered that the application proposal provides an opportunity

to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and is therefore in accordance with the above criterion.

31


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

4.18 SAA refers to the submitted Transport Assessment and Travel Plan which accompany the Booths

planning application. This supporting information indicates that, as the site is located along a main

transport corridor, it benefits from good accessibility by bus, by bicycle, and on foot. WYG accepts

that the application site is conveniently located in relation to the foodstore’s catchment and it is

therefore considered that the proposal is compliant with the above criterion.

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 the way it

functions

4.19 The design of the proposal is considered in the committee report which sets out the recommendation

to members.

The impact on economic and physical regeneration in the area including the impact on

deprived areas and social inclusion objectives

4.20 SAA indicates that the store will provide an important role in south Lancaster’s community by

enhancing consumer choice, improving competition, and proving socially excluded groups a local

facility through the retention of the existing Hala Road store. WYG generally accepts that there will be

positive economic benefits resulting from the proposed development (albeit limited regeneration

benefits due to the Greenfield nature of the site) and that the development will service an identified

need in the south of the city.

The impact on local employment

4.21 WYG accepts that the proposed store will provide a significantly greater number of jobs than the

existing Booths store (140 full time equivalent jobs, compared to the 90 full time equivalent jobs

provided at the existing premises according to paragraph 4.6 of the submitted Retail Planning

Statement) and it is therefore considered that the proposal would have a beneficial impact on local

employment.

32


PPS4 Policy EC16 Town Centre Impact Considerations

4.22 Policy EC16 sets out criteria which should be applied in order to assess the impact of planning

proposals for main town centre uses which are not in accordance with an up to date development

plan. In considering the criteria set out below, it is important to note that there are many similarities

between the conclusions reached on the CEP proposal and the Booths development. The criteria are

considered in turn below.

The impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private

investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal

4.23 SAA identifies two proposed development schemes in relation to the above criterion, these being:

� Planning permission reference 09/00147/FUL which provides for the extension of the net sales

area from 2,777 sq.m to 4,074 sq.m at Sainsbury’s Cable Street store; and

� The Centros Canal Corridor site, which was refused planning permission in December 2009

following an Inquiry, on the basis of a number of heritage and design issues.

4.24 In terms of the Sainsbury’s store (which is actually located at the edge of Lancaster City Centre), SAA

argues that the proposed Booths will only have a limited impact on the store’s turnover and will not

hamper the proposed extension from being implemented. Given the current performance of

Sainsbury’s, its location and the nature of its offer, WYG concurs with SAA’s assessment.

4.25 The Centros scheme similarly constitutes an edge-of-centre site (subject to the installation of an

appropriate pedestrian link) and is the subject of ongoing uncertainties in terms of how the project will

now progress. However, the scheme seeks to provide predominantly comparison goods floorspace

and, given the location, role and offer of the proposed Booths foodstore, it is not considered that the

grant of planning permission for the Booths proposal would prove material to the chances of the

Centros site coming forward for redevelopment.

4.26 As previously indicated at paragraph 3.51 of this appraisal, we are aware of a further three proposals

in or at the edge of Lancaster City Centre which have been progressed with significant intent, these

being:

33


� The former Regal Cinema, which is currently being redeveloped as a Travelodge with retail

accommodation below;

� The Lawsons Quay site, which is the subject of a Council resolution to grant planning permission,

subject to Section 106 agreement, but which has also stalled following the failure to sign a hotel

operator to the scheme; and

� The proposed St Nicholas Arcade redevelopment, for which an application has been submitted to

provide additional floorspace and the reconfiguration of existing units to provide larger floorplate

accommodation.

4.27 Of the above, all but the St Nicholas Arcade development are situated at an edge-of-centre rather

than in-centre location. Moreover, it is accepted that the Booths application proposal, as is the case

with the CEP proposal, seeks to serve a need for additional food retail premises to the south of the

city and will only have a relatively limited overlap with each of the above schemes.

4.28 As such, WYG agrees with SAA’s view that the proposed Booths development will have not likely have

an impact on the above planned investments coming forward for development.

The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer

choice and the range and quality of the comparison and convenience retail offer

4.29 In addressing the above impact consideration, SAA states in its Retail Planning Statement that the

impact of the proposal on convenience retailers in Lancaster will be limited as such facilities provide a

‘top up’ shopping function and do not attract main shopping trips.

4.30 WYG accepts that there would be no adverse impact as a result of the development upon the vitality

and viability of Lancaster City Centre. Lancaster is a major comparison goods destination serving a

sub-regional role. Its role and function is underpinned by its comparison goods offer and therefore,

any loss of convenience goods trade would be minimal and would not have a significant impact on the

overall vitality and viability of the centre.

34


The impact of the proposal on allocated sites outside town centres being developed in

accordance with the development plan

4.31 WYG is unaware of any sites allocated for development by the adopted development plan which could

be affected by the proposed development. The proposal is considered to accord with the above policy

criterion.

The impact of the proposal 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

4.32 In judging the impact of the proposed development on town centre vitality and viability it is important

to consider the health of existing centres against the potential trade draw of the proposal and the fact

that much of the trade would be transferred from the existing Booths store. Whilst it is accepted by

WYG that some trade will be diverted from existing stores within and on the edge of the city centre,

WYG believe that the scale of this diversion would not result in a significant adverse impact on the

overall vitality and viability of Lancaster City Centre.

4.33 It is therefore considered that there is no clear evidence that the proposal would lead to a significant

adverse impact in terms of Lancaster City Centre’s vitality and viability.

If located in or on the edge of a town centre, whether the proposal is of an appropriate

scale (in terms of gross floorspace) in relation to the size of the centre



Any Locally Important Impacts on Centres



35


5.0 Cumulative Retail Impact Assessment

5.01 This section of the report does not consider the EC10.2 tests (including the cumulative highways

impact) which will be covered in more detail within the report to Planning Committee. This section of

our report focuses on the likely cumulative retail impact that would occur if both developments were

permitted.

5.02 In considering the cumulative retail impact of the proposals it is necessary to make a judgement on

whether the two application proposals could exist side by side without a resultant significant impact

upon Lancaster City Centre. Whilst, technically, any cumulative assessment should normally only take

account of permitted developments it is necessary to explore the potential implications for established

centres if both developments are permitted.

5.03 In order to deal with this issue, both SAA and NLP have recently submitted (in March 2011 and April

2011 respectively) further evidence on the cumulative impact arising from the both developments

(and the retention of the existing Hala Road stores). In producing their assessments, both retail

consultants have relied on the same baseline data (the NLP survey) and population estimates. There

are slight differences in expenditure due to the assumptions adopted on special forms of trading and

the growth rates utilised.

5.04 Without wishing to rehearse all of the detailed differences in the adopted approaches, it is evident that

one of the key assumptions relates to the re-use of the existing Hala Road store. In assessing the re-

use of the store, SAA suggest that this could be occupied by a major national retailer (such as Tesco,

Sainsbury, Morrisons or Asda) and therefore, its trade draw would be greater than if occupied by a

discounter such as Aldi or Lidl.

5.05 Although in theory, the turnover of the existing Hala Road store would be greater if occupied by one

of top four supermarket operators, the reality is that the store is significantly compromised which is

why Booths a seeking a new store elsewhere. The compromised format of the store suggests to WYG

that the only likely operators who would be interested in occupying the unit would be a discount

operator. Therefore, the potential impact tested by SAA (whereby the existing Hala Road is occupied

by a major foodstore operator) is, in WYG’s view, overstated.

36


5.06 Other differences relate to sales densities used, the uplift in turnover arising from the Booths

development and the potential turnover of the CEP proposal. As highlighted in Section 3 of this

report, WYG believe that the approach undertaken by NLP is not unreasonable and this also relates to

their latest cumulative assessment dated April 2011.

5.07 In their March 2011 analysis, SAA suggest that the potential cumulative impact on the existing

Sainsbury’s store would -15.6% with an -18.7% impact on M&S and a -19.1% impact on the

Somerfield (which we assume they mean Co-op) within Lancaster City centre. However, this

assessment is based on a major operator occupying the existing store at Hala Road, and assumes that

all of the floorspace at Booths and the existing Hala Road will be used for the sale of convenience

goods (which is unlikely). WYG therefore believe that the cumulative impact is overstated.

5.08 NLP also undertake a similar exercise but assume that the Hala Road store will be occupied by a

discount retailer (which in our view is more likely). Their assessment identifies an impact of -15.3%

on Sainsbury’s but lower impacts on M&S and Co-op of -4.8% and -5.0% respectively. Whilst there

would appear to be common ground in relation to the impact on Sainsbury’s (circa -15%) there are

clear differences in terms of the impact on the wider City Centre.

Summary

5.09 Clearly, in assessing impact and trade diversion judgements have to be made about future shopping

patterns and those judgements will vary between retail experts. However, WYG believe that the

evidence presented by SAA overstates the likely cumulative impact that would arise as a result of the

two proposals. Whilst SAA argue that NLP’s approach is too optimistic and under-estimates the likely

trade diversion, even if the true impact was to fall somewhere in between the two estimates provided

WYG do not believe that the cumulative impact arsing from both developments would be so significant

that it would have a significant adverse impact upon the future vitality and viability of Lancaster City

Centre.

5.10 This conclusion also reflects the fact that Lancaster City Centre’s role is primarily a sub-regional

destination for non-food shopping. Whilst the CEP scheme includes an element of non-food this is no

different to that offered in any modern foodstore and in WYG’s view would not undermine the future

vitality and viability of the City Centre.

37


5.11 There are currently plans for further investment in the City Centre (including St Nicholas Gate) which

are welcomed and the Council’s ongoing discussions for the delivery of a new and improved non-food

retail offer will also be important for the future vitality of the centre. However, there is no clear

evidence that any of these future investments would be prejudiced by the cumulative impact of the

proposed foodstores in South Lancaster albeit Centros have expressed some reservations about the

non-food offer in the CEP scheme.

5.12 In summary, WYG believe that the likely cumulative retail impact arsing from the both developments

(and the retention of Hala Road) would not result in a ‘significant adverse’ impact on vitality and

viability (linked to the key tests set out in Policy EC16 of PPS4). However, WYG note that any impacts

arising as a result of Policy EC10.2 should be addressed in the report to Planning Committee when

applying Policy EC17 of PPS4.

Date post:	20-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Lancaster City Council Planning Applications Reference 10 ... · 2.09 In considering retail...

Documents