LBB/DMP-002

1

Issue 3 – Does chapter 3 set out a positively prepared strategy to provide

customer choice and a diverse retail offer, which is justified, effective and

consistent with national policy?

General

a) Is there an up to date assessment of need for additional comparison and convenience retail floorspace in the borough? How will the Plan assist in delivering

any identified needs?

The Core Strategy, which establishes the town centre hierarchy for Brent as well as

identifying where major additional retail floorspace to support town centres would

be located, was informed by a Retail Needs Study. This was supplemented by the

Site Specific Allocations Plan and Wembley Area Action Plan in allocating significant

new sites for retail development to assist in the regeneration of Brent’s largest

town centre – Wembley. This took up the majority of the retail capacity identified

in that retail needs study. The Council has not faced significant interest in major

retail developments elsewhere in the borough. The Council considers that larger

scale retail applications not consistent with allocations can be dealt with

appropriately through policies within the NPPF, London Plan and the Core Strategy.

The DMP complements the Core Strategy by setting out detailed policies to support

the development of strong town centres by ensuring they provide customer choice

and a diverse retail offer. The DMP also assists in delivering identified needs by

ensuring a proportion of town centre frontage is protected for retail uses. A fuller

review of retail capacity will be associated with the review of the Local Plan. At

this time there should be greater clarity on the scale of retail provision planned for

Old Oak and Park Royal Opportunity Area. If this is identified as a Metropolitan

Centre in the Local Plan (something that Brent Council currently does not support),

this will also be reflected in the revised London Plan and it will have substantial

implications for capacity available within Brent and the form and function of

centres in close proximity such as Harlesden.

b) What is the definition of a ‘town centre’? Is the hierarchy of centres clearly defined

and the terminology applied consistently throughout chapter 3?

The hierarchy of town centres is defined at a strategic level in the London Plan and

locally within Core Strategy (reference D6.2) policy CP 16.Within the London Plan

context the hierarchy comprises major, district and local centres. A definition for

these centres is included in paragraph A2.3 of the London Plan. Paragraph A2.3

refers to neighbourhood and more local centres as forming part of the hierarchy of

town centres, whilst policy 4 of the DMP uses the term neighbourhood centres to

mean neighbourhood parades falling outside of the town centre hierarchy. For

clarity and to ensure consistency with the terminology in the DMP a further minor

modification could be made to amend reference in the DMP from ‘neighbourhood

centre ’to ‘neighbourhood parade’ throughout.

c) How have the boundaries of the town centres and the primary and secondary frontages been defined? Are the proposed changes justified by the evidence?

LBB/DMP-002

2

Alongside the DMP proposed amendments to the town centre boundaries and

designated frontage is set out on the Submission Polices Map (reference C), which

underwent consultation alongside the DMP. A detailed justification for the proposed

town centre boundaries, primary and secondary proposed is set out in supporting

document Town Centre Background Report (reference ID2.5). The boundaries and

frontage were reviewed based on an assessment of the current extent and health

of the town centres, emerging development and regeneration plans. In addition the

boundary for Sudbury town centre reflects the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan.

Policy DMP 2 – Strong Centres

d) What is the justification for the restrictions regarding non-A1 and A2 uses in town

centres, as set out in Policy DMP 2?

A detailed justification for the policy approach is set out in supporting document

Town Centre Background Report (reference ID2.5). In summary, the NPPF

paragraph 23 states local planning authorities are to promote competitive town

centres that provide customer choice and a diverse retail offer, whilst London Plan

policy 4.8 states Local Plans should include policies to prevent the loss of retail that

provide essential convenience and specialist shopping. More recently the Mayor's

Town Centres SPG (reference D2.7), whilst recognising the need for town centres

to diversify, states to promote choice and add vitality, town centres should

continue to support a good balance of different types of multiple and independent

retailers.

To inform town centre policies in the DMP a review was undertaken to assess if the

limit on non-retail frontage established in the UDP is still appropriate in light of

changes in planning policy and an assessment of the health of Brent’s town

centres. UDP (2004) Policy SH7 (Change of use from retail to non-retail) states

applications should not generally increase the proportion of non-retail frontage to

over 35%. However, if vacancy rates exceed 10% of primary frontage then

changes of use to non-retail may be permitted up to a maximum of 50%. The

relatively low vacancy levels in the primary frontage of Brent’s town centres

indicate that UDP policy is not protecting primary frontage for retail use at the

detriment of the wider centre. The findings and assessment of the policy context

continue to support the need to protect a proportion of primary frontage for retail

uses to ensure centres continue to guard against the loss of valued facilities and

services. The introduction of permitted development rights allowing conversion of

A1 to A2 makes it necessary to set a threshold for both A1 and A2 uses, to ensure

centres are protected for core uses.

On this basis a threshold is proposed to ensure the proportion of primary frontage

in A1 and A2 use does not reduce to less than 65%. Based on the current average

proportion in A1 and A2 use in centres, this figure will ensure retail remains a core

function of centres allowing them to continue to provide customer choice

consistent with national and regional policy, whilst allowing some further

diversification. It is proposed to retain the policy that should the proportion of

LBB/DMP-002

3

vacant primary frontage increase to above 10% then the threshold will reduce to

50%. This flexibility ensures the proportion of retail frontage is not protected to

the detriment of the wider centre.

This approach is much more flexible than the position set out in the UDP,

responding to the changes that have occurred in relation to retailing in the last

decade. The UDP’s potential limitations on movement of uses in secondary

frontages and lower order centres have essentially been removed with the

exception of uses set out in DMP3 and DMP4.

e) Are the tests regarding peripheral frontage reasonable and clearly defined?

The tests regarding peripheral frontage as set out in paragraph 3.5 are considered

reasonable, as they enable redevelopment of town centre uses on the edge of

centres to residential where this will not result in a break in active frontage which

could be detrimental to the wider viability of the centre. This is consistent with

London Plan policy 2.15 which states development proposals and residential

permitted development prior approval in town centres should sustain and enhance

the vitality and viability of the centre. In addition, there are also benefits of this

approach in terms of amenity and creating an attractive environment, as the

introduction of residential in-between active frontage has potential to prejudice the

future operation of adjoining units, and impact on the amenity of residents.

f) What is the justification for the proposed retail floorspace threshold of 500 square

metres (sqm)?

The NPPF allows local planning authorities to set an appropriate locally specific

threshold for retail impact assessments. A detailed justification for the threshold

proposed is set out in supporting document Retail Impact Assessment Background

Report (reference ID2.2). In summary, the threshold has been set following

consideration of the following factors in accordance with National Planning Practice

Guidance:

Scale of proposals relative to town centres – Brent’s town centres are

characterised by relatively small retail units. The average size of a

comparison unit is 151 sqm and convenience 191 sqm. Although there is

some variation depending on the scale of centre, the average for all centres

is relatively low when compared to the scale of proposals received for edge

of and out of centre developments and significantly below the 2,500sqm

default threshold.

Existing viability and vitality of town centres/Whether local town centres are

vulnerable - Based on an assessment of rents, proportion of vacant frontage

and frontage in retail use it is clear Brent’s centres have felt the impact of

the recession and many are struggling to return to pre-recession levels.

GLA studies project a reduction in long-term consumer growth due to

changes in shopping behaviour, highlighting the need to reinforce and

protect the retail provision of Brent’s centres from inappropriately scaled

edge and out of centre development.

LBB/DMP-002

4

Likely effects of development on any town centre strategy/ Impact on other

planned development – edge and out of centre development will be

detrimental for development proposals for Brent’s town centres in line with

the town centre hierarchy as set out in the Core Strategy and site

allocations.

Policy DMP 3 – Non-retail uses

g) What is the justification for the proposed restrictions on betting shops, adult

gaming centres and pawnbrokers, as set out in Policy DMP 3? How were the

thresholds of 4% and 3% determined? What are the effects of ‘over-concentration’

in an area?

A detailed justification for the policy approach is set out in supporting document A

fair deal betting shops, adult gaming centres and pawnbrokers in Brent (reference

ID2.3). In summary, the policy context supports limiting the freedom to change

use where this is necessary to ensure town centres provide a diverse offer, which

meets community needs, and are therefore more viable. The NPPF requires local

planning authorities to promote competitive town centres that provide customer

choice and a diverse retail offer,1 and states Local Plans may identify areas where

it may be necessary to limit freedom to change the uses of buildings.2 Similarly,

London an policy 4.8 B (g) states Local Plans should manage clusters of uses

having regard to their negative impacts on broader vitality and viability,

competitiveness, quality and diversity of offer, local identity, and community

safety. The Mayor’s Town Centres SPG (reference D2.7) recognises the urgent

need to control proliferation of betting shops and pay day loan shops to address

the implications this can have for maintaining the vitality and viability of town

centres, and for protecting their amenity, character, diversity and safety. Policy

DMP3 complements the existing policy context by providing clear guidance on

what constitutes an overconcentration of these uses. This is consistent with the

NPPF as it provides a clear indication of how a decision maker should react to a

development proposal.

For town and neighbourhood centres to be successful it is imperative that there

are a range of uses providing a breadth of products and services to encourage a

diverse customer base, increased footfall and to sustain the life of the borough’s

high streets. The Council is concerned that a rapid increase in the number of

betting shops and pawnbrokers is impacting on the diversity of some of Brent’s

town centres. Brent has seen a significant increase in these uses. Between 2007

and 2013 the number of betting shops in Brent’s town centres increased by 41%

from 43 to 61. During this period the number of pawnbrokers in Brent’s town

centres increased by 171% from 7 to 19.

The overconcentration of uses is a key concern of local communities. In a survey

undertaken as part of the regulation 18 stage consultation 97% (103) of

respondees felt there were too many betting shops in Brent’s town centres, whilst

1 National Planning Policy Framework (2012), DCLG, para 23 fourth bullet point 2 National Planning Policy Framework (2012), DCLG, para 157

LBB/DMP-002

5

85% felt there were too many pawnbrokers. This is also a concern frequently

raised by Neighbourhood Forums, such as the Sudbury Neighbourhood Forum who

have taken forward a policy to place a limit on the proportion of betting shops in

Sudbury town centre through the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan (reference

D6.3). As residents are the main customer base of Brent’s town centres this

indicates a high level of these uses is not in the interests of meeting local need.

The London Assembly report ‘Open for Business: Empty shops on London’s high

streets’ (March 2013), (reference D2.8) found units, such as betting shops and

pawnbrokers, reduce diversity and impact on the attractiveness of a centre, and

therefore footfall. This reflects the findings of footfall surveys and pedestrian

count surveys commissioned by and undertaken by Brent Council, as detailed in

document ID2.3.

In addition, the prevalence of these uses can have negative impacts on the

wellbeing of communities. The demographics of Brent’s residents indicate they

are particularly at risk from social impacts, such as problem gambling (reference

ID2.3). As summarised in the report Health on the High Street by the Royal

Society for Public Health (reference D2.9) ‘There is strong evidence that increasing

opportunities – availability and accessibility – to gambling does increase the

number of regular and problem gamblers in an area’. There is therefore also a

strong social and economic case to prevent an overconcentration of these uses.

The proposed thresholds are based on an assessment of the existing level of

provision. Colindale, Wembley Park and Sudbury were identified as having a

particularly high concentration of these uses. The map included in Appendix A

indicates the location of these uses and a 400m buffer zone. 400m is commonly

accepted as a reasonable walking distance to access a particular service. Applying

an equivalent buffer to the centres where the Council feels there is an

overconcentration of betting shops indicates residents wishing to access a betting

shop have to walk less than 400m for this service. Further betting shops will

therefore not improve access to provision, but instead will prevent an increase in

other shops and services which help to meet local needs. A 4% threshold on the

proportion of frontage in use as betting shops will allow a slight increase in all

centres with the exception of where the Council considers an overconcentration of

betting shops already exists - Colindale, Wembley Park and Sudbury.

Given the rapid increase the proportion of pawnbrokers and adult gaming centres

the Council feels it needs to be proactive in establishing a suitable threshold to

ensure they do not dominate Brent’s town centres in the future. A 3% threshold

for pawnbrokers and adult gaming centres will currently allow for an increase in

provision in all centres.

It is considered the proposed thresholds strike a balance between allowing an

increase in these uses in the majority of centres, whilst ensuring they do not

overly dominate in future.

LBB/DMP-002

6

h) What account was taken of the recent changes to the Use Classes Order (April 2015)3 in the development of Policy DMP 3?

Changes to the Use Class Order in 2015 removed betting offices and pawnbrokers

from use class A2 (financial and professional services). These uses are now sui

generis. This enables policy DMP3 to be applied more effectively, as any change of

use from the A use classes to a betting office or pawnbrokers now requires

planning permission. Previously units in the use class A5, A4, A3 and A2 could

convert to these uses without the need for planning permission.

i) What is the justification for restricting A5 uses within 400 metres of a secondary

school or further education establishment? How was the distance threshold

determined?

A detailed justification for the policy approach is set out in supporting document

Takeaway Policy Background Report (reference ID2.4) and Takeaway use amongst

Brent’s school students (reference ID2.6), and summarised below.

The NPPF states one of the three dimensions in achieving sustainable development

is for the Planning system to perform a social role by supporting ‘healthy

communities.’4 Consequently one of the core planning principles is to ‘take

account of and support local strategies to improve health, social and cultural

wellbeing for all.’5 Planning Practice Guidance states an-making in respect of

health should consider Planning for an environment that helps people of all ages in

making healthy choices and promotes access to healthier food.6 In addition,

London an policy 4.8 B (g) states clusters of uses should be managed having

regard to their positive and negative impacts on a centre’s role in promoting health

and well-being, whilst policy 3.2 requires boroughs to work with partners to

identify and address significant health issues facing their area.

In accordance with the NPPF, PPG and London Plan the proposed policy has been

developed jointly with colleagues in public health, to directly support strategic

health objectives for the borough set out in the Brent Joint Strategic Needs

Assessment (JSNA) (reference D2.10) and Health and Wellbeing Strategy

(reference D2.11). The Brent JSNA highlights obesity, in particular childhood

obesity, is one of the boroughs key challenges. Childhood obesity rates in Brent

remain higher than the England average. Eleven per cent of reception year pupils

were obese in 2012/13 and 24% of year 6 pupils were measured as obese. In

England, the average rate of obese reception year pupils in 2012/13 was 9% and

19% for year 6 pupils. In light of this a key objective of the Brent Health and

Wellbeing Strategy (2014-17) is to address childhood obesity by supporting the

early development of healthy behaviours and promote healthy eating.

3 Whereby betting shops and pay day loan shops were taken out of the A2 use class and made sui generis.

4 National Planning Policy Framework (2012), DCLG, para 7

5 National Planning Policy Framework (2012), DCLG, para 17, bullet point 12

6 Planning Practice Guidance, DCLG (6

th March 2014), Paragraph 003 Reference ID 53-003-20140306

LBB/DMP-002

7

Figure 1: The percentage of children who are overweight and obese in Brent

schools: Year 6. Source: NCMP, Health and Social Care Information Centre

Takeaway foods often have high levels of salt, sugar, fat and saturated fat, all of

which can contribute to a number of negative health outcomes including obesity.

This was reflected in a study undertaken by Brent Council’s Food Safety Team

which tested 10 products from 10 premises near schools. All samples taken were

well above the recommended nutritional guidelines for children. Some results

were quite alarming, the worst being a deep fried sausage meal that contained

1059Kcal, 23.6g sugar and 57.7g fat (11g saturated). This mirrors research

undertaken by other councils including Tower Hamlets (reference D2.12) and

Gateshead (reference D2.13).

ID2.4 Takeaway Policy Background Report provides a summary of academic

studies which provide evidence of the link between both proximity and density of

takeaways and obesity. The evidence base includes a UK study by Harrison et al

(reference ID 2.14) which found better access to takeaways around schools was

associated with a higher Fat Mass Index in school girls, and the Marmot Review

(reference ID 2.15) which found ‘having local shops within walking distance and

generally high accessibility to shops which stock healthy food is likely to improve

health within these areas, especially when coupled with planning restrictions on

the density of fast food outlets within deprived areas.’ In light of the evidence

base leading health bodies in the UK, including Public Health England (reference

ID 2.16), The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, and the National

Institute for Health and Care Excellence (reference ID 2.17), have all called for

controls on takeaways in proximity to schools.

Brent Council has also undertaken research locally (reference ID2.6) which found

students who attended schools with takeaways within a 400m radius of the

schools consumed takeaways more often at lunch times, on the journey home and

for the evening meal. One in 4 students stated if there were no takeaways within

400m of the school they would not go. The research supports implementing a

LBB/DMP-002

8

400m buffer zone around schools, in which no further hot food takeaways would

be granted planning permission, to reduce the number of visits made by students

to hot food takeaways. However, the study found the introduction of a larger

buffer zone of 800m around schools could further reduce visits to takeaways by

students and gain maximum benefit from the policy.

Based on research undertaken by the Council a policy approach establishing an

800m buffer zone would have greater health benefits, however, such a threshold

would cover most of the borough. It is considered a 400m buffer strikes a balance

between ensuring health benefits by discouraging school children from visiting hot

food takeaways during lunchtime, whilst still allowing takeaways to open

elsewhere in the borough. As the maps in appendix A of Takeaway Policy

Background Report highlight (reference ID2.4), based on the current situation,

there are significant areas of the borough where the buffer zone would not apply.

A 400m buffer is also consistent with the standard applied widely across London

including in parts of Brent through the Wembley Area Action Plan and also within

Southwark, Waltham Forest, Barking and Dagenham, Lewisham, and Wandsworth

amongst others.

j) What is the justification for seeking to avoid concentrations of A5 units? How was

the 6% and the retail frontage threshold determined?

A detailed justification for the policy approach is set out in supporting document

Takeaway Policy Background Report (reference ID2.4). In summary, National and

regional planning policy and a growing evidence base supports the need to prevent

an overconcentration of takeaways due both to health implications, and the fact

they detract from the primary retail function of centres and result in cumulative

impacts on amenity. London Plan policy 4.8 B (g) states Local Plans should

manage clusters of uses having regard to their negative impacts on broader vitality

and viability, competitiveness and quality and diversity of offer. The Mayor’s Town

Centres SPG highlights it is important that the planning system is used to help

manage clusters of uses in the interests of having diverse and therefore more vital

and viable town centres. DMP3 complements the existing policy context by

providing clear guidance on what will constitute an overconcentration of

takeaways. This approach is consistent with the NPPF as it provides a clear

indication to applicants as to how a decision maker should react to a development

proposal.

Studies demonstrate that the number of takeaways in London’s town centres are

increasing (reference D2.8), this trend is of growing concern in light of rising

obesity levels and the health implications. This trend is reflected in Brent. The

average proportion of units in A5 use in Brent’s town centres is 5.85%. Four

centres have a particularly high concentration of takeaways. These are Colindale,

Neasden, Willesden Green and Sudbury. Each centre has a higher number of

takeaways than other foodstores, meaning residents served by these centres have

greater access to takeaways than fresh food. Preventing an overconcentration of

takeaways, in addition to protecting the diversity of town centres, will make an

LBB/DMP-002

9

important contribution to promoting healthy eating in the borough. However, it is

also acknowledged that takeaways provide a convenience service to local

communities and create local jobs. A threshold of 6% has therefore been set which

takes into account average existing levels of A5 uses within the primary and

secondary frontage, and allows a limited increase in most centres, whilst

preventing a further increase in centres with particularly high concentrations of

takeaways.

k) What is the justification for restricting shisha cafes within 400 metres of a secondary school or further education establishment? How was the distance

threshold determined?

A detailed justification for the policy approach is set out in supporting document

Brent Young Persons Cigarette and Shisha Audit (reference ID2.1), undertaken by

Brent Council and NHS Brent with the academic support from Imperial College

School of Public Health.

As set out above, the NPPF states one of the three dimensions in achieving

sustainable development is for the planning system to perform a social role by

supporting ‘healthy communities.’7 Consequently one of the core planning

principles is to ‘take account of and support local strategies to improve health,

social and cultural wellbeing for all.’8 Planning Practice Guidance states plan-

making in respect of health should consider planning for an environment that helps

people of all ages in making healthy choices and promotes access to healthier

food.9 In addition, London Plan policy 3.2 requires boroughs to work with partners

to identify and address significant health issues facing their area.

The reported level of smoking amongst young people remains a high priority in the

Brent Health and Wellbeing Strategy (reference D2.11). The Brent JSNA

(reference D2.10) highlights estimates of smoking prevalence in Brent vary by

ward, ranging from 11.7% in the least deprived neighbourhoods to 25.9% in some

of the most deprived neighbourhoods. Respiratory diseases (Chronic Obstructive

Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and asthma) account for approximately 15% of all

deaths in Brent and are the third major killer following circulatory disease and

cancer. Although certain factors such as the presence of air pollution are known to

exacerbate COPD, smoking is recognised as the primary cause.

A flourishing shisha industry was reported to be emerging in the Borough and

anecdotal evidence suggested that shisha was rapidly gaining popularity amongst

young people in Brent. Informal research indicated that shisha bars in Brent

regularly used social media to keep in contact with their clients. Similarly these

forums were used to advertise events such as ‘DJ and Arabian parties’ and ‘half

price discounts for students’. It was clear that shisha marketing was increasingly

targeted at young people who were informally reporting its popularity. The Council

and NHS Brent therefore undertook a study to gain detailed information on

7 National Planning Policy Framework (2012), DCLG, para 7

8 National Planning Policy Framework (2012), DCLG, para 17, bullet point 12

9 Planning Practice Guidance, DCLG (6

th March 2014), Paragraph 003 Reference ID 53-003-20140306

LBB/DMP-002

10

Cigarette and Shisha smoking amongst young people in the borough (reference

D2.1). After controlling for age, gender, ethnicity and eligibility for free school

meals, it was found students from a school that had more than one shisha café

within a 0.5 mile radius were twice as likely to be current shisha smokers than

students from schools that had no shisha cafes within a 0.5 mile radius. This is

most likely due to increased accessibility during the lunch hour or after school.

The study recommended inclusion of restrictions relating to placement of shisha

cafes in close proximity to schools should be considered in Brent Council planning

policy and strategy and the Local Plan.

The evidence from the study was based on a 0.5mile radius. To be proportionate,

and for consistency with the takeaway policy, an 400m buffer is proposed which

strikes a balance between allowing shisha café elsewhere in the borough whilst

ensuring they do not locate in proximity to schools, and therefore helping to

mitigate health impacts.

LBB/DMP-002

11

Appendix A: Concentration of betting shops in Colindale, Sudbury and Wembley Park town centres

LBB/DMP-002

12

LBB/DMP-002

13