Reading Main Text · Reading Borough as a whole, with disaggregated totals for Reading City Centre...

Colliers CRE Reading Borough Council Research & Consultancy Retail & Leisure Study of Reading Volume 1 – Main Report and Appendices

CONTENTS PAGE

1. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1

Terms of Reference .........................................................................................................1

Study Approach...............................................................................................................2

Structure of the Report.....................................................................................................3

2. RETAILING – TRENDS AND NATIONAL CONTEXT ..............................................5

Introduction ....................................................................................................................5

Retailing – Periods of Rapid Change .................................................................................5

Recession and Retailing ...................................................................................................8

Improving Fortunes and Further Evolution ........................................................................9

Current Planning Policy ................................................................................................. 11

Out of Town Retailing and Leisure ................................................................................. 12

The Future of Out of Centre Retailing and the Implications for Town Centres ................... 15

E-Shopping ................................................................................................................... 16

Retail Outlook............................................................................................................... 17

Summary ...................................................................................................................... 19

3. SUB-REGIONAL SHOPPING PATTERNS................................................................21

Planning Policy Context ................................................................................................ 21

Assessment of the Reading Retail Economy .................................................................... 24

Survey Methodology and Catchment Area Definitions ..................................................... 24

Non-Bulky Comparison Goods ....................................................................................... 26

Bulky Comparison Goods .............................................................................................. 27

Convenience Goods ....................................................................................................... 29

Characteristics of Shopper Behaviour.............................................................................. 31

4. RETAILING – LOCAL CONTEXT AND QUALITATIVE NEED.............................33

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 33

Retailing Provision within Reading Borough ................................................................... 33

Reading City Centre ...................................................................................................... 34

District and Local Centres within Reading Borough ......................................................... 38

Out of Centre Retailing .................................................................................................. 44

The Need for Additional Retail Development .................................................................. 45

Assessment of Qualitative Need ..................................................................................... 49


5. QUANTITATIVE RETAIL NEED: METHODOLOGY, DATA SOURCES AND

ASSUMPTIONS..........................................................................................................52

Objectives..................................................................................................................... 52

Quantitative Need Methodology ..................................................................................... 52

The Household Telephone Survey .................................................................................. 54

Principal Data Sources .................................................................................................. 56

Interpretation and Definitions ......................................................................................... 58

General Point ................................................................................................................ 63

6. QUANTITATIVE RETAIL NEED: ASSESSMENT AND RESULTS.........................64

Objectives..................................................................................................................... 64

Approach...................................................................................................................... 64

Analysis: Comparison Goods ......................................................................................... 65

Analysis: Convenience Goods ........................................................................................ 73

Summary ...................................................................................................................... 75

7. THE NEED FOR FURTHER LEISURE DEVELOPMENT........................................77

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 77

The Existing Supply of Leisure Facilities ........................................................................ 79

Leisure Trip Patterns...................................................................................................... 80

The Need for Further Leisure Development in Reading Borough ...................................... 85

Qualitative Need............................................................................................................ 86

Summary ...................................................................................................................... 97

8. KEY PLANNING ISSUES AND STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS ...........................99

Translating Retail Expenditure Capacity into Retail Floorspace Need ............................... 99

Alternative Scenarios ................................................................................................... 101

Main Conclusions and Recommendations to the Council................................................ 103


APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Consultants Brief

Appendix 2 The Deposit Draft Berkshire Structure Plan, 2001-2016

(Extract from Plan)

Appendix 3 Household Telephone Survey

Appendix 3A Survey Methodology and Sampling

Appendix 3B Definition of Zones

Appendix 3C Catchment Area Definitions

Appendix 3D Key Results

Appendix 3E Copy of Survey Questionnaire

Appendix 4 Photographs

Appendix 5 Database Analyser Retail Tool: Extract for Reading

Appendix 6 Retail Floorspace and Turnover Data for Reading City Centre,

Defined District and Local Centres, Retail Warehouses and Food

Superstores

Appendix 6A Convenience Goods: 2004 Benchmark Turnover Estimates

Appendix 6B Non-Bulky Comparison Goods: 2004 Benchmark Turnover Estimates

Appendix 6C Bulky Comparison Goods: 2004 Benchmark Turnover Estimates

Appendix 7 Experian Data

Appendix 7A Survey Area Consumer Retail Expenditure Data

Appendix 7B Definition of Convenience and Comparison Goods

Appendix 7C Consumer Retail Expenditure Projections and Forecasts

Appendix 7D Non-Store Retail Expenditure Estimates

Appendix 7E Estimating and Projecting Sales Densities

Appendix 8 Leisure Facilities in Reading Borough

Appendix 8A Schedule of Hotels in Reading Borough

Appendix 8B Principal Arts and Entertainment Venues in Reading Borough

Appendix 8C Schedule of Museums and Libraries in Reading Borough

Appendix 8D Principal Sports Facilities and Swimming Pools in Reading Borough


Appendix 8E Schedule of Festivals and Events in Reading Borough

Appendix 9 Requirement Reports

Appendix 9A Demand for Representation in Reading: Retail

Appendix 9B Demand for Representation in Reading: Catering / Leisure

Appendix 9C Demand for Representation in Reading: Hotels

IN VOLUME 2:

Retail Need (Capacity) Spreadsheets

• Convenience Goods

• Comparison Goods

This report has been prepared by The Research & Consultancy Department

Colliers CRE 9 Marylebone Lane London W1U 1HL Tel: 020 7629 8191

Fax: 020 7344 6984

Colliers CRE Reading Borough Council Research and Consultancy Retail and Leisure Study of Reading Volume 1: Main Report and Appendices

- 1 -

1. INTRODUCTION

Terms of Reference

1.1 On 21 September 2004, Reading Borough Council instructed Colliers CRE to prepare a Retail

and Leisure Study of Reading. The purpose of the study is to assist the Council in determining

policy within the forthcoming Local Development Framework. In particular, the Council

require an objective assessment of the quantitative need for additional retail floorspace in

Reading Borough through to 2016.

1.2 The Consultants Brief for the Retail and Leisure Study (reproduced in full as Appendix 1),

sets out the two main objectives of the study as follows:

• To identify the level of retail and leisure development needed within Reading

Borough through to 2016, in accordance with PPG6 / Draft PPS6;

• To provide context for policies and proposals in the forthcoming Local Development

Framework for Reading Borough.

1.3 The Brief indicates that need for further retail and leisure development within Reading

Borough should be assessed in both quantitative and qualitative terms, whilst the need for

retail floorspace should be broken down into non-bulky and bulky comparison goods and

convenience goods.

1.4 It was agreed in discussions with officers of Reading Borough Council that the main emphasis

of the study should be on assessing the quantitative need for new retail development within

Reading Borough as a whole, with disaggregated totals for Reading City Centre and the

defined District and Local Centres. Furthermore, also by way of clarification, this study is

designed to assist the Council in planning for the future shopping and leisure needs of the

residents of Reading and its hinterland. The study is not specific to any individual proposed

retail or leisure development and any future applications for major retail or leisure facilities in

Reading Borough should, if required by the Council, be supported by a more specific need and

retail impact assessment relating directly to the application scheme. Such assessments should

be made by intending developers or retailers with the Council having the option of

commissioning expert critical appraisals of such assessments as part of the development

process.


- 2 -

1.5 Reading Borough Council is in the process of reviewing its Local Plan and producing a Local

Development Framework. In January 2003 the Council published the Reading Borough Local

Plan: Issues Report and Draft Spatial Strategy for public consultation. The Council is now

preparing a draft Local Development Framework to replace the Local Plan.

1.6 Draft Planning Policy Statement 6 (PPS6) directs that planning authority should:

• “assess the need for new floorspace for retail, leisure and other key town centre uses,

taking account of both quantitative and qualitative factors” (Paragraph 2.14)

1.7 It also states that local needs assessments:

• “will form part of the evidence base for Development Plan Documents, particularly

the core strategy” (Paragraph 2.26)

whilst advising that:

• “local planning authorities should allocate sufficient sites to meet anticipated demand

for the next five years”(Paragraph 2.44)

1.8 Moreover, Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9) states that:

• “in preparing development plans, local authorities should … (ii) assess the need for

retail, leisure and office development in their area” (at Q5)

1.9 Planning policy guidance therefore demonstrates the requirement for a retail and leisure study

of Reading Borough to be undertaken to underpin the new Local Development Framework.

The Council are looking for this present study to be prepared within the context of the

Berkshire Retail Study, which was carried out by Colliers CRE in 2002 on behalf of the six

Berkshire Unitary Authorities.

Study Approach

1.10 In carrying out this study we have had regard to Government advice in Planning Policy

Guidance Note 6 (PPG6) and the draft Planning Policy Statement 6 (PPS 6), and Structure and

Local Plan policies. In addition, we have drawn on our wider experience of retailing and


- 3 -

experience gained in undertaking need / capacity studies in many other parts of the country.

Specifically, we have sought to combine experience in terms of:

• Research

• Planning

• Market Knowledge

As such the study seeks to blend detailed research with relevant commercial expertise

provided by the company’s research and consultancy and retail agency departments.

1.11 The research element has been an important feature of this study. A telephone survey of

1,700 households living within Reading and its wider shopping catchment area has been

carried out. We use the results of the household survey to help quantify shopping trip patterns

and flows of retail expenditure between residential areas (where people live) and retail centres

(where people spend). This assessment of shopper behaviour helps underpin our analysis of

quantitative retail floorspace need.

1.12 We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of all organisations and individuals who have

assisted in the preparation of this study. Whilst we have had full regard to the views

expressed, this report reflects our own conclusions.

Structure of the Report

1.13 Our report is in two volumes. Volume 1 (this volume) comprises the Consultants Report and

includes the technical appendices, whilst Volume 2 contains the detailed spreadsheets which

form our quantitative retail need (capacity) assessment. The two volumes should be read

together.

1.14 In terms of this volume, Section 2 describes the key retail and leisure economic and property

market trends at the national level, and draws on recently published data as well as the results

of our own in-house research. The purpose of this review is to provide a retail and leisure

context for the rest of the study.


- 4 -

1.15 In Section 3, we consider the retail hierarchy of the sub-region and describe the role being

performed by Reading City Centre, and the defined District and Local Centres. We also define

and map the catchment areas of Reading City Centre for non-bulky and bulky comparison

goods and convenience goods shopping.

1.16 In Section 4, we consider the qualitative need for new retail development within Reading

Borough. This report first describes the background to qualitative need and then in broad

terms examines such need through a brief overview of each of the defined retail centres within

Reading Borough and a consideration of the shopping provision available in nearby

competitor centres within the sub-region. Our conclusions on qualitative need feed through

into our assessment of quantitative retail need.

1.17 In Section 5, we describe our approach to assessing quantitative need for additional retail

floorspace within Reading Borough. The sources of data are identif ied, the methodology of

the ‘model’ is described and our key assumptions are explained.

1.18 In Section 6, we look to the future and quantify the retail expenditure capacity available to

support additional convenience and comparison goods retail floorspace within Reading

Borough. This quantitative need assessment is carried out for forecast years 2009 and 2016.

1.19 Section 7 of the report considers the need for new leisure development within Reading

Borough. The assessment draws on the results of the household survey undertaken as part of

this study and also published statistics on the national leisure industry. In addition, we take

into account the market demand for new leisure facilities in the Reading area.

1.20 In the light of our assessments of quantitative and qualitative need in Sections 4 to 7, in

Section 8 we present our conclusions and recommendations to the Council in respect of the

need for additional retail floorspace and leisure facilities within Reading Borough through to

2016.


- 5 -

2. RETAILING – TRENDS AND NATIONAL CONTEXT

Introduction

2.1 Although a major focus of this study is on preparing a quantitative retail floorspace need

assessment for Reading Borough, it is useful to set local shopper behaviour, retailer intentions

and town centre performance within the context of national retail and consumer trends.

Retailing is a dynamic industry and the way it evolves will have important implications for all

parts of the UK, including the Reading area.

Retailing – Periods of Rapid Change

2.2 During the 1980s and 1990s the UK retailing industry underwent a radical transformation.

Fired by a growing volume of consumer spending, a considerable economic boom occurred.

Figure 2.1 illustrates the growth in consumer retail expenditure since 1993. Between 1993

and 2003, for example, retail spend rose by around £100,000 million. This rapid increase was

due to the easy availability of credit, a booming house market and increasing consumer

confidence which translated into consumer expenditure. Many of these trends continue to the

present day.

Figure 2.1 Annual Retail Sales, 1993-2003 – At Current Prices

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

£m High Street Retail Sales

Total Retail Spending

Source: Verdict


- 6 -

2.3 The general buoyancy and demand was correspondingly underpinned by important changes on

the supply side, notably:

• The advance of superstores and multiple retailers;

• Achievement of larger economies of scale;

• Introduction of attractive new store designed and systems of product presentation;

• Superior systems of stock control and replacement.

2.4 A new generation of consumers was courted by new retailers focusing heavily on design and

market segmentation (e.g. Next, Tie Rack, The Body Shop). The aggressive expansion of new

retailers added further pressures to a widespread demand for a limited resource, i.e. prime sites

on the high street and in shopping centres. However, this was confined almost entirely to large

towns and cities, such as Reading, rather than smaller centres.

2.5 The 1980s also saw a period of financial deregulation. High Street sites were in competition

and eagerly acquired by such service providers as banks, building societies and estates

agencies.

2.6 All these market changes put upward pressures on the level of shop rents as a consequence of

the “race for space”. Between 1984 and 1988 rents nationally increased by over 60%. This

large increase was vastly in excess of underlying growth in retail sales and consumer

expenditure (25% and 23% respectively). As retailer demand continued to fuel rental growth,

new shopping developments in town centres and out of centre became viable. This took the

form of both major centre schemes, retail parks and smaller “courtyard” developments,

sometimes in secondary locations in the larger centres.

2.7 Between 1987 and 1996 the quantity of out of centre floorspace in the UK grew by over 87%

(an increase of around 4.9 million sq m), whereas the equivalent figure for in-town retail

floorspace showed a growth of only 0.7% (less than 0.2 million sq m). Thus, in floorspace

terms virtually the whole of the net additional growth in the UK retail sector between 1987

and 1996 was out of centre. During this time migration of the main out of centre sectors from

the high street created space into which the more traditional high street retail sectors

expanded. By the end of 2000 out of centre shopping accounted for 25% of total retail apace

and 32% of retail sales, with forecaster predicting increases in these proportions to 27% and

36% respectively by 2005. Figure 2.2 to 2.4 overleaf summarise changes in quantum of retail


- 7 -

sales and retail floorspace by physical location over the past decade and the relationship

between the two indicators (sales densities).

Figure 2.2 Retail Floorspace by Location 1993-2003

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

m s

q m High Street

Out-of-TownNeighbourhood

Source: Verdict

Figure 2.3 Retail Sales by Location at Current Prices 1993-2003

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

£ m

High StreetOut-of-TownNeighbourhoodMail Order/E-Retail

Total Retail Spending

Source: Verdict


- 8 -

Figure 2.4 Sales Densities by Location at Current Prices 1993-2003

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

£/sq

m p

.a.

High Street

Out-of-TownNeighbourhood

Source: Verdict

2.8 In relation to high street retail in 1980s and 1990s saw an increasing concentration of

shopping provision within the UK’s largest city and town centres. By 2000, for example, the

top 100 locations accounted for an estimated 36% of (town centre) floorspace and 58% of

sales.

Recession and Retailing

2.9 The results of the onset of the recession at the end of the 1980s are well documented – a

virtual standstill in retail sales and a sharp decline in the fortunes of high street stores. From

1989 to the end of 1992, the general trend in retail sales at constant prices (i.e. discounting for

inflation) was static (see Figure 2.5 overleaf) in market contrast to the expectations on which

some retailers’ business plans were based.


- 9 -

Figure 2.5 Retail Sales Values vs Volumes 1986-2003

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

Ind

ex 2

000

= 10

0

Retail Sales ValueRetail Sales Volume

Source: ONS

2.10 High rents and low sales resulted in many retailers (multiples and independents) having a

particularly difficult time. Some retailers closed down or down-sized their holdings

considerably. This period also saw the growth of the “discounters” (food and non-food) as

consumers became very cost conscious. In addition, charity shops proliferated as landlords

tried to recoup lost income from voids arising from the downturn. This period was

characterised as being very much a tenants market as tenants had substantial negotiating clout

resulting from the downturn.

Improving Fortunes and Further Evolution

2.11 Since 1996, growing consumer confidence leading to increasing retail spend has once again

encouraged retailers to expand with strong competition for prime sites and a resultant increase

in prime rents (see Figure 2.6 overleaf). Although prime rents have now been rising each year

since 1993-94, in real terms (i.e. after taking inf lation into account) values still remain lower

than those achieved more than a decade ago. In absolute terms, the average UK prime rent

rose from £538 per sq m (£50 per sq ft) in 1987 to £807 per sq m (£75 per sq ft) in 1990

before falling back to £732 per sq m (£68 per sq ft) in 1993. Since then, the average rent has

increased annually to reach £1163 per sq m (£108 per sq ft) in May 2004.


- 10 -

Figure 2.6 Average UK Prime Rent 1987-2004

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Inde

x M

ay 1

987

= 10

0

Indexed (Nominal)

Indexed (Real)

Source: Colliers CRE In-Town Retail Rents Database

2.12 The general confidence in retail markets since 1996 has been the result of a buoyant national

economy, resulting in increasing consumer affluence and confidence. Positive economic

indicators included a growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP), relatively low inflation and

falling unemployment. This confidence in the economy has seen improvement in rents across

all property sectors. Property also witnessed a significant increase in investment from

institutional investors.

2.13 Over the past few years the principal demand for space in the high street has come from

retailers trading in the mobile phone and coffee shop sectors, which resulted in strong demand

for small units. However, more recently there has also been a re-emergence of demand from

all sectors of the retail market, including A2 users (e.g. banks, building societies and betting

offices). In turn this has resulted in more balanced rental growth across all unit sizes, although

prime, well-configured units are particularly in demand.

2.14 Retailers are responding to the emerging consumer needs by focusing more on the

establishment of larger shops that are able to provide the full range of their products at a

competitive price. According to Verdict, high street stores are now 25% larger than a decade

ago as retailers such as Marks & Spencer and Next strive to expand floorspace to

accommodate broader ranges and services. Typically, these new “mega” shops are located in


- 11 -

the larger “quality” regional centres where catchment populations are considerable and

affluent, and where retailers can maximise market share through a more focused branch

network.

2.15 Retailing is also becoming more and more about branding and specialisation. The retail

generalists, such as W H Smith and Boots, are finding it ever harder to maintain market share,

especially as the supermarkets move more into non-foods. The buying power of these

operators now enables them to undercut most high street retailers on price.

2.16 There is also a growing element of convergence between retailing and leisure. Both retailing

and leisure have a developing synergy so that the shopping trip is now increasingly send as a

“day out” rather than a regular routine or chore. An example of this trend is the shopping trip

which itself is undertaken as a leisure activity. This is particularly well illustrated by the new

breed of factory outlet centres which have opened throughout the UK, where research which

we have undertaken shows that up to 75% of visits are essentially leisure based trips and are

“net additional” to regular visits made to the high street.

2.17 There has been growing pressure and competition from café, snack bar, restaurant and

licensed retail operators, responding to the trend of people choosing to eat our more regularly

and contributing to the concept of the evening economy. This has inevitably put pressure on

rents in prime and secondary locations.

2.18 In key centres, international retailers are also very active. The best example of this is Central

London, where locations such as Oxford Street, Bond Street and Regent Street have attracted

an influx of major names including Armani, Donna Karan, Louis Vuitton and Gianni Versace.

However, demand from overseas retailers is also strong in a number of the other major

regional centres such as Manchester, Glasgow, and Leeds.

Current Planning Policy

2.19 Retailers and developers have largely adjusted to Government planning guidance on retailing

and town centres. This gives pre-eminence to town centres and locations accessible by a

variety of means of transport and are fundamental elements of the Government’s sustainable

development strategy. Guidance in many ways seeks to determine behaviour, rather than

manage and/or control market forces. The requirement to demonstrate “need” and the


- 12 -

“sequential approach” to new retail development are both having ma jor implications for out of

centre retailing and the expanding leisure industry.

2.20 The government is currently seeking ways to further clarify / simplify planning policy and the

planning process, and a new Draft Planning Policy Statement 6 (PPS6): Planning for Town

Centres has been published and was circulated for consultation earlier this year. A fully

revised PPS6 is expected to be published early in 2005.

Out of Town Retailing and Leisure

Food

2.21 Food retailers continued to expand through the recession of the early 1990s, particularly in our

of centre locations. The slow growth in convenience goods expenditure (illustrated in Figure

2.7) contributed to the expansion plans for food retailers by forcing them to fight for market

share and to benefit further from economies of scale. The logic appears to be that to increase

market share and profits, there is a need to increase floorspace.

Figure 2.7 Consumer Retail Expenditure per Head by Goods Type, Annual Average for

the UK (Constant Prices) between 1980 and 2003

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

350.0

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

Year

Ind

ex 1

980

= 10

0

Convenience GoodsComparison GoodsAll Goods

Source: MapInfo Information Brief 04-02 – April 2004


- 13 -

2.22 In the past, increasing floorspace was achieved mainly through new superstore development,

especially out of centre. However, with government planning policy curtailing opportunities

out of centre, the major operators are increasingly looking to extend their existing stores.

Extensions are used to accommodate non-food ranges which have lower sales densities (than

food) but generate better margins. Larger stores also enable food store operators to diversify

into services or to accommodate in-store service use concessions (e.g. coffee shops, dry

cleaners, shoe repairers and photographic processing).

2.23 Smaller store formats have been devised by a number of major food store operators and this

has also spearheaded the movement back to town centres. An example of one of the new

formats is Tesco with its “Metro” and “Express” concepts. The promotion of town centre

living, along with the growth in one person households as well as an increasingly ageing

population, has created a market for in-town supermarkets.

2.24 The growth in the number of larger superstores (Table 2.1) has been at the expense of smaller

supermarkets and other food specialists. The net effect of the expansion of the superstores has

been a loss of almost 24,000 food shops over the past decade.

Table 2.1 Total Grocery Store Numbers by Retailer Type 1993-2003

Source: Verdict on Grocery Retailers, January 2004

Year Larger Superstores

Supermarkets and Smaller Grocers

Food Specialists

Other Stores

Total Stores

1993 934 38,592 46,665 67,432 153,623 1994 988 37,747 45,376 66,028 150,139 1995 1,027 36,314 43,107 64,080 144,528 1996 1,053 35,317 41,931 62,238 140,539 1997 1,084 34,438 41,493 61,886 138,901 1998 1,117 33,766 41,321 61,131 137,335 1999 1,150 33,586 40,891 60,392 136,019 2000 1,180 33,228 40,351 59,631 134,390 2001 1,235 33,040 39,699 58,949 132,923 2002 1,292 32,785 39,131 58,049 131,257 2003 1,319 32,523 38,480 57,433 129,755

% Change 1993-2003 41.2 -15.7 -17.5 -14.8 -15.5


- 14 -

Non-Food

2.25 Following many years of rapid growth, the out of town retail warehouse sector suffered a

down-town at the end of the 1980s. By the mid 1990s it had recovered and today it is one of

the strongest of the retail sectors. This renaissance derives from a series of innovations which,

when combined, create the modern purpose-built retail park. Schemes built in the early 1980s

are being examined and some are being redeveloped or extended. Free-standing (“solus”) units

are rapidly becoming outmoded. Some units are reducing in size from that typically required

by the DIY operators to meet the new range of retail warehouse or “showroom” occupiers.

2.26 The retail warehouse market continues to segment as it matures. Prime rents are paid for space

on purpose built retail parks which are accessible by a large catchment population and which

benefit from an ”open” (non food) retail planning consent (the first tier – “superprime”). In

other locations, premiums are being paid by a wider range of retailers (typically for smaller

retail warehouses) having such a planning consent (the second tier). With the increased use of

planning conditions to restrict the use of out of town retail warehouses to “bulky goods”, a

third tier has developed in investment terms.

2.27 A key issue relating to the out of town retail market is the Government’s intention (as set out

in the recent Planning Bill) that all future mezzanines will require specific planning

permission. This is likely to have important implications, since mezzanines have become vital

to many out of centre retailers as a way of affording their rents. Consequently, the impact of

this legislation (although it will not be retrospective) is that it will restrict the rents that out of

town retailers will be able to afford, as they will need to recalibrate their rent models to paying

rent on the whole of their unit. In turn this may impact on the rental growth in units (and retail

parks) whose mezzanines are not permitted.

Leisure

2.28 The concept of the out of town leisure park, anchored by a multiplex cinema and bringing

together a range of leisure and restaurant uses, evolved rapidly during the 1990s. Like the

retail sector, large sites of 4.0 ha (10 acres) or more have typically been sought with a

catchment of about 250,000 people in a 20 minute drive time. However, new government

planning policy is also beginning to have an impact on the leisure sector, particularly in

relation to the sequential approach to site location.


- 15 -

2.29 More recently the leisure property sector has seen a period of consolidation and this trend is

expected to continue, although the public appetite for the “leisure offer” continues to grow.

Expansion in the cinema, bowling and bingo sectors will remain highly selective and is

beginning to encompass smaller market towns. The expansion of health and fitness clubs has

recently bounced back after several years of modest activity.

2.30 In recent years a number of city centre based urban entertainment centres have opened (e.g.

The Light, Leeds; and The Cornerhouse, Nottingham) in which leisure occupiers largely tap

into urban dwellers, office workers and students. This is creating a polarisation effect with the

established out of town leisure park which retains a more family orientated customer base.

2.31 The sector of the leisure market which is currently dominating the headlines is gaming. The

prospect of the widespread deregulation is now likely in 2005 or 2006 following the

publication in April 2004 of the Joint Committee Report on the draft Gambling Bill.

Deregulation is likely to lead to a raft of casino-led developments (many are already on

drawing boards across the country) with planning and political issues playing a major part in

determining the number, location and scale of such schemes.

The Future of Out of Centre Retailing and the Implications for Town Centres

2.32 The Government through a number of decisions and statements has confirmed its support for

town centres and restricting / preventing out of town proposals.

2.33 In July 1997 the Government’s Response to the Fourth Report from the House of Commons

Select Committee on the Environment, “Shopping Centres”, was published. This states that:

• “The Government is firmly committed to the objectives of PPG 6, which weeks to

sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of our existing city, town and district

centres, to make them the focus for investment, particularly in retail, office, leisure

and other appropriate developments, so as to provide easy access to a wide range of

facilities and services by a choice of means of transport. Such investment is essential

to the regeneration and enhancement of the attractiveness of our town and city

centres.” (Paragraph 1).


- 16 -

2.34 Although the period of rapid out-of-centre expansion witnessed during the 1980s and 1990s is

at an end, out of centre retailing will continue to grow in terms of store numbers, selling space

and total retail sales. The existing development pipeline, and increasing emphasis on store

extensions and future consents to proposals that are deemed to meet the sequential approach

will help fuel this continuing growth.

2.35 Developers in the current planning environment continue to cast around for new concepts and

variations on the theme, as restrictions apply on conventional retail parks. Out of centre

retailing has continued to adopt a leisure focus. For example, there are now common “drive-

thru” restaurants operated by the main fast food operators (McDonalds, Burger King,

Kentucky Fried Chicken). These are conspicuously located at the front of retail parks and

appear to raise their profile by attracting passing motorists. In addition, drive-thru’s work well

where there is leisure (cinema / bingo) in addition to retail.

2.36 Another important trend is the movement of a range of typical high street comparison goods

retailers such as Next, River Island, Boots and W H Smith to out of centre retail locations such

as Fosse Park, Leicester. However, the spread of these formats is currently limited by a lack of

supply as a result of tougher Government planning guidance.

E-Shopping

2.37 In November 2002, monthly UK online sales passed the £1 billion mark for the first time, and

following significant further growth have now reached around £2.5 billion. This represents 7%

of all UK retail sales – up from 5% in 2002 and just 2% in 2001. Online sales have therefore

risen rapidly to become an integral part of the British retail market, and are still growing.

2.38 According to a recent study by IBM and The Economist, the UK is now the biggest commerce

market in Europe. More significantly, given the suggestion that Britain trails the US in terms

of Internet use, the UK’s Internet awareness is on a par with that of the States, while our

online retail economy is now growing three times faster than in the US.

2.39 Consumer confidence in online retailers has risen as shoppers have tested out the Internet and

found websites increasingly easy to navigate, credit card use to be secure and delivery to be

convenient and reliable. The ease of comparing the price of goods and services has also led

sales to soar.


- 17 -

2.40 It is important to note that not all of the growth in online sales impacts directly on spend

available to the high street. Nevertheless, online sales are now beyond the point where growth

is simply cannibalisation of more traditional home shopping formats. Prior to the explosion of

the Internet, mail order was estimated to account for around 4.5% of UK retail sales. Although

the problems facing traditional large-book mail order companies have been well documented,

the more targeted direct mail order formats are still experiencing good sales levels. Therefore

not all of mail order’s 4.5% market share has been lost to Internet shopping and, with the

latter’s share now around 7%, it is now beginning to capture some of the Consumer spend

attracted to bricks and mortar retailing.

2.41 This implies Internet retailers are pulling trade away from Britain’s high streets. In practice,

however, many of these operators run both traditional and online operations; for example,

Argos and Tesco, the UK’s third and fourth biggest e-commerce sites. Therefore this does not

necessarily mean high street retailers are losing out. In the case of Tesco, electronic orders are

fulfilled out of existing stores, so growing online sales may even increase the need for retail

property.

2.42 The UK is now at a stage where the rapid expansion of online retailing, which has increased

by 75% in the last 12 months alone, has led this sector of the market to eat into some of the

growth in consumer retail expenditure. Looking to the long term future of the UK’s high

streets, the continuous level of growth that has always underpinned the retail property sector

should no longer be taken for granted. Of particular concern is that the latest e-sale figures

show that the fastest growing online shopping sector is clothing and footwear – the traditional

main stay of most high street – which now account for 9% of all UK Internet sales.

Retail Outlook

2.43 High Street retailing was in equilibrium in mid 2001, at which point the supply of shop units

was in balance with the demand for them. Since then, however, despite the events of

September 11 2001, occupier demand has improved reflecting a robust economic climate and

increased consumer affluence. This positive performance has fed through into prime rental

growth of 3.1% between mid 2003 and mid 2004, up slightly on the 3.0% achieved during

2002/3.


- 18 -

2.44 The key characteristics of the in-town retail market are as follows:

• Location, location, location is being replaced by size, configuration and value for

many as reta ilers concentrate on profit instead of turnover;

• Retail demand is for all unit sizes although bigger is often better;

• Branding and specialisation is becoming increasingly important, resulting in

‘generalist’ retailers struggling to maintain their market share.

• While the number of shopping centre openings during the past couple of years has

been relatively low the next cycle is underway and the development pipeline is now

reaching a size not witnessed for over a decade;

• After many years in the doldrums, department stores are gaining in popularity with

consumers as a result of the range and choice of products for sale under one roof and

the quality of service on offer; the ageing customer base of the UK is also fuelling the

growth of the sector and while major city centres are the principal locations, some

operators such as Debenhams are considering small towns with populations of 75,000

for a mini-department store format.

2.45 The ‘exodus’ of high street retailers to out of town is a widely publicised theme. However,

Colliers CRE research shows that only around 10% of out of town floorspace is in fact

occupied by high street retailers, while Next and T K Maxx are the only traders showing any

real commitment to the out of town market outside the relatively small number of fashion

parks. In most cases seeking out of town representation to replace a high street store is rare

and is more to do with the lack of suitable opportunities.

2.46 Obtaining planning consent for an out of centre retail development continues to be difficult.

Increasingly landlords and operators in this sector are addressing the issue through extensions

to existing retail parks and individual superstores or through the re-working of existing

consents, or example by refurbishment and / or redevelopment. The supermarket operators in

particular are also now devising new high street trading formats which are being rolled out

from London and the South East to the regions.


- 19 -

2.47 One interesting development is the switch from out-of-town back to in-town, where retailers

like PC World, Courts, Matalan and Allied Carpets have all expressed interest in expanding.

This is a consequence of the ever-increasing cost and lack of availability of suitable out-of-

town space, coupled with retailers’ desire to add an in-town dimension to their offer and

capture an untapped market.

2.48 In the leisure sector, it is unlikely that future development will replicate the established leisure

parks or urban entertainment centre formats. Instead selected leisure uses will be incorporated

into mixed use schemes or shopping centre development and refurbishment projects. These

uses are likely to be focused on specific operator demand at the local level – a marked shift

away from the ‘build it and they will come’ development philosophy of the late 1990s.

2.49 In the medium to longer term the retail property market is likely to be impacted by a number

of important national trends, the most important of which are:

• A rapidly ageing population – 2016 it is estimated that there will be 2.1 million fewer

people aged under 40 but 3.5 million more people over 40 years of age;

• A declining share of consumer expenditure – although disposable incomes have risen

every year for more than a decade, the proportion of expenditure which is spent on

retailing goods has fallen from 38.9% in 1990 to 34.6% in 2000 and is expected to

decline even further to just 31.6% by 2005;

• An increasing concentration of retail activity in the largest towns and cities – in the

1960s it took 200 retail locations to account for 50% of all UK non-food sales but

today this same proportion of turnover is channelled through less than 80 retail centres

and the number is forecast to decrease even more.

Summary

2.50 While the retail sector is currently buoyant, with prime rents having risen steadily since 1993,

it has been subject to significant fluctuations when looked at over the medium term. A range

of new retailers are again seeking large prime sites while the general trend both in and out of

centre has been towards larger size units. It is for this reason that retail floorspace in the UK

has risen over the past decade by around 4.5 million sq m, while shop numbers have fallen by

more than 40,000 units over the same period. There is also the view that seeking to prevent


- 20 -

out of centre retail development has been left too late. Nevertheless, the restrictions imposed

by Government planning guidance are having an effect and opportunities in town centres are

increasingly being sought, albeit that some will require the active assistance of the local

authority. In addition to the issue of “in-town” versus “out-of-town”, the strengthening role of

major retail centres often at the cost of smaller district and local centres needs to be taken into

account.

2.51 Finally, general trends within the retail industry should not be ignored. Retailers are constantly

monitoring changing trends in fashion and demographics so that consumer demand is

satisfied. Retailing is an evolving process with retailers constantly adapting to demand and

increasingly analysing and targeting customers. These continual changes have important

implications for property and retail location, which in turn are related to retail policy. Local

authorities should therefore regularly monitor the dynamic retail sector in order to ensure that

their policies are both up to date and appropriate.


- 21 -

3. SUB-REGIONAL SHOPPING PATTERNS

3.1 In this section we describe the retail hierarchy of Berkshire and then go onto define catchment

areas for Reading City Centre for convenience goods and non-bulky and bulky comparison

goods shopping. This assessment involves quantifying the extent and pattern of expenditure

retention and leakage from Reading. We also consider the catchments of the defined District

and Local Centres within Reading Borough. Lastly, we examine the main characteristics of

shopper behaviour and identify the dominant retail centres across the sub-region for the main

types of shopping activity. Our assessment is based primarily on data on shopping behaviour

drawn from our household survey of the sub-region.

Planning Policy Context

The Berkshire Structure Plan

3.2 The present Berkshire Structure Plan 1991-2006, adopted by the (then) County Council in

19981, sets out existing policy towards retail development within Berkshire. The Plan seeks to

retain and enhance the prosperity of the various centres in Berkshire and, wherever possible,

to ensure that new retailing development is concentrated there.

3.3 In order to help guide future development and ensure it is appropriate to the role of the

respective centres, the County Council identified a hierarchy of shopping centres. This is as

follows:

• Regional Centre – Reading

• Sub-Regional Centres – Slough, Windsor

• Major Town Centres – Bracknell, Maidenhead, Newbury, Wokingham

• Small Town / District Centres – 19 identified, including 7 designated in Reading

Borough

• Local Centres – numerous (as identified in Local Plans)

1 Berkshire Structure Plan 1991-2006, Incorporating Alterations adopted in August 1997, Royal County of Berkshire, February 1998.


- 22 -

3.4 In 1998 the County Council was replaced by six unitary authorities1 and a Joint Strategic

Planning Unit (JSPU) was established to carry out the core strategic planning functions of the

former County Council.

3.5 The JSPU, working closely with the six unitary authorities, produced in July 2004 The

Berkshire Structure Plan 2001-2016 as Recommended for Adoption. In due course it is

intended that the new Structure Plan will be adopted and become a statutory document.

3.6 The draft Structure Plan acknowledges that affluence and a growing population have resulted

in considerable growth in retail and leisure in recent years and in turn this has encouraged and

supported a raft of new development not only in town centres but out of town. Reflecting

these trends and government policy in PPG 6, the new draft Structure Plan starts from a

presumption that major retail and leisure developments should in future go into the main town

centres.

3.7 The principal policy in the new Draft Structure Plan (Policy S1, reproduced in Appendix 2),

has been designed to:

• “identify the appropriate nature and scale of development within the major retail

areas in Berkshire; in order to create a more sustainable pattern of shopping or

leisure trips and to focus development on those town centres where there is a need for

regeneration.” (paragraph 8.03).

3.8 Looking ahead, the draft Plan considers that the shopping centre hierarchy defined in the

present Structure Plan (paragraph 3.3 above) does not give a sufficiently good understanding

of the nature of the role of town centres and the relationships between them. Accordingly, the

draft Plan (in the form of Schedule 1 – see Appendix 2 identifies a network of seven main

town centres and describes their present function and scale and their future needs. In relation

to Reading the draft Structure Plan Policy S1 describes the role of the town centre as follows:

• “Function and Scale: Reading is the major regional centre for the wider Thames

Valley and a top UK commercial and retail destination hosting a range of higher

order comparison retailers. The shopping centre is in a very sustainable location due

1 These are: Bracknell Forest Borough Council, Reading Borough Council, Slough Borough Council, West Berkshire Council, The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, and Wokingham District Council.


- 23 -

to good public transport links and has recently been significantly expanded and

modernised by the completion of the Oracle Shopping Centre.

Future Strategy: Although Reading provides a range of shopping choices, there is

scope to accommodate additional major international stores and high order retailers,

as well as the expansion of the specialist and independent retail sectors. Future

development should complement the existing provision and include activities that

reflect the trend towards leisure retailing, such as cafes, restaurants, galleries, arts

and leisure opportunities, and will be supported by further pedestrianisation and

environmental improvement. The area around the station and others characterised by

lower density development around the fringe of the core provide significant scope for

higher density mixed-use development with excellent and sustainable design quality,

in line with the principles of urban renaissance, and will help support the town centre

in the future.”

Reading Borough Local Plan

3.9 The Reading Borough Local Plan (1991-2006) was adopted on 14 October 1998 and set out to

provide a comprehensive and well balanced planning policy framework for development

across the borough. The intention of the Plan was to provide a firm foundation on which to

develop the strategies needed to deliver the Council’s vision.

3.10 The shopping objectives of the Borough Plan are as follows:

• To maintain and improve the town centre as a regional shopping centre;

• To protect and improve the town’s local shopping areas to serve local needs;

• To assist in reducing the need to travel and to encourage the use of public transport,

cycling and walking;

• To allow for change and innovation in retailing where it does not prejudice the above

three objectives;

• To encourage the environmental improvement of the town’s shopping areas, to make

them more pleasant, convenient and safer to use.


- 24 -

3.11 The Council is now in the process of reviewing the Local Plan and is producing a Local

Development Framework for Reading Borough. As part of this process the Council published

the Reading Borough Local Plan: Issues Report and Draft Spatial Strategy for public

consultation in January 2003 and the draft Local Development Framework is currently being

prepared, which will replace the Local Plan.

Assessment of the Reading Retail Economy

3.12 In order to provide actual empirical evidence on current shopping patterns within Berkshire

and the role and function of Reading City Centre; we commissioned a telephone survey of

1,700 households living within Reading and its shopping hinterland. This survey updated

previous household telephone surveys carried out by Colliers CRE in November 2001 and

April / May 2002 as part of the Bracknell Town Centre Retail Study, February 2002 (on

behalf of Bracknell Forest Borough Council) and The Berkshire Retail Study, December 2002

(on behalf of the Berkshire Authorities JSPU) respectively. The survey for this report was

undertaken during September / October 2004 and Appendix 3 describes the survey

methodology, summarises the main results and contains a copy of the questionnaire.

3.13 The main objective of the household telephone survey was to obtain comprehensive

information on consumer shopping trip patterns and expenditure flows for convenience goods

(food) and non-bulky and bulky comparison goods (non-food) shopping with the sub-region.

Survey Methodology and Catchment Area Definitions

3.14 Agreement on the survey methodology was reached with officers of Reading Borough Council

prior to commencement of the fieldwork. It was agreed that the survey would concentrate on

households living within 22 zones, each defined in terms of postal geography, as is usual1.

These 22 zones are identified diagrammatically in Figure 3.1 overleaf and also on the map

reproduced in Appendix 7A. In total these 22 zones cover all of Reading Borough, together

with an extensive hinterland designed to capture the vast majority of shopping trips made to

the town. The use of zones enables the analysis of flows of retail expenditure throughout the

sub-region and permits the individual shopping catchments for different centres and broad

categories of goods to be defined.

1 Appendix 3B lists the postcode sectors constituting each zone.

Fig. 3.1. Reading Household Survey Zones

A1(M)

A308(M)

A329(M)

M1

M25

M3

M4

M40

NEWBURY

DIDCOT

WOKINGHAM

MARLOW

WINDSOR

FLEET

WANTAGE

ANDOVERFARNHAM

ALTON

WINCHESTER

ABINGDON

BASINGSTOKE

BRACKNELL

FRIMLEY

MAIDENHEAD

HIGH WYCOMBE

C

READING

SLOUGH

WEYBRIDGE

SWINDON

WATFORD

HENLEY-ON-THAMES

Zone 2

Zone 3

Zone 4

Zone 5

Zone 6

Zone 7

Zone 8

Zone 9

Zone 18

Zone 19

Zone 20

Zone 21

Zone 22

Zone 1

M4

4

Zone 10

Zone 11Zone 12Zone 13

Zone 14 Zone 15

Zone 16

Zone 17

Scale: 1 : 290,000

©Crown Copyright. All rights reserved©CACI Limited, 2004

Household Survey Area

Zone 1: Hungerford & Wantage Zone 7: Basingstoke Zone 13: Reading – Tilehurst Zone 19: Wokingham Zone 2: Whitchurch & Ludgershall Zone 8: High Wycombe Zone 14: Reading – Calcot Zone 20: Windsor & Maidenhead Zone 3: Didcot & Wallingford Zone 9: Henley-On-Thames Zone 15: Reading – Whitley Zone 21: Bracknell & Ascot Zone 4: Pangbourne & Goring Zone 10: Reading – Caversham Zone 16: Reading – Shinfield Zone 22: Slough Zone 5: Newbury & Thatcham Zone 11: Reading – Woodley Zone 17: Reading – Spencers Wood Zone 6: Tadley Zone 12: Reading – Central Zone 18: Camberley, Fleet & Farnborough

lwgb

lwgb


- 25 -

3.15 For the Reading household survey, structured interviews were carried out, by telephone, with

the person responsible for the main shop in a total of 1,700 households to ascertain their actual

shopping patterns and their views. The aim was to achieve around 77 interviews in each zone.

The normally accepted minimum size for statistical purposes is around 70 interviews per zone.

Adopting what is standard practice, we opted for a consistent absolute sample in each zone,

rather than one proportional to zone population. This is because the latter approach would

have meant a significantly larger number of interviews overall to ensure a minimum absolute

number of interviews in the less densely populated zones, which was not considered essential.

3.16 By adopting a consistent number of interviews within the zones irrespective of the population

size of each zone, we accordingly over-sample in some zones and under-sample in others,

while maintaining the same overall sample size. At the analysis stage of the survey, the

individual samples are then “weighted” to their appropriate representation within the survey

population to produce an overall result which is representative of the survey area as a whole.

Without the weighting, the less densely populated zones would have a disproportionately large

effect on the overall survey results, contrary to their population size. The whole principle of

weighting therefore allows the characteristics of less densely populated zones to be accurately

represented without the unnecessary cost of a grossly inflated sample.

3.17 Within the survey area as a whole, we sought to determine the catchment areas of Reading

City Centre and the defined District and Local Centres within the Borough using survey data

on expenditure patterns. Our analysis permits the core, primary, secondary and tertiary

catchments (where they exist) to be determined for each centre. For the purpose of this study

we have adopted the following definitions:

- core catchment: comprising those zones from which a centre attracts the majority

of generated expenditure (ie. 51% or more);

- primary catchment: comprises those zones from which a centre attracts the

largest single flow of generated expenditure (this may be less than 50%);

- secondary catchment: comprises those remaining zones from which a centre

attracts 10% or more of generated expenditure;

- tertiary catchment: comprises all remaining zones from which a centre attracts

2% or more of generated expenditure.


- 26 -

3.18 Beyond the tertiary catchment, the full results show that Reading City Centre attracts even

smaller amounts of expenditure from additional zones. Such expenditure flows will typically

account for very low proportions of overall centre turnover. We therefore exclude these zones

from the geographical definitions of Reading’s catchment areas set out below, but include

such expenditure within our quantitative need assessment in Sections 5 and 6.

Non Bulky Comparison Goods

Reading City Centre Catchment Area

3.19 Using the definitions set out at paragraph 3.17, Figure 3.2 defines the shopping catchment

area of Reading for non-bulky comparison goods.

3.20 Confirming its Regional role and status, Reading’s core catchment extends across nine of the

22 zones in our survey area. Its retail influence appears to extend more to the west than the

east, reflecting the location of competitor centres. The town’s primary catchment extends to

Zone 9 (Henley on Thames) and 19 (Wokingham), which means that Reading attracts the

largest share of non-bulky comparison goods spend from half of the zones in our survey area.

3.21 Beyond this, the survey confirms that Reading’s secondary catchment extends across a further

seven zones which virtually surround the core / primary catchment area as one might expect.

The remaining four zones in the survey area (Zones 1, 2, 7 and 22 ) constitute the town’s

tertiary catchment. Thus Reading’s retail influence extends throughout the survey area,

indicating that, in practice, some further trade is likely to be drawn into the town from even

further afield. We take this ‘in-flow’ expenditure into account in our quantitative need

assessment in Section 6.

District and Local Centres within Reading Borough

3.22 For non-bulky comparison goods none of the nine District and Local Centres are strong

enough to generate any form of catchment using the definitions set out at paragraph 3.17. This

means their turnover and trade penetrations are extremely low as a result of their close

proximity to Reading City Centre, which has a retail reach that over-shadows the entire

Borough and beyond.

Fig. 3.2. Reading Town Centre Catchment Area: Non Bulky Comparison Goods

A308(M)

A329(M)

M1

M25

M3

M4

M40

ANDOVER

WANTAGE

WINCHESTER

NEWBURY

ABINGDON

DIDCOT

ALTON

WOKINGHAM

FARNHAM

MARLOW

WINDSOR

FLEETBASINGSTOKE

BRACKNELL

FRIMLEY

MAIDENHEAD

HIGH WYCOMBE

SWINDON

READING

SLOUGH

WEYBRIDGE

HENLEY-ON-THAMES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

910

111213

14 1516

17

18

1920

21

22

Scale: 1 : 400,000


Core Primary Secondary Tertiary Outside


- 27 -

Dominancy of Centres

3.23 In Figure 3.3 overleaf, we allocate zones to towns on the basis of the largest (or dominant)

market share of available non-bulky comparison goods expenditure. This analysis and

presentation provides a good indication of the relative strengths of centres across the entire

survey area for this form of shopping activity. Reflecting the high order nature of non-bulky

comparison goods shopping the whole survey area is dominated by just nine main centres.

3.24 Overall, 16 of 22 zones within our household survey area fall within the core catchments of

town centres located within Berkshire, while other centres such as Basingstoke, High

Wycombe, Oxford and Swindon capture the greatest share of expenditure in the remaining six

zones.

3.25 Eleven (or 50%) of the zones covered by Berkshire’s town centres in fact fall within

Reading’s influence. This town centre dominates shopper behaviour over a wide area and

separates the core catchments of Newbury and Swindon to the west from those of Camberley

and Windsor to the east. In so doing, the core catchment of Reading overlays that of

Wokingham.

3.26 To the west Newbury dominates non-bulky comparison goods trade within two zones (Zones

2 and 5), whilst Swindon captures the largest market share in Zone 1 (Hungerford and

Wantage). Similarly, to the north, Oxford and High Wycombe dominate non-bulky

comparison goods shopping in Zones 3 and 8 respectively.

3.27 Slough and Windsor are sufficiently attractive to dominate non-bulky comparison goods

shopping in their own zones, but are not strong enough to exert significant influence further

afield. Lastly, to the south of Reading, Basingstoke and Camberley offer the greatest retail

competition and dominate zones 6 and 7, and zones 18 and 21 respectively.

Bulky Comparison Goods


3.28 Figure 3.4 overleaf shows the catchment area of Reading City Centre for bulky comparison

goods using the definitions set out in paragraphs 3.17.

Fig. 3.3. Dominance Map: Non Bulky Comparison Goods

A308(M)

A329(M)

M1

M25

M3

M4

M40

ANDOVER

WANTAGE

WINCHESTER

NEWBURY

ABINGDON

DIDCOT

ALTON

WOKINGHAM

FARNHAM

MARLOW

WINDSOR

FLEETBASINGSTOKE

BRACKNELL

FRIMLEY

MAIDENHEAD

HIGH WYCOMBE

SWINDON

READING

SLOUGH

WEYBRIDGE

HENLEY-ON-THAMES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

910

111213

14 1516

17

18

19 20

21

22

Scale: 1 : 400,000


Swindon Oxford High Wycombe Camberley Basingstoke Newbury Slough Reading Windsor

Fig. 3.4. Reading City Centre Catchment Area: Bulky Comparison Goods

A308(M)

A329(M)

M25

M3

M4

M40

ANDOVER

WANTAGE

WINCHESTER

NEWBURY

ABINGDON

DIDCOT

ALTON

WOKINGHAM

FARNHAM

MARLOW

WINDSOR

FLEETBASINGSTOKE

BRACKNELL

FRIMLEY

MAIDENHEAD

HIGH WYCOMBE

SWINDON

READING

SLOUGH

WEYBRIDGE

HENLEY-ON-THAMES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

910

111213

14 1516

17

18

19 20

21

22

Scale: 1 : 400,000




- 28 -

3.29 Compared to non-bulky comparison goods the trade penetration and reach of the city centre is

much reduced. This is due to the lower quantum of bulky comparison goods floorspace in the

city centre and the existence of a number of out of centre retail parks elsewhere in the

Borough, which capture a significant proportion of consumer spend on this form of shopping.

3.30 Reading’s core catchment extends to a single zone (Zone 11, Woodley) to the east of the city

centre, whilst its primary catchment covers four more zones (Zones 4, 10, 12 and 13) lying to

the north and mainly to the west of town. Beyond this the city centre’s secondary catchment

extends to a further seven zones to the north, east and south, whilst the tertiary catchment

covers another seven zones. Three zones lie outside Reading city centre’s bulky comparison

goods catchment area; these being Zones 8, 21 and 22 on the eastern fringe of the survey area.


3.31 For bulky comparison goods none of the nine District and Local Centres in Reading Borough

is again strong enough to generate any form of catchment area. All are over-shadowed by

either Reading City Centre or a nearby retail park or both.


3.32 Figure 3.5 overleaf shows the spread of dominant centres for bulky comparison goods

shopping. Across the 22 zones within the survey area, nine different centres claim dominant

shares, the same as for non-bulky comparison goods. Of these, only four are located within

Berkshire (Reading, Newbury, Bracknell and Slough) and five are in surrounding areas.

3.33 Reading claims the greatest share of bulky comparison goods expenditure within 11 of the 22

zones; the same zones as for non-bulky comparison goods spend. Newbury, Slough and

Basingstoke each cover two zones, whilst the only other centres to dominate zones are

Swindon, Bracknell, High Wycombe and Farnborough (one zone each).

3.34 It should be borne in mind that the dominancy shown in Figure 3.5 relates to towns as a

whole and includes the contributions made by out of centre retailing. In relation to Reading,

for example, in five of the zones which the town dominates the largest market share is in fact

held by retail parks; the Reading Gate Retail Park dominates Zones 14, 15 and 17, whilst the

Brunel and Forbury Retail Parks dominate Zones 16 (Reading: Shinfield) and 9 (Henley on

Thames) respectively.

Fig. 3.5. Dominance Map: Bulky Comparison Goods

A308(M)

A329(M)

M1

M25

M3

M4

M40

ANDOVER

WANTAGE

WINCHESTER

NEWBURY

ABINGDON

DIDCOT

ALTON

WOKINGHAM

FARNHAM

MARLOW

WINDSOR

FLEETBASINGSTOKE

BRACKNELL

FRIMLEY

MAIDENHEAD

HIGH WYCOMBE

SWINDON

READING

SLOUGH

WEYBRIDGE

HENLEY-ON-THAMES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

910

111213

14 1516

17

18

19 20

21

22

Scale: 1 : 400,000


Swindon Bracknell High Wycombe Farnborough Basingstoke Newbury Slough Reading Abingdon


- 29 -

Convenience Goods


3.35 Our approach to defining the convenience goods catchment area for Reading City Centre

follows closely that which we have described in relation to comparison goods shopping, and

again we utilise the core, primary, secondary and tertiary definitions as set out above.

3.36 Since the household survey identified shopping trip patterns and consumer expenditure flows

for individual food stores, we have combined the results for all the main stores located within

Reading City Centre in order to estimate the convenience goods trading performance of the

city centre as a whole. The convenience goods catchment area for Reading City Centre is

shows in Figure 3.6.

3.37 The survey confirms that the catchment area of Reading City Centre for convenience goods

shopping is significantly smaller than for either category of comparison goods. This is normal

for a high order centre where the emphasis is on non-food shopping. The main food offer in

the city centre is confined to two relatively small branches of Sainsbury’s, and Iceland and a

food hall in Marks & Spencer, whereas elsewhere in Reading Borough there is a wide range of

larger food stores in the District and Local Centres and out of centre, which capture the

majority of available consumer retail expenditure.

3.38 Using our definitions, Reading City Centre is not sufficiently strong in terms of convenience

goods shopping to generate either a core or primary catchment. Not unnaturally its largest

market share is within Zone 12 (Reading: Central), but this is only 24%, enough to warrant its

status as a secondary catchment. Beyond this the city centre’s tertiary catchment extends

across five zones (Zone 10, 11, 13, 15 and 17) but these are all concentrated geographically.

Zones 14 and 16, although located in close proximity to Reading City Centre, fall entirely

outside the catchment area because of the attraction of major competitor food stores; the

SavaCentre at Calcot and the Asda at The Meadway District Centre in Zone 14 and the Asda

at Lower Earley in Zone 16.

Fig. 3.6. Reading City Centre Catchment Area: Convenience Goods

A308(M)

A329(M)

M1

M25

M3

M4

M40

ANDOVER

WANTAGE

WINCHESTER

NEWBURY

ABINGDON

DIDCOT

ALTON

WOKINGHAM

FARNHAM

MARLOW

WINDSOR

FLEETBASINGSTOKE

BRACKNELL

FRIMLEY

MAIDENHEAD

HIGH WYCOMBE

SWINDON

READING

SLOUGH

WEYBRIDGE

HENLEY-ON-THAMES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

910

111213

14 1516

17

18

19 20

21

22

Scale: 1 : 400,000




- 30 -


3.39 Unlike for either non-bulky or bulky comparison goods shopping, five of the nine District and

Local Centres have strong substantial enough convenience goods retail offers to generate

shopping catchments, although many of them are tight geographically and feature low

penetration rates. Those District and Local Centres not strong enough to produce catchment

areas are Wokingham Road, Tilehurst Triangle, Oxford Road West and Shinfield Road.

3.40 Although none of the District and Local Centres generate a core catchment, Caversham and

The Meadway both have primary catchments each extending across a single local zone; Zone

10 (Caversham) for Caversham and Zone 13 (Reading: Tilehurst) for The Meadway.

Caversham’s food offer includes a Waitrose and an Iceland, whilst The Meadway contains a

large Asda superstore. Caversham also generates a tertiary catchment that extends across six

zones (Zones 4, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 17), whilst The Meadway generates a secondary catchment

in Zone 14 and a tertiary catchment across three zones (Zones 4, 6 and 12).

3.41 The three remaining District and Local Centres each generate a tertiary catchment across a

single local zone; Emmer Green (Zone 10, Reading: Caversham), Whitley Street (Zone 15,

Reading: Whitley) and Cemetery Junction (Zone 12, Reading: Central).


3.42 Our household survey results confirm that the proximity of a store to a shopper’s home is by

far the most significant factor in determining where people choose to carry out their main food

shopping. It is not surprising therefore that dominancy for convenience goods shopping is

more diluted than for comparison shopping.

3.43 Figure 3.7 overleaf shows the pattern of dominancy across our survey area, and the most

striking feature is that virtually every zone is dominated by a different centre. Reading (taking

into account all of the Borough’s food retail offer) dominates just three of the 22 zones in the

survey area (Zones 10, 12 and 13), which cover the town centre and areas immediately to the

north and west. Areas south and east of Reading are dominated by out of centre food

superstores at Calcot (SavaCentre) and Lower Earley (Asda) and by the offer available in

Woodley Town Centre (eg. Waitrose).

Fig. 3.7. Dominance Map: Convenience Goods

A1(M)

A308(M)

A329(M)

M1

M25

M3

M4

M40

ANDOVER

WANTAGE

WINCHESTER

NEWBURY

ABINGDON

DIDCOT

ALTON

WOKINGHAM

FARNHAM

MARLOW

WINDSOR

FLEETBASINGSTOKE

BRACKNELL

FRIMLEY

MAIDENHEAD

CRA

HIGH WYCOMBE

SWINDON

READING

SLOUGH

WEYBRIDGE

HENLEY-ON-THAMES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

910

111213

14 1516

17

18

19 20

21

22

Scale: 1 : 420,000


Wantage Wallingford High Wycombe Calcot (Savacentre) Camberley Basingstoke Newbury Slough Reading Lower Earley (Asda) Didcot Woodley Windsor Bracknell Wokingham Henley-On-Thames


- 31 -

Characteristics of Shopper Behaviour

Non-Bulky Comparison Goods Shopping

3.44 Our Reading household survey confirms that non-bulky comparison goods shopping is

undertaken rela tively infrequently by survey area residents. On average 58% of residents

undertake their main trips monthly or less often, virtually the same proportion as for Reading

City Centre (59%).

3.45 For the survey as a whole, 54% of households choose their main centre because it is

convenient and close to home, and again this is extremely close to the proportion for Reading

City Centre (53%). The second and only other significant location factor is ‘a good choice of

shops’ which is given as the main reason by 30% of households overall and 35% of those

carrying out their main non-bulky comparison goods shopping in Reading City Centre.

3.46 Around 77% of households within the survey area use a private car to undertake their main

non-bulky comparison goods shopping (64% as a driver and 13% as a passenger). In

comparison just 10% travel by bus, 8% walk and 2% use a train. Less than 2% say they use a

park and ride. For Reading City Centre the proportion using a private car is less (60%), whilst

21% travel by bus, 8% walk and 6% use a train. Park and ride is used by 3.4% of households

shopping in Reading.

3.47 The regional shopping role of Reading is underpinned by the fact that 60% of households

using the city centre as their main non-bulky comparison goods destination travel more than

15 minutes, whilst the journey time of 10% of households is more than 30 minutes.

3.48 The regional function of the town centre is further illustrated by the fact that 44% of

households in our survey choose Reading for their special occasion / Christmas shopping,

compared to just 24% who nominate it as their main centre for non-bulky comparison goods

normally.

Bulky Comparison Goods Shopping

3.49 Around 85% of survey area households visit their main centre for bulky comparison goods

shopping monthly or less often. This compares to 58% for non-bulky comparison goods,

indicating that shopping for bulky items – as one may expect – is undertaken less frequently.


- 32 -

3.50 As for non-bulky comparison shopping convenience of location is the most important reason

for choosing which centre to visit. At 50% of households, the proportion is a little lower than

for non-bulky comparison goods shopping. A good choice of stores is again the second ranked

criteria (26%).

3.51 Overall, 86% of main trips for bulky comparison goods shopping are undertaken by car.

However, the proportion for shoppers using Reading City Centre is 64% confirming a stronger

reliance on public transport.

3.52 Journey times for bulky comparison goods shopping to Reading City Centre closely mirror

those for non-bulky goods; 55% of trips take more than 15 minutes and 8% more than 30

minutes. Once again this highlights the Regional role of the town.

Convenience Goods Shopping

3.53 Within the survey area as a whole, some 69% of convenience goods main shopping trips take

place during the week (Monday through to Friday) with 53% being carried out during the day

and 16% in the evenings. In comparison only 10% are undertaken at weekends, while 21% of

households vary their pattern of main food shopping.

3.54 The location of a store close to home is the main reason influencing choice of main food

shopping destination in 64% of households. A wide choice of products available and good

prices / value for money are the second ranked reasons, but these score only 10% each.

Significantly free / ease of parking is mentioned by just 2% of households. The importance of

convenience of location is reflected in the fact that two-thirds of main food shopping trip

journeys take (on average) 10 minutes or less, while the corresponding figures for non-bulky

and bulky comparison goods are around 35%.

3.55 The most common frequency of carrying out a main food shop is once a week (58% of

households), while an additional 36% undertake such trips even more frequently. Shopping for

convenience goods is therefore undertaken much more often than for non-bulky or bulky

comparison goods.

3.56 Around 83% of survey area residents use a private car for their main food shopping (66% as

driver), while 10% walk and 5% travel by bus.


- 33 -

4. RETAILING – LOCAL CONTEXT AND QUALITATIVE NEED

Introduction

4.1 As described in Section 1, Reading Borough Council is in the process of preparing a Local

Development Framework and, therefore, requires an objective assessment of retail need to be

undertaken in order to assist them in determining the best strategy. In this study, we consider

need from two broad perspectives; the qualitative need for additional retailing is addressed

later in this section, while in Section 5 and 6 we undertake a quantitative need assessment,

which determines the scope (or capacity) for more retail floorspace to be provided through to

2016 for each of the main categories of goods.

4.2 We begin, however, by describing the role and performance of Reading City Centre and the

defined District and Local Centres in the Borough. Many of the retail facilities referred to in

this section are illustrated by photographs. These are contained in Appendix 4. Our

assessment incorporates data from a wide range of sources and these have been brought

together within the new Colliers CRE Database Analyser Retail Tool (DART) (See Appendix

5). An important feature of Reading is that the borough is very tightly drawn and the

contiguous urban area of the town spreads well beyond the borough boundary, particularly to

the west and east as shown in Figure 4.1 overleaf. The shopping behaviour of the borough’s

residents is therefore influenced not only by the retail offer available in competitor towns, but

also by stores located within the Reading urban area but outside the borough (eg. at Calcot,

Lower Earley and at Woodley).

Retailing Provision within Reading Borough

4.3 Reading City Centre is the principal focus for shopping, services and employment within

Berkshire and is defined as a Regional Centre in the Berkshire Structure Plan. The city centre

is supported by a number of small District and Local Centres. Each of these smaller centres

strives to serve the convenience and, to a much lesser extent, the comparison goods shopping

needs of their own tightly drawn catchments. In general, they function in the retail shadow of

Reading City Centre, particularly for comparison goods shopping.

4.4 Below the tier of Regional Centre and District / Local Centre there are many smaller shopping

parades and ‘corner’ shops located throughout the Borough. These serve top-up food shopping

Fig. 4.1. Map Showing Urban Area and Reading Borough Boundary

M4

Shinfield

Sonning

Charvil

Dunsden Green

Play Hatch

d

Sulhamstead

Pangbourne

Tidmarsh

Whitchurch-on-Thames

Theale

Sulham

Sheffield Bottom

Burghfield

Mapledurham

Tokers Green

Winner

Sindlesham

TilehurstWoodley

Caversham

Purley on Thames

Emmer Green

READING

West Berkshire District

South Oxfordshire District

Reading Borough

Wokingham District

J11

J12

nî

nî

Key

Urban AreaLocal Authority Boundary



- 34 -

needs. There is virtually no comparison goods shopping available in any of these parades /

shops.

4.5 Reading Borough also contains an extensive range of out of centre retail parks and a number

of out of centre food superstores. The retail warehouses attract trade from much of the

borough and from even further afield, whilst the food superstores tend to serve more localised

catchments.

4.6 We now assess the retail economy of Reading City Centre, before briefly considering each of

the nine defined District and Local Centres. We then focus on out of centre retailing provision.

The section ends with a brief assessment of the qualitative need that exists (if any) for new

retailing provision in each centre.

Reading City Centre

4.7 A comparison of prime retail rental performance between 1987 and 2004 for Reading City

Centre the South East Region and the UK is shown in Appendix 5. Over this time period

Reading has marginally out-performed the South East, but slightly under-performed the UK

benchmark. The national average illustrates the boom / bust cycle over the past 17 years with

rents increasing steeply in the boom years of the late 1980s, falling during the recessionary

period of the early 1990s and then picking up again during the recovery of the mid 1990s. By

comparison, rents in Reading City Centre closely track the national average through to 2001,

but since then fail to keep pace. From 2001 to 2003 prime rents in Reading remained static at

£2,422 per sq m (£225 psf) Zone A, although 2004 saw a modest advance to £2476 per sq m

(£230 psf). This sluggish rental performance could be attributable to the opening of the huge

Oracle Shopping Centre in late 1999, which added around 65,000 sq m of retail floorspace to

the market (See Appendix 4, Photo 1).

4.8 Appendix 5 also confirms that although rental growth has been poor in Reading during the

past five years in absolute terms, the city centre’s Zone A (£2476 per sq m / £230psf) easily

exceeds the UK and South East averages of £1163 per sq m and £1033 per sq m respectively.

4.9 A comparison of prime rental performance since 1987 for Reading and four of its main

competitor centres – Basingstoke, Newbury, Oxford and Slough – is also shown in Appendix

5. Over the full period Newbury has performed best, achieving a spectacular growth in prime

rent during the late 1980s, whilst Reading and Basingstoke have performed equally well in


- 35 -

joint second position. The performances of Oxford and Slough, although similar, lag a little

further behind. Appendix 5 also shows the absolute levels of Zone A rents in Reading and its

main competitor centres between 1987 and 2004. This confirms that Oxford has been the

highest rented centre apart from 1999 and 2001 to 2003 inclusive, when Reading achieved the

highest Zone A’s.

4.10 Reading City Centre has failed to maintain its retail status relative to other centres within

Great Britain. The annual Centre Rankings published by MHE (Appendix 5) confirm that the

centre’s position has dropped from eighth in 2000/01, achieved following the opening of the

Oracle Shopping Centre, to 11th in 2003/04. In relation to modelled retail spend per unit of

floorspace and floorspace per head of catchment population1, Reading achieves a UK rank of

21st and 27th respectively compared to a rank of 40th based on prime rents only (Appendix 5).

This indicates that current retail sales levels must be relatively high; a conclusion borne out by

the results of our household survey and reported on in Sections 5 and 6. Moreover, it suggests

there may be potential for further rental growth, as predicted by our in-house prime retail rents

model (see Appendix 5).

4.11 Shopping centre yields within Reading City Centre have remained at 6.50% since 2001. This

level of yield indicates that the city centre is not only attractive to investors, but the level of

attractiveness is greater than that at many nearby town centres within Berkshire, such as

Bracknell (7.0%), Maidenhead (7.0%) and Wokingham (8.5%). The yield for Reading City

Centre is, however, comparable to those of the main competitor centres of Basingstoke and

Slough (both 6.50%) and 2.5% higher than at Oxford (see Table 4.1).

Table 4.1: Shopping Centre Yields: Selected Centres as at July 2004

City Centre % Yield

Reading 6.50

Basingstoke 6.50

Oxford 4.00

Slough 6.50

Source: VOA, Property Market Report, July 2004

1 Using CACI’s Retail Footprint model and Experian Goad.


- 36 -

4.12 Based on floorspace figures produced by the Council1, Reading City Centre contains an

estimated 139,560 sq m net of retail floorspace (see Table 4.2 below). Of this total 135,019 sq

m net, or 97%, is devoted to comparison goods and the balance, 4,541 sq m, or 3%, is taken

up by convenience goods. The convenience food offer includes two Sainsbury’s (See

Appendix 4, Photo 2), an Iceland and a Marks & Spencer food hall. The strong bias in favour

of non-food shopping is a common characteristic of a higher order centre. As Table 4.2

confirms, the comparison goods retail offer may be further disaggregated into non-bulky and

bulky goods. On our estimates almost 80% of the comparison retail offer of Reading City

Centre trades in non-bulky goods.

Table 4.2: Estimated Retail Floorspace in Reading City Centre

Type of Shopping Sq M Net Col. %

Convenience Goods

Comparison Goods

- Non Bulky

- Bulky

4,541

107,271

27,748

3

77

20

Total 139,560 100

Source: Reading Borough Council / Colliers CRE

4.13 The Council estimates that vacant (Class A1) retail floorspace in Reading City Centre

currently totals some 9,887 sq m gross and comprises 86 units. This total of voids represents

5% of the 204,721 sq m gross of (occupied) retail floorspace in the city centre, a proportion

broadly in line with the existing UK average.

4.14 Goad data on the general retail provision within Reading City Centre is shown in Table 4.3

overleaf. The data reaffirms that comparison goods floorspace is over-represented in the city

centre; a characteristic often associated with higher order retail locations.

1 Reading Borough Council, using an in-house GIS system, have produced gross figures for the existing retail floorspace stock in Reading City Centre and each of the nine defined Local Centres in the borough. We have converted the Council’s gross floorspace figures into net figures by applying the following net to gross ratios: convenience goods 60:100; non-bulky comparison goods 65:100 in town centres and 90:100 in retail warehouses and bulky comparison goods 65:100 in town centres and 90:100 in retail warehouses.


- 37 -

Table 4.3: Diversity of Uses – Reading City Centre

Type of Goods No. of Outlets (Index: UK Average = 100)

Floorspace (Index: UK Average = 100)

Convenience 58 23

Comparison 117 142

Retail Service 63 36

Source: Experian Goad

4.15 Much of the data in Table 4.3 is presented on the map in Figure 4.2 overleaf. This map

illustrates a number of important points about the retail offer and layout of Reading City

Centre. These are as follows:

• Broad Street, the Broad Street Mall Shopping Centre and the Oracle Shopping Centre

are the main locations for comparison goods shopping; all three of the city centre’s

department stores (John Lewis, House of Fraser and Debenhams are located here).

• The same locations form the primary retail core of the city centre and are where the

highest pedestrian flows and Zone A rents occur.

• The three principal convenience goods stores in the city centre are easily identified –

Iceland to the top of the map fronting Weldale Street, Sainsbury’s on Friar Street and

a Sainsbury’s Local fronting Broad Street. In addition, Marks & Spencer on Broad

Street contains a large food hall.

• Service uses are in the main confined to secondary frontages, especially along the

eastern section of Friar Street, around the Butter Market and fronting the canal in the

Oracle Centre.

• Although the city centre currently contains an average number of voids, the map

confirms that many of these are located in Friar Street, especially in the (now closed)

Friars Walk Shopping Centre. There are in fact very few vacant units elsewhere,

particularly in the prime shopping areas.


- 38 -

4.16 In Section 3 we defined the shopping catchment areas for Reading City Centre for

convenience and non-bulky and bulky comparison goods. The extent of the wider catchment

areas for non-bulky and bulky comparison goods, although constrained by major competitor

centres, are nevertheless, substantial and extend across much of Berkshire and beyond. In

comparison, the city centre catchment for convenience goods is very limited largely because

of the dominance of out of centre food superstores within the borough and other superstores,

such as SavaCentre at Calcot and the Asda at Lower Earley, that are located just beyond the

borough boundary but within the urban area.

4.17 In summary, we conclude that Reading City Centre is a major retail destination for

comparison goods shopping and generates a catchment that extends over a very wide area. The

centre received a major boost with the opening of the Oracle Shopping Centre in late 1999,

but since then has experienced a relative decline down the national centre rankings as other

towns and cities have benefited from major retail developments of their own. Although the

town contains a retail floorspace stock of more than 200,000 sq m gross, modelled data

suggests relatively low totals of floorspace per head of catchment population and high totals of

retail spend per unit of floorspace. Both indicators point to high levels of trading in

comparison to other towns.


4.18 In addition to the city centre, the Council define nine District and Local Centres within

Reading Borough. These are shown in Figure 4.3 overleaf. Two are located to the north of

Reading City Centre (Caversham and Emmer Green), three to the west (Oxford Road West,

The Meadway and Tilehurst Triangle) and four to the east and south (Cemetery Junction,

Shinfield Road, Whitley Street, and Wokingham Road).

4.19 In total, the nine district and local centres contain 19,350 sq m net of retail floorspace (see

Table 4.4 overleaf) just 14% of that available in Reading City Centre. However, despite their

very modest contribution in floorspace terms, the District and Local Centres do perform an

important function in the borough’s retail hierarchy, particularly for local convenience and

top-up shopping. The nine District and Local Centres also currently contain just over 2,000 sq

m gross of Class A vacant retail floorspace in 28 units (See Table 4.5 overleaf).

Fig. 4.3. Map Showing Location of Local Centres Within Reading Borough

A3

M4

Three Mile CrossShinfield

Sonning

Charvil

Dunsden Green

Play Hatch

mstead

bourne

marsh

urch-on-Thames

Theale

Sulham

Sheffield Bottom

Burghfield

Mapledurham

Tokers Green

Winnersh

Sindlesham

TilehurstWoodley

Purley on Thames

Tilehurst TriangleOxford Road West

The Meadway

Caversham

Whitley Street

Shinfield Road

Emmer Green

Wokingham Road

Cemetery Junction

Reading Town Centrefæ

fæ

fæ

fæ

fæ

fæ

fæ

fæ

fæ

fæ

J11

J12

nî

nî



- 39 -

Table 4.4: Estimated Retail Floorspace in District and Local Centres

Convenience Goods

Non-Bulky Comparison

Goods

Bulky Comparison

Goods Total

Centre Sq M Net % Sq M

Net % Sq M Net % Sq M

Net %

Caversham 1,834 46 1,418 36 722 18 3,974 100

Cemetery Junction 680 46 74 5 714 49 1,468 100

Emmer Green 697 71 220 22 63 6 980 100

Oxford Road West 1,495 36 1,305 32 1,305 32 4,105 100

Shinfield Road 742 68 168 15 179 16 1,089 100

The Meadway 2,815 78 636 18 142 4 3,593 100

Tilehurst Triangle 1,398 59 675 28 313 13 2,386 100

Whitley Street 457 59 170 22 149 19 776 100

Wokingham Road 477 49 358 37 144 15 979 100

Total (All Nine) 10,595 55 5,024 26 3,731 19 19,350 100

Source: Reading Borough Council / Colliers CRE Note: Percentages run in rows across the table (not columns).

Table 4.5: Vacant (Class A) Retail Floorspace in District and Local Centres

Vacant Floorspace District/Local Centre

Sq M Gross No. Of Units

Caversham 470 7

Cemetery Junction 598 6

Emmer Green 0 0

The Meadway 91 1

Oxford Road West 312 5

Shinfield Road 119 1

Tilehurst Triangle 0 0

Whitley Street 169 2

Wokingham Road 317 6

Total 2,076 28

Source: Reading Borough Council


- 40 -

4.20 The household telephone survey provides useful information on the extent and reasons for

consumer use of District and Local Centres. As to be expected visits to the District and Local

Centres are primarily made by consumers living locally (Appendix 3D, Table 30), although

some visits are made by people living further afield. These are probably visits by people

calling in briefly on the back of work or comparison goods based trips made to Reading City

Centre.

4.21 The survey confirms that Caversham and Tilehurst Triangle are used much more often than

the seven other District and Local Centres (Appendix 3D, Table 31). In addition to the

defined District and Local Centres, many other small centres / local shops are also regularly

visited within Reading Borough, suggesting that many of the defined District and Local

Centres are not especially dominant in serving local shopping needs.

4.22 The survey confirms that most of the District and Local Centres are visited very frequently

(every few days or so on average) as one might expect, although visits to Cemetery Junction,

Wokingham Road and Whitley Street are much less frequent (only once a month on average)

(Appendix 3D, Table 32). This is likely to reflect their main function as an occasional quick

stop-off for passing motorists, rather than as a regular walk-in facility for shoppers living

nearby; all these centres straddle busy radial roads.

4.23 Lastly, the data in Appendix 3D, Table 33 confirms that shopping is generally the most

common reason why consumers visit Reading’s District and Local Centres, followed by visits

to service uses such as a bank or post office. Emmer Green and Whitley Street appear to be

especially popular venues for meeting friends, whilst the former attracts many pub visits.

Doctors / dentists and libraries are important attractions in Caversham and Tilehurst Triangle,

whilst a signif icant number of people visit Shinfield Road for restaurants / take-aways.


- 41 -

Caversham

4.24 Caversham contains 3,974 sq m net of retail floorspace and is, according to the Council’s data,

the second largest District / Local Centre after Oxford Road West. Just under half of the

floorspace (1,834 sq m net) is occupied by convenience goods shopping, which includes a

Waitrose, an Iceland and a Tesco Express (part of a petrol filling station) (See Appendix 4,

Photos 3 & 4). Comparison goods retailers include Superdrug, Boots and Q S Clothing.

4.25 According to the Council, Caversham contains 470 sq m gross of Class A vacant floorspace

across seven shop units; only Cemetery Junction has more vacant space amongst the District

and Local Centres as shown in Table 4.5.

4.26 Caversham is the main retail centre within Reading Borough north of the river. It is relatively

attractive but appears to suffer from heavy through traffic. The main car park is to the rear of

Waitrose, whilst there is also a 70 space car park off Chester Street.

Cemetery Junction

4.27 Cemetery Junction comprises just 1,468 sq m net of retail floorspace making it the fifth largest

of Reading Borough’s District and Local Centres (Table 4.1). Almost half of the retail

provision is taken up by bulky comparison goods retailers. The principal food shop in the

centre is a Co-Op (See Appendix 4, Photo 5), whilst many of the units are occupied by retail

service uses, including several take-aways.

4.28 The Council’s floorspace data indicates there is 598 sq m gross of Class A vacant floorspace

in six retail units. This is the highest amount of voids amongst the nine District and Local

Centres (See Table 4.5).

4.29 The centre fronts a very busy traffic inter-section and is extremely busy with traffic

approaching / leaving the city centre via London and Wokingham Roads and the A3290 link

to the M4. There is no car park.


- 42 -

Emmer Green

4.30 Emmer Green, which is located in the extreme north of the borough, contains just 980 sq m

net of retail floorspace (Table 4.4) in the form of a linear purpose built precinct (See

Appendix 4, Photo 6). It is therefore one of the three smallest District / Local Centres in the

borough. Almost three-quarters of the retail provision is taken up by convenience goods,

which includes a Budgens. Other shops include a Threshers, Lloyds Pharmacy, a Blockbuster

Video and a Martin’s Newsagents. There is no vacant Class A1 floorspace at present (Table

4.5). The centre benefits from an adjoining free car park.

The Meadway

4.31 The Meadway is the third largest District / Local Centre in Reading Borough and comprises

an estimated 3, 593 sq m net of retail floorspace (Table 4.4). Of this total, 78% is devoted to

convenience goods (the highest proportion of any centre) due to the presence of a large Asda

superstore (See Appendix 4, Photo 8). Adjoining the Asda is an open air precinct which

contains retailers such as Boots, Appollo Video and Forbouys Newsagents (Photo 7). There is

ample car parking, although a charge is levied. The centre contains just 91 sq m gross of

vacant Class A floorspace in one unit (Table 4.5).

Oxford Road West

4.32 Oxford Road West is a long, linear centre comprising 4,105 sq m net of retailing. It is the

largest District / Local Centre in the borough (Table 4.4). The retail provision is split almost

equally between convenience goods, non-bulky and bulky comparison goods, a characteristic

unique amongst the nine District and Local Centres. The centre contains two main food stores

a Co-Op (see Appendix 4, Photo 9) and a Lidl (Photo 10). Oxford Road West is an important

traffic route into Reading City Centre so is busy. There are currently five Class A vacant units

totalling some 312 sq m gross (Table 4.5). Service use representation is heavy.

Shinfield Road

4.33 Shinfield Road is located towards the south of the borough close to the border with

Wokingham District. It is one of the smalle st the District / Local Centres containing just 1,089

sq m net of retail floorspace (Table 4.4) of which more than two-thirds is taken up by

convenience goods shopping, main ly Tesco Express and a Sainsbury’s Local (Appendix 4,


- 43 -

Photo’s 11 and 12). The centre is linear in configuration and straddles the A327. There is an

estimated 119 sq m gross of Class A vacant floorspace in a single unit (Table 4.5). There is no

principal car park, although the food stores each provide a small number of free parking

spaces.

Tilehurst Triangle

4.34 Tilehurst Triangle is a linear centre located amidst a large residential area in the far west of the

borough close to the border with West Berkshire District. The centre contains 2,388 sq m net

of retail floorspace of which almost 60% is devoted to convenience goods (Table 4.4). The

main food stores represented are a Rushs (Appendix 4, Photo 13) and a Co-Op (Photo 14).

There are no multiple traders in the centre, although there is a quite good range of everyday

shops such as butchers, bakers and a pharmacy. There is a small car park to the rear of the

shops. At the present time there is no Class A vacant floorspace indicating a good demand for

representation, albeit from independent operators.

Whitley Street

4.35 Whitley Street is located immediately to the south of Reading City Centre. It takes the form of

a single parade of shops fronting the A327 and contains just 776 sq m net of retail floorspace

making it the smallest of the nine District / Local Centres in the borough (Table 4.4). Around

60% of the retail provision is set aside for convenience goods, which includes an Alldays

Food Store (Appendix 4, Photo 15) as well as several other units selling oriental foods. There

is no major car park to serve the centre, although there are a small number of on-street spaces

immediately in front of the shops and a small car park on the opposite side of the road. There

is currently 169 sq m gross of Class A vacant floorspace in two units (Table 4.5).

Wokingham Road

4.36 Wokingham Road is broadly similar to Whitley Street in that it is linear in form and consists

of a single parade of shops fronting a busy main road (Appendix 4, Photo 16). The centre is

also of a similar size containing just 979 sq m net of retail floorspace (Table 4.4). However,

37% of the retail offer is devoted to non-bulky comparison goods, the highest proportion of

any District / Local Centre. This unusual emphasis for a small centre is due to the lack of a

good supermarket. The centre does not have a car park, although on-street parking is available.


- 44 -

There is 317 sq m gross of Class A vacant floorspace at the present time in six units (Table

4.5), this is the second highest total after Cemetery Junction.

Out of Centre Retailing

4.37 In relation to convenience goods shopping, there are three major out of centre food stores

within Reading Borough. These are Tesco Extra at Napier Road to the north east of the city

centre, Safeway at Rose Kiln Lane to the south and Waitrose fronting Oxford Road to the west

(Appendix 4, Photos 17, 18 and 19 respectively). The location of these stores are shown in

Figure 4.5 overleaf, whilst Appendix 6A gives full floorspace details. Although most of the

main food stores in the borough are located within the defined centres, the household survey

indicates that their combined convenience goods turnover is only a little higher than for the

three out of centre superstores.

4.38 Bulky comparison goods retailing within Reading Borough is dominated by six retail parks.

The locations of the parks are shown in Figure 4.4 overleaf. The largest retail park is Forbury

(Appendix 4, Photos 20 and 21), located immediately to the north east of the city centre with

(combining all the phases) around 21,730 sq gross of retail floorspace1, closely followed by

the Reading Gate Retail Park in the south of the borough (Photo 22) which contains around

18,530 sq m gross. The remaining parks are sized as follows: The Brunel Retail Park (Photo

24) (12,270 sq m gross), Reading Retail Park (Photo 23) (11,150 sq m gross), Reading Link

Retail Park (6,100 sq m gross) and the Vastern Court Retail Park (6,200 sq m gross), (Photo

25).

4.39 These retail parks contain a very wide range of bulky comparison goods retailers covering the

DIY, furniture and carpets, and electrical goods sectors, as well as a small number of non-

bulky comparison goods retailers, such as Argos, Mothercare and Brantano and some catering

outlets, including McDonalds, Pizza Hut and KFC. Full details of the retail units on the parks

are given in Appendix 6C.

4.40 Elsewhere in the borough there are a small number of additional bulky comparison retail

warehouses / stores. These including a Wickes fronting Weldale Street in the city centre and

two units in Caversham Road (Kingdom of Leather and Office World).

1 Retail floorspace figures set out in this paragraph are for complete parks, including a small number of non-bulky comparison goods retailers and catering outlets. The schedules in Appendix 6C list bulky comparison goods retailers only and therefore the floorspace totals may vary.

Fig. 4.4. Map Showing Location of Retail Parks Within Reading Borough

A

M4

Reading Retail Park Vastern Court Retail Park

Forbury Retail Park

Reading Link Retail Park

Brunel Retail Park

Reading Gate Retail Park

fæ fæ

fæ

fæ

fæ

fæ

J11

J12

nî

nî



- 45 -

4.41 Although the aggregate bulky comparison goods turnover of these retail parks and warehouses

is around 50% higher than that of Reading City Centre, the catchment area of the latter is

much more extensive geographically. In contrast, the retail parks achieve a higher trade

penetration but over a smaller area than the city centre.

The Need for Additional Retail Development

4.42 As described in Section 1, Reading Borough Council is having to address the need for further

retail development within the Borough, particularly in Reading City Centre. In this study, we

consider need from two broad perspectives; the qualitative need for additional retailing is

addressed later in this section, while in Sections 5 and 6 we undertake a quantitative need

assessment, which determines the scope for more retail floorspace to be provided through to

2016 for each of the main categories of goods.

4.43 The issue of need is relatively new to planning policy and is different to the more long

standing concepts of retail capacity.

Background to Need

4.44 PPG 6 (June 1996) remains the government’s policy for retail development and town centres.

Within this guidance paragraph 1.7 identifies need within the plan led approach to

development. The paragraph states:

• “Development plans should plan positively for such uses, working with the private

sector to assess need or market demand, and identify locations and sites for

development.”

4.45 In respect of need, paragraph 1.10 states:

• “In drawing up their development plans, local planning authorities should, after

considering the need for new development, adopt a sequential approach to selecting

sites for new retail development.”


- 46 -

4.46 Paragraph 1.10 concludes that if:

• “there is no need of capacity for further developments, there will be no need to

identify additional sites in the town.”

4.47 Paragraph 3.2 confirms that the guidance set out in PPG 6 applies to both convenience and

comparison shopping.

Caborn’s Statement

4.48 The issue of need was considered by the (then) Planning Minister, Richard Caborn, in a

statement issued in February 1999. This statement sought to clarify in what circumstances it

would be necessary to demonstrate a need for retail development and what constitutes need.

4.49 Mr Caborn’s statement relates to the preparation of planning strategies and policies and the

determination of planning applications and appeals. It advises that when local authorities are

preparing development plans, the local planning authority should consider the ‘need’ for new

retail development in the plan area over the lifetime of the plan. Having established that such

need exists, the local planning authority should then adopt a sequential approach to identify

suitable sites. If there is no need for further developments, then there will be no requirement to

identify additional sites.

4.50 The Caborn statement in February 1999 sought to clarify what constitutes need. It read as

follows:

• “Need should not be regarded as being fulfilled simply by showing that there is

capacity (in physical terms) or demand (in terms of available expenditure within the

proposal’s catchment area) for the proposed development.”

4.51 The statement does not provide any guidance on what other factors may constitute elements of

need. The statement concludes that:

• “the significance in any particular case of the factors which may show need will be a

matter for the decision maker.”


- 47 -

ODPM News Release

4.52 Since the Caborn statement, however, despite the intention to clarify the need test, the

interpretation of need has, in practice, become increasingly complex and unclear. For this

reason, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) issued a News Release on 11 April

2003, which sought to further clarify the policy.

4.53 The clarification in policy sets out how the Secretary of State intends to operate it when

determining planning applications and appeals. It is also made clear that local planning

authorities are expected to apply the same policy. The key points in respect of need are as

follows:

• Proposals which would be located at an edge of centre or out of centre locations and

which:

- are not in accordance with an up to date development plan strategy; or

- are in accordance with the development plan but that plan is out of date,

inconsistent with national planning policy guidance, or otherwise fails to

establish adequately the need for new retail and leisure development and

other developments to which PPG 6 applies;

should be required to demonstrate both a retail need for additional facilities and that

a sequential approach has been applied in selecting the location for the site.

4.54 The First Secretary of State accepts that need can be expressed in quantitative and qualitative

forms, but places greater weight on quantitative need for new retail provision, to be defined

in terms of additional floorspace for the types of retail development distinguished in PPG 6,

which are comparison and convenience shopping. Furthermore, where both comparison and

convenience goods are proposed to be sold within the same development, evidence on the

need for each type of goods is required. The First Secretary also makes it clear that

regeneration and employment creation are explicitly excluded as aspects of retail need, but

may be included as material considerations. All of these principles apply equally to proposals

for extensions as well as to new developments.

4.55 Quantitative need (or retail capacity) is therefore the principal indicator that it is necessary to

have regard to in deciding whether or not to make provision for additional retail development.


- 48 -

4.56 The First Secretary of State favours policy that seeks to use retail development to maintain the

vibrancy of town centres; indeed the News Release notes that the purpose of policy is to:

• “sustain and enhance the vitality of town and other existing centres”.

Draft Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centres

4.57 The Government released a draft of the replacement for PPG 6 on 15 December 2003. It was

circulated for consultation and responses were sought by 15 March 2004. We are currently

waiting for the final PPS 6 to be published.

4.58 The draft PPS 6 confirms that the core planning framework provided by PPG 6 should be

maintained, and that the Government’s key objective is to promote vital and viable city, town

and other centres.

4.59 In draft PPS 6 the plan led approach is restated and policies should plan for growth or decline

as appropriate. Regional plans will identify which towns are to grow the most and assess the

need for new floorspace across a region. Local plans should then translate the regional strategy

to the local level following the sequential approach, bringing forward a range of sites to meet

the needs of a variety of retailers. Draft PPS 6 indicates that local authorities should define a

network of centres with a more even distribution of functions, ensuring that the network is not

overly dominated by the largest centres. Indeed, local authorities should seek to:

• “avoid over-concentration of growth in the highest level centre” (paragraph 2.7).

4.60 The draft PPS 6 states that the need for additional retail floorspace should be assessed over the

plan period and for five year periods within it. However, at any point in time, local authorities

should only have to allocate sufficient sites to meet need for the next five years. Separate

assessments for non-bulky and bulky comparison goods are no longer necessary since it is

assumed that all comparison goods can be sold from a town centre. The document also

reaffirms that in assessing need, local authorities should:

• “place greater weight on quantitative considerations, based on data and other

objective evidence” (paragraph 2.27).


- 49 -

4.61 The key consideration in respect of qualitative need is to provide for consumer choice, whilst

regeneration and employment do not constitute indicators of need for additional floorspace.

Assessment of Qualitative Need

4.62 We have considered qualitative need by carrying out visits to each centre in the borough and

by assessing the range of data described earlier in this section.

Reading City Centre

4.63 Reading Borough Council have ambitions to make Reading City Centre, which benefits from

excellent road, rail and bus accessibility, the retail and economic heart of the Thames Valley

Region. The opening of the Oracle Shopping Centre in 1999 was a major step in achieving

this goal, as its extended both the retail reach and trade penetration of the city and, as a result,

lifted Reading significantly up the national retail rankings. Since then, however, there has

been no further major retail floorspace additions and the city centre has begun to slip down the

national ranking once more as other large towns and cities have benefited from new schemes

of there own. Moreover, the opening of the large (79,000 sq m gross) Festival Place Shopping

Centre at Basingstoke in 2002 has undoubtedly clawed back some of the sales previously lost

to Reading, whilst the proposed redevelopment of nearby Bracknell town centre threatens to

do the same in the future.

4.64 Set against this context, it is not surprising that the Council have plans to extend the area of

the currently tightly configured city centre shopping area in order to facilitate new retail

development. In practice, mixed use schemes are likely to be favoured and these will primarily

regenerate previously developed land, since there are no unused sites available. Within the

Plan period the Council intend to:

• Expand the city centre to the west around the Chatham Street area - to include

bridging over the inner ring road;

• Encourage and facilitate improved connections between the city centre shopping area

and the presently under-utilised River Thames - to involve the redevelopment of the

existing railway station, which is partially listed.


- 50 -

4.65 Although Reading City Centre contains an extensive quantum of retail shops, and has, for

example, an impressive number of department and variety stores, it falls a little way short in

terms of diversity. In particular, there is scope for improving the range of up-market fashion

stores, whilst there is also a shortage of specialist / niche retail shops. We conclude that there

is a qualitative need to improve the breadth of the city centre’s retail offer; which would make

the centre more attractive to shoppers living within its natural catchment area. Qualitative

improvements have recently been made to the shopping environment of the city centre (eg.

along Friar Street) and it is important that enhancements are also made to the retailing

facilities themselves. Bolstering the retail offer will also be important in further differentiating

the city centre from nearly competing centres and to help fend off the attractiveness of a

revitalised Bracknell town centre in the future. Appendix 9A indicates that there remains a

healthy demand from retailers for representation in Reading City Centre.

District and Local Centres

4.66 All nine District and Local Centres within Reading Borough function under the shadow of

Reading City Centre. Moreover, the retail influence of the city centre is particularly

pronounced because of its huge scale and the fact that all the District and Local Centres are

located close by due to the tightly drawn nature of the borough.

4.67 Nevertheless, the District and Local Centres play an important role in catering for local (walk-

in) and top-up shopping, as reflected in the bias of their retail offer towards convenience

goods and service uses. Because of the close proximity and easy access of Reading City

Centre for comparison goods shopping, we consider that District and Local Centres generally

meet the aspirations and needs of their immediate catchment populations for convenience

goods provision and services. Thus we believe that the current range of shops in the District

and Local Centres is broadly in line with what local shoppers need.

4.68 We estimate that average sales densities in the District and Local Centres are relatively low

implying that many shops must be simply ticking over. Not surprisingly, therefore, retailer

demand for representation from multiple traders is low. Nevertheless, the Council’s data on

vacant floorspace confirms that there are rela tively few voids in the District and Local

Centres, thus indicating that they are generally of a size consistent with market demand from

mainly local and independent traders.


- 51 -

4.69 Overall, we feel that the retail offer of the District and Local Centres is broadly consistent

with their size and existing and future role in the borough shopping hierarchy. Moreover,

given the Council’s plans to further strengthen the retail offer of Reading City Centre, we do

not foresee any material demand for further retail representation in these centres; rather their

existing levels of retail provision should be safeguarded, wherever possible. This is

particularly important at Cemetery Junction and Oxford Street West, where relatively poor

immediate catchment populations, combined with heavy through traffic which makes parking

difficult and impinges on the environment for shoppers, could jeopardise the longer term

viability of a number of the retail units.


- 52 -

5. QUANTITATIVE RETAIL NEED: METHODOLOGY, DATA

SOURCES AND ASSUMPTIONS

Objectives

5.1 A major objective of this study is to estimate the quantitative need for additional retail

floorspace within Reading Borough through to 2016, the end date of the Local Development

Framework. The quantitative assessment has been undertaken for each of the three main

categories of retailing – convenience goods, and non-bulky and bulky comparison goods,

although the latter two categories may be amalgamated in order to meet the requirement of

Government Guidance to consider comparison goods shopping as a whole.

5.2 Although the assessment is necessarily detailed and relatively complex, we have at all stages

sought to achieve transparency in our calculations. We have followed a traditional approach to

estimating retail need and have incorporated the very latest data on consumer expenditure,

retail floorspace and population as well as carrying out a new household telephone survey.

This should ensure that our assessment is up to date, comprehensive and robust.

5.3 Section 6 of this report describes the quantitative need analysis that we have carried out and

presents the results. In this Section we introduce the need methodology, summarise the role of

the household telephone survey and (for convenience) set out in one place the main

assumptions and definitions which we have used, and our principal sources of data.

Quantitative Need Methodology

5.4 The need for additional retail floorspace within an area (or town) is dependent on the future

relationship between the demand for and supply of space, ideally after taking into account the

extent (if any) of any over / under trading that is occurring at the present time. The demand for

floorspace is then determined by assessing the likely growth in the volume of consumer retail

expenditure, while an assessment of floorspace supply involves quantifying the extent to

which proposed changes in the location, quality and quantity of retail floorspace will meet the

forecast increases in expenditure. Any monetary shortfall of supply relative to demand in the

future indicates there is a need for more floorspace in quantitative terms. The scale of

additional retail provision is then determined by converting the excess consumer expenditure

(or headroom expenditure) into a retail floorspace need total. In practice, because shopping

patterns are complex and vary for different types of goods, the methodology utilises survey


- 53 -

data to predict existing shopping patterns and examines the extent to which this should change

in the future. This is a judgemental decision based upon planning consideration.

5.5 In practice, commercial considerations are also important in estimating the need for more

floorspace; if a quantitative assessment identifies that there is scope for more space, but the

market is too weak to let it, then clearly any proposed expansion may need to be reconsidered.

Alternatively, there may be instances when market demand for providing additional retail

floorspace exceeds the retail need indicated by the quantitative need assessment.

5.6 Our methodology for estimating quantitative need is presented diagrammatically in Figure 5.1

overleaf. An important ‘working’ assumption is that we assume that the existing (base year)

market shares of available consumer retail expenditure for Reading Borough as a whole, and

individual centres included in our assessment, are held constant throughout the forecast period

to 2016. This assumption relates to each of the three broad categories of goods: convenience

goods and non-bulky and bulky comparison goods. We adopt this assumption in order to

facilitate the operation of what is already a very complex ‘model’ (sequence of

interconnecting spreadsheets). Our quantitative floorspace need estimates for Reading

borough as a whole and individual centres therefore reflect this constant market shares

approach. In practice, these top-line results may in certain instances require careful

interpretation in the light of planning guidance and the conclusions of our assessment of

qualitative need. In some cases this will involve introducing elements of flexibility into

interpreting the quantum and location of quantitative floorspace need. The quantitative need

methodology is set out in full in Volume 2. The key steps are described below.

Step 1 Catchment Area Definition

5.7 The catchment area should be defined with regard to the study objective. For the present study

it includes all of Reading Borough and its shopping hinterland.

Step 2 Analyse Consumer Demand

5.8 This will comprise population estimates of retail expenditure per head for the present and

projected forecast year(s). This should include resident population, but also any in-flow retail

expenditure from people living outside the catchment area. The main types of inflow

expenditure come from long distance shoppers, commuters and tourists.


- 54 -

Step 3 Analyse Retail Supply

5.9 This step comprises an assessment of the retail turnover of the existing retail floorspace stock.

This will involve a household survey to estimate the actual retail turnover of centres and stores

and a comparison with benchmark turnover.

Step 4 Retail Demand Vs Retail Supply in the Base Year

5.10 At this stage, the adequacy of the existing retail provision within Reading Borough in

quantitative terms is assessed. For example, if actual turnovers assessed in Step 3 exceed the

benchmark turnovers, it could be argued that the floorspace is over-trading and, therefore,

there may be an existing need for additional retail floorspace. Alternatively, if actual turnovers

are less than benchmark levels then the floorspace may be assumed to be under-trading,

signalling a potential over-supply of existing retail floorspace.

Step 5 Changes in Retail Demand and Retail Supply through to Forecast Year(s)

5.11 This step projects forward total available expenditure in the catchment area and the turnover

of existing and committed retail floorspace and the forecast retail turnover gives a measure of

the quantitative need for additional retail floorspace. If there is an expenditure surplus, this is

converted into potential floorspace by dividing by an appropriate sales density. Similarly, if

there is an expenditure deficit, a floorspace over supply may exist.

The Household Telephone Survey

Objectives of the Survey

5.12 The household telephone survey forms an important component of the present study, since it

provides robust and up-to-date information on the current pattern of shopping activity

throughout Reading Borough and surrounding areas. As such, it forms the base upon which

the retail need estimates are built.


- 55 -

5.13 A major aim of the survey is to generate quantitative data on consumer retail expenditure

flows between areas or zones (where people live) and retail centres (where they spend their

money). This has been carried out for the following three types of shopping:

• Convenience goods

• Non-bulky comparison goods

• Bulky comparison goods

Definition of the Survey Area

5.14 We reached agreement with Reading Borough Council on the outer boundary of the household

survey area at the beginning of the study. The survey area is shown in Figure 3.1 (following

page 24). It is relatively extensive, since it has been drawn to include the main shopping

catchments of Reading City Centre. In defining the outer boundary we took into account the

trade draw of Reading as quantified in the Berkshire Retail Study.

Definition of the Expenditure Zones

5.15 For the purpose of sampling and analysis the wider survey area has been divided into 22

zones. These zones are defined on the basis of postcode sectors and each zone comprises of a

number of contiguous sectors. All of the zones were agreed with the Council. In broad terms

they relate to natural shopping activity areas on the ground and to the size and distribution of

retail centres.

5.16 Figure 3.1 (following page 24) shows the locations and general configuration of the zones

throughout the survey area, while Appendix 3B defines the zones in terms of their constituent

postcode sectors.

Sampling

5.17 In consultation with the Council and overall target sample of 1,700 complete interviews was

agreed, sufficient to provide a coverage of 77 interviews per zone.


- 56 -

5.18 Within each of the 22 zones, the interview sample was drawn randomly and in proportion to

the distribution of population. This ensures the results of the survey reflect for each zone the

density of population on the ground. Appendix 2A provides a much more detailed statistical

synopsis of the sampling methodology and the degree of confidence which can be attributed to

the results for different geographical levels of analysis.

The Survey Questionnaire

5.19 The survey questionnaire was drafted in consultation with the Council and their agreement

was obtained prior to the commencement of interviewing. A copy of the questionnaire used

for the household telephone survey is reproduced in Appendix 3E.

Implementation, Analysis and Results

5.20 Fieldwork for the household survey was carried out during September / October, 2004. In so

far as we use the survey results to inform our assessment of retail need within Reading

Borough, the key data which the survey generates is the percentage market share (in terms of

expenditure) of the town and other centres within each of the 22 zones. This is analysed

separately for convenience goods and non-bulky and bulky comparison goods shopping.

Using this quantitative information, it is possible to build-up a picture of existing shopper

behaviour within the borough and the survey area as a whole. In particular, the data allows the

existing catchment areas and retail turnovers for Reading City Centre to be determined. This

information has already been analysed and mapped in Section 3, while it also forms the

foundation for the retail floorspace need estimates, which are presented in full in Section 6.

Principal Data Sources

5.21 The quantitative retail need assessment which we present in Section 6 utilises five major

sources of data. Each is new to this study and therefore unavailable for earlier retail studies

undertaken within Berkshire. The data sources are as follows:

• Data on shopping trips patterns and consumer retail expenditure flows

Source: A bespoke household telephone survey was undertaken, which has been

described at paragraphs 5.12 to 5.20 inclusive, with full details presented in

Appendix 3.


- 57 -

• Data on population and population projections

Source: Existing and projected populations have been derived for each zone using

data provided by Reading Borough Council based on projections produced

by the Greater London Authority for the Joint Strategic Planning Unit, for

areas within Berkshire. For those zones, or parts of zones, falling outside of

Berkshire, we have used the latest EBS projections.

• Data on consumer retail expenditure per head

Source: Bespoke data on convenience goods and comparison goods expenditure per

head for 2003 has been obtained from EBS for each zone. Full information

is set out in Appendix 7A.

• Data on existing retail floorspace

Source: Reading Borough Council has carried out a comprehensive survey of all

retail floorspace in the Borough, correct as at June 2004. This identified

gross retail floorspace within the following categories:

- Convenience goods

- Non-bulky comparison goods

- Bulky comparison goods

- Retail services

- Vacant (A-Class) units

For out of centre retail, this data has been supplemented, where necessary,

by published floorspace information from the Institute of Grocery

Distribution (IGD) and data from our own in-house database on retail

warehousing.

Details of existing retail floorspace by centre and main goods category are

set out in Appendix 6.


- 58 -

• Data on retail commitments / proposals

Source: Reading Borough Council has prepared a detailed schedule of retail

commitments within the borough and elsewhere in Berkshire for use in the

study. These are set out in Table 6.1.

Interpretation and Definitions

5.22 In addition to the principal sources of data, there are a number of definitions which we have

adopted throughout the quantitative need assessment. These ensure consistency and although

many are referred to again in Section 6, we hope that by grouping them together below this

will assist the reader in understanding the technical analysis which follows.

Study Centres

The Borough Council has requested that we include the following centres within the study:

• Reading City Centre

• Caversham District Centre

• Cemetery Junction District Centre

• Emmer Green District Centre

• Oxford Road West District Centre

• Shinfield Road Local Centre

• Tilehurst Triangle District Centre

• The Meadway District Centre

• Whitley Street Local Centre

• Wokingham Road District Centre

Composition of Main Retail Goods Categories

5.23 We adopt the definitions used by EBS, which relate to the retail expenditure data. These are

set out in full in Appendix 7B.


- 59 -

Base Year

5.24 We adopt a base year of 2004. This is when the household telephone survey was undertaken,

and therefore the year in which we have retail centre turnover estimates.

Forecast Year(s)

5.25 The Borough Council has agreed to 2009 and 2016.

Price Base

5.26 All monetary figures in this report are given in constant 2003 prices, which is the price base

of the consumer retail expenditure per head data obtained from EBS.

Future Growth in Consumer Retail Expenditure Per Head

5.27 Future spending levels have an important bearing on the need for additional retail floorspace.

The assumptions used are therefore critical to the validity of the overall quantitative need

assessment and it is vital that the most up to date, realistic and robust sources are used.

5.28 In this study, we adopt the latest 2003-based expenditure forecasts published by EBS in

August 2004. These are set out in full at Appendix 7C and incorporate the move by the ONS

in 2003 to an annual chain linking approach to producing constant price economic aggregates.

5.29 EBS’s expenditure forecasts are estimates of future spending based on an economic model of

disaggregated consumer spending. They differ from expenditure projections published by EBS

(and also MapInfo) that are estimates of future spending based on the extrapolation of past

trends. EBS advise that when carrying out longer term retail need assessments, the use of

forecasts is preferred to projections. EBS state that:

• “Projections of comparison spend per head based on past-trends are currently

considerably higher than forecasts based on econometric models. This is because

most economic forecasters and commentators believe that, after a number of years of

very strong growth, we are near the top of the cycle for consumer and retail spending.

This is reflected in very low household savings rates and high levels of household

sector debt. Measuring trend growth rates from a point at the top of the cycle pushes

up the projections. On the other hand, economists and forecasters believe this means

that spending growth in the future is likely to be weaker as the economy and


- 60 -

households’ finances are rebalanced. A parallel correction in the housing market will

re-enforce this tendency. We consider that the economic forecasts incorporate this

important information in a way that projections cannot and therefore the economic

forecasts are to be preferred over the projections for planning for future demand

growth.” Source: Dr Neil Blake, Director – Economics and Forecasting, EBS, 10

November, 2004.

5.30 Following the advice of EBS, we therefore adopt their expenditure forecasts which are set out

in Table 5.1 below.

Table 5.1: Expenditure Per Head Growth Forecasts

Time Period Goods Category

2003-20081 2003-20132

Convenience Goods 0.6% pa 0.9% pa

Non-bulky Comparison Goods 2.6% pa 2.4% pa

Bulky Comparison Goods 4.7% pa 3.9% pa 1 We use these forecasts for estimating need at the design year of 2009.

2 We use these forecasts for estimating need at the design year of 2016.

In-Flow Expenditure

5.31 We have estimated the volume of consumer retail expenditure flowing into our survey area by

analysing the household survey results produced as part of the Berkshire Retail Study and

similar assessments carried out within the wider sub-region. In-flow expenditure has been

estimated separately for convenience goods, non-bulky comparison goods and bulky

comparison goods. Full details of our calculations are set out in Volume 2.

Special Forms of Trading and E-Commerce

5.32 It is normal practice in the preparation of quantitative retail need studies to make deductions

from the consumer retail expenditure per person figures adopted to allow for expenditure by

‘special forms of trading’ (SFT). This is retail expenditure that does not take place in shops,

such as that via mail order houses (including purchases from wholly internet-based

companies), door to door salesmen and stalls and markets. EBS estimate that expenditure by

SFT nationally accounts for 3.5% of total consumer retail expenditure on convenience goods,

6.2% on non-bulky comparison goods and 6.9% on bulky comparison goods. Full details of

EBS’s SFT percentages are set out in Appendix 7D.


- 61 -

5.33 According to EBS, and contrary to popular perceptions, there is little evidence to date that

SFT is increasing as a projection of consumer retail expenditure. EBS state that:

• “the available ABI data for 1997 to 2001 shows no obvious trend in the market share

of non-store retailing. This may be because the ABI fails to include the internet sales

of companies that have store outlets as well as internet sales. It may also be because

the demise of traditional mail order shopping is largely off-setting the internet boom”.

5.34 Accordingly we have assumed that the proportion of consumer spending on SFT will remain

constant through to 2016 for each of the main goods categories. However, if the actual growth

in SFT as a proportion of total retail expenditure increases between 2004 and 2016 then our

estimate of additional retail floorspace need within Reading Borough will be too high.

Disaggregation of Consumer Retail Expenditure Between Non-Bulky and Bulky

Comparison Goods Spending

5.35 We undertake separate quantitative retail need assessments for non-bulky and bulky

comparison goods, and therefore consumer retail expenditure on comparison goods must be

disaggregated between the two categories. In this study, we have adopted the EBS definition

(set out in Appendix 7B) and used this to generate bespoke 2003 non-bulky and bulky

comparison goods spend per head figures for each of the 22 zones within the survey area.

Turnover Allocation for Existing Retail Floorspace

5.36 It would, in our view, be wrong to assume that all of the increase in retail expenditure within

Reading Borough is available to support additional retail floorspace. This is because it is

appropriate that some of the forecast growth in expenditure should be allocated to existing

retailers because the evidence confirms that existing retail shops, in fact, achieve real, and

necessary, gains in sales productivitie s year on year. Consequently, to avoid making such an

allowance would lead to a “double counting” of available retail expenditure and thus an over-

estimation of the need for additional retail floorspace (ie. the consumer spend soaked-up by

existing retail floorspace would be used to justify more retail floorspace).

5.37 EBS have recently published a Retail Planner Briefing Note on estimating and projecting sales

densities (reproduced in full in Appendix 7E), which sets out the new research undertaken on

the subject and its relevance to need (retail capacity) assessments. EBS conclude as follows:


- 62 -

• “The long-term (1975-2003) trend for comparison goods space is 2.5 per cent,

although … there may have been a recent increase in the trend. Given the

uncertainties, … an assumption that sales densities are likely to increase at

somewhere in the range of 2.0 per cent (the ‘moderate’ assumption) to 2.5 per cent

(the ‘historical’ trend) appears appropriate.

• “Similarly we would expect a slowdown in the observed 1.1 per cent per annum

increase in convenience sales densities between 1986 and 1999. This is especially true

if we consider only pure convenience floorspace rather than the mix of convenience

and comparison found in many supermarkets and superstores. Nonetheless, we still

expect future increases to be well above the old URPI figure of 0.15 per cent – we

suggest that 0.75 per cent might be more suitable.”

(Retail Planner Briefing Note 2.2 page 7)

5.38 EBS further advise that for centres (or areas) where there is a material over-trading at the

present time (eg. Reading City Centre), it is likely that the potential for real gains in sales

productivity in the future will be less than the national averages as set out in paragraph 5.37.

Similarly, in centres (areas) where there is currently significant under-trading, there is likely to

be potential for gains in sales productivity in excess of the national average. However, if the

monetary effects of over-trading and under-trading in the base year are fully taken into

account in the quantitative need assessment – as is the case in this study – then it brings the

Reading survey area into a retail equilibrium position akin to the national average scenario

consistent with the EBS research on the growth in store productivities. This link is important

and has been recently established in discussions we have had with EBS. Consequently, it is

perfectly reasonable to apply the EBS store productivity recommendations in this study. For

comparison goods we adopt the mid-point between 2.0% and 2.5%, the EBS moderate and

historical assumptions respectively.

5.39 Taking into account all of this evidence, we adopt the following estimates for real increases in

floorspace efficiency from 2004 (our base year) through to 2016.

• Convenience goods 0.75% pa

• Non-bulky and bulky comparison goods 2.25% pa


- 63 -

Net to Gross Ratios

5.40 In converting net (or sales) retail floorspace to gross retail floorspace (or vice versa), we have

used a series of net to gross ratios. These are as follows:

• Convenience goods 60:100

• Non-bulky comparison goods 65:100 Town Centres

90:100 Retail Warehouses

• Bulky comparison goods 65:100 Town Centres

90:100 Retail Warehouses

Metric Conversion

5.41 Where necessary, we have converted square feet into square metres (and vice versa) using the

following formulae:

1 sq m = 10.764 sq ft

1 sq ft = 0.093 sq m

VAT

5.42 Expenditure and sales / turnover data used throughout the quantitative assessment includes

VAT.

General Point

5.43 It must be stressed that any quantitative need assessment undertaken over a long time-period

(eg. 2016 is 12 years away) is subject to a margin of error, since it is necessarily based on a

number of assumptions which are difficult to forecast accurately. We therefore recommend

that the retail floorspace need estimates, particularly those relating to years towards the back

end of the forecast period, should be treated with some caution.


- 64 -

6. QUANTITATIVE RETAIL NEED: ASSESSMENT AND RESULTS

Objectives

6.1 This section describes our approach to estimating the quantitative need (or capacity) for

additional retail floorspace within Reading Borough and its constituent City, District and

Local Centres, and presents the results of the assessment. All monetary figures are given in

constant 2003 prices.

6.2 The assessment provides the following information:

• Estimates of total available retail expenditure within the shopping catchment areas of

the centres at the base year of 2004 and the forecast years of 2009 and 2016 (these

years having been agreed with the Council);

• Estimates of the retail turnover likely to be ‘retained’ by the centres at each of the

forecast years;

• Estimates of “headroom” expenditure and therefore retail floorspace need within the

centres at the forecast years; and

• Quantitative retail floorspace need disaggregated into convenience goods and

comparison goods retail floorspace, with the latter category further divided into non-

bulky goods and bulky goods shopping.

6.3 Our understanding is that the results of the need assessment will be used by the Council to

inform the future retail policies and strategies for the Borough. The results should also assist

the Council in responding to any emerging retail proposals.

Approach

6.4 Our broad approach to estimating retail need comprises of seven main steps, which in

aggregate cover the three main stages of analysis:

(i) Forecasting consumer demand;

(ii) Forecasting retail supply and;

(iii) The conversion of (any) surplus expenditure into a retail floorspace requirement.


- 65 -

6.5 We have sought to provide an analysis that is transparent and which, at the same time, seeks to

be robust. The assessment is also presented in a way that enables it to be updated in the future

as more up-to-date statistics become available and the emerging pattern of shopping activity

becomes more established.

6.6 We carry out separate quantitative retail need assessments for comparison goods – further

disaggregated into non-bulky and bulky comparison goods – and convenience goods. Each is

supported by a number of tables (spreadsheets) which are reproduced in Volume 2. In

addition, the assessment refers to a number of key assumptions and technical adjustments

which have already been discussed in Section 5, and are reproduced as Appendices 7A to 7E.

6.7 In this study, although we estimate quantitative need for each of the town and district / local

centres within Reading Borough, we recommend that the Council places most emphasis on the

quantitative need for additional retail floorspace of different goods categories within the

Borough as a whole.

6.8 We begin with an assessment of the retail floorspace need for comparison goods.

Analysis: Comparison Goods

Step 1: Calculate Total Available Expenditure in the Survey Area

6.9 The extent of the Reading catchment area for comparison goods shopping has been defined on

the basis of the results of the household telephone survey, which provides current information

on shopper behaviour and retail consumer expenditure flows. The household survey area is

shown in Figure 3.1 (following page 24). Within this area the quantum of comparison goods

retail expenditure generated is derived by multiplying population by average annual

expenditure per head. This calculation is carried out for each of the 22 zones which comprise

the survey area.

6.10 Population estimates by zone and for the survey area as a whole are set out in Volume 2,

Table 1. In addition to estimates for 2004 (the base year), population forecasts for 2009 and

2016 are also included. These population estimates have been provided by Reading Borough

Council based on projections produced by the Greater London Authority for the JSPU, and

also EBS.

6.11 Tables 2A and 2B give the average annual expenditure per person on non-bulky and bulky

comparison goods respectively for residents living in each of the 22 zones comprising our

survey area. These figures have been obtained from EBS. We have projected the per person


- 66 -

expenditure estimates forward to the forecast years of 2009 and 2016 by adopting EBS’s

2003-based expenditure growth forecasts for the most appropriate time-scales.

6.12 At Tables 3A and 3B for non-bulky and bulky comparison goods respectively, we make

deductions to the per person expenditure estimates to account for retail expenditure which

does not take place in shops, such as that on mail order shopping (including e-commerce

companies), door to door salesmen and market and road-side stalls. This form of expenditure

is generally known as “special forms of trading”.

6.13 In presenting expenditure forecasts through to 2016, we are aware that there are currently a

number of electronic shopping formats which, should they become widely established, could

increase significantly the proportion of retail expenditure that is not spent in conventional

shops. We have reviewed the likely impact of these new forms of shopping and concluded that

it is premature at the present time to make material changes. Therefore, we have maintained

“special forms of trading” at the existing percentages through to 2016, although we would

stress that this assumption should be reviewed from time to time, since, were it to change

significantly, it could have a major impact on future levels of retail floorspace by reducing the

need for additional shopping provision.

6.14 Our estimates of total available consumer retail expenditure on non-bulky and bulky

comparison goods at the base year (2004) are set out in Tables 4A and 4B respectively.

Forecasts are also given for the forecast years of 2009 and 2016. The increases in available

expenditure are due to:

• The forecast growth in catchment population;

• Real increases in consumer comparison goods expenditure per head.

Step 2: Application of “Market Shares” to Determine Amount of Retained Expenditure

6.15 As a consequence of increases in the volume of consumer expenditure per head running in

tandem with population growth, we estimate that the “pool” of available expenditure on non-

bulky comparison goods within the Reading survey area will increase by some £1,224 million

between the base year (2004) and the latest forecast year of 2016. For bulky comparison

goods, we forecast that the “pool” of available expenditure within the Reading survey area will

increase by £1,042 million by 2016.


- 67 -

6.16 However, not all of this growth in consumer expenditure will be spent within the Reading

survey area and is available to support new retail floorspace in the Borough. This is because

competitor centres to those within Reading Borough also lay claim to the same growing

“pool” of expenditure. This requires us to quantify the “market shares” of the retail provision

already established in Reading Borough.

6.17 Existing “market shares” for non-bulky and bulky comparison goods shopping have been

determined largely on the basis of the results of the household telephone survey carried out by

ourselves for Reading Borough Council as part of this study. The survey provides useful

information on the geographical extent of catchment areas and trade penetration around

existing centres by quantifying the pattern and volume of retail expenditure flows from each of

our defined zones (where people live and money is generated) to a range of centres and out of

centre stores (where people spend their money).

6.18 In addition, and of critical importance, our assessment also takes into account the distribution

and volume of locally available consumer expenditure (or spending power) so as to ensure that

our retail turnover estimates are balanced against available retail consumer expenditure.

6.19 The base year (2004) pattern of “market shares” are set out at Tables 5A and 5B for non-

bulky and bulky comparison goods shopping respectively. These market shares have been

taken directly from our household survey, although in a small number of cases they have been

adjusted marginally to account for under-estimation of sales at some of the District and Local

Centres (these being just too small in retail terms to have been represented accurately in the

household telephone survey) and a bias towards bulky comparison goods sales (over non-

bulky) at the out of centre retail parks. The “market shares” are then applied to the 2004

“pools” of available non-bulky and bulky comparison goods expenditure (Tables 6A and 6B

respectively). These tables give the monetary amounts of non-bulky and bulky comparison

goods expenditure flowing to each retail centre by zone. The addition of these expenditure

totals for each of the 22 zones give the total amount of non-bulky and bulky comparison goods

spending flowing to a centre from the survey area.

Step 3: Determine Whether Existing Retail Economy is Trading at Equilibrium

6.20 At this stage of the assessment we consider whether the existing non-bulky and bulky

comparison goods retail economies of the centres in Reading Borough are broadly trading at

equilibrium or not. This is important because of the amount of consumer expenditure flowing

to a centre is high in relation to the stock of available retail floorspace and this appears to be

causing problems to retailers and / or shoppers, then the centre’s retail offer may be described


- 68 -

as over-trading. Conversely, if the expenditure flows are low relative to available retail

floorspace, then this can result in under-trading of the present retail offer.

6.21 If over-trading is occurring in a centre then it is commonly assumed that the turnover in excess

of the equilibrium position is potentially available to support new shopping provision. If this

occurs, then this element of expenditure should be added to the headroom expenditure which

we later estimate from the future growth in the retail economy and any adjustment to market

shares. Conversely, if a centre is under-trading at present, then it is also logical to deduct the

amount of turnover shortfall relative to the equilibrium position from the defined headroom

expenditures associated with the future growth in the retail economy and any adjustment to

market shares.

6.22 The problem with this kind of analysis is determining whether a centre is trading in

equilibrium or not. There are two principal difficulties. First, retailers need to achieve a certain

trading level to be viable. However, this trading level varies substantially for individual

retailers and across the country, reflecting differences in type of business, profit margins, site,

size, financial structure and other factors. Without detailed surveys of all individual traders in

a centre it is virtually impossible to determine what the average equilibrium trading level is.

Allied to this problem is the difficulty of deriving reliable average sales densities, since there

often is no accurate retail salespace data available. The second major difficulty is that even if it

can be proven that a centre is trading above its retail equilibrium, this does not automatically

mean that problems associated with over-trading occur; these may include retailer operating

difficulties, in-store congestion, over-busy streets leading to pedestrian safety and security

problems, and congested car parks.

6.23 In estimating whether centres in Reading Borough are in retail equilibrium at present in

relation to non-bulky and bulky comparison goods shopping, we have been handicapped by

the unavailability of data on retailers’ actual trading performance and aspirations.

Nevertheless, we have attempted to be as robust as possible, since material conditions of over

or under-trading in the base year do suggest there is an under or over-supply of retail

floorspace already. Our benchmark (or retail equilibrium) turnover estimates for the existing

retailing provision within the Reading Borough’s retail economy are set out in Tables 6A and

6B respectively for non-bulky and bulky comparison goods. Full details are given in

Appendices 6B and 6C for non-bulky and bulky comparison goods respectively.


- 69 -

6.24 For non-bulky comparison goods shopping (see Table 6A), the survey suggests that all of the

District and Local Centres and the out of centre retail warehouses in the borough are currently

trading at close to retail equilibrium; indicating that the supply of non-bulky comparison goods

floorspace is broadly consistent with the levels of turnover being achieved. However, we

estimate that Reading City Centre is significantly over-trading at the present time. For those

centres which are over-trading the estimated “surplus” expenditures are added to the forecast

headroom expenditures later on in the assessment, whilst for centres under-trading the

estimated expenditures deficits are deducted.

6.25 For bulky comparison goods (see Table 6B), we estimate that all of the District and Local

Centres and the out of centre retail warehouses are again trading at or close to retail

equilibrium, whilst Reading City Centre is again over-trading. Expenditure surpluses and

deficits are added to, or taken-away from, the headroom expenditures forecast later on in the

assessment.

6.26 Tables 6A and 6B give the estimated base year (2004) annual non-bulky and bulky

comparison goods turnovers of the centres within Reading Borough. For non-bulky

comparison goods these range from just £0.2 million at Cemetery Junction to £847 million at

Reading City Centre, whilst for bulky comparison goods the range is far smaller; £0.2 million

at Emmer Green to £160 million in the city centre. However, out of centre retail parks

collectively generate an estimated annual bulky comparison goods turnover of £166 million.

For non-bulky and bulky comparison goods, we make an allowance for in-flow expenditure

from outside the survey area to Reading City Centre. This estimated in-flow expenditure

relates to monies spent by tourists and day-trip visitors living beyond the survey area.

Step 4: Calculate Growth in Retained Expenditure through to the Forecast Years

6.27 Having determined the base year (2004) “market shares” and levels of retained non-bulky and

bulky comparison goods expenditure within the centres located in Reading Borough, we use

the principle of market shares to calculate how much more spending or trade the centres could

expect to attract in the future as a result of the forecast growth in available catchment area

expenditure.

6.28 Our main “benchmark” quantitative need (retail capacity) forecasts for comparison goods are

based on the principle that the retail economies of the centres within Reading Borough (and

therefore the Borough as a whole), will maintain their existing status relative to each other and

to competitor centres. This approach is frequently adapted by consultants when the main

objective is to provide an area-wide assessment of need for addit ional retail floorspace over a


- 70 -

long time-frame. However, in Section 8, we take into account the qualitative need issues

arising from our assessment set out in Section 4. This analysis, in combination with market

knowledge and our view of the likely future retail demand for additional floorspace in the

centres, has informed our judgement as to whether the base year market shares derived from

the household survey should be adjusted when assessing the future need for additional retail

provision in Reading Borough.

6.29 For each of the forecast years we apply as part of our main assessment the same market shares

to the increased “pools” of available expenditure in each zone. The calculations for the

forecast years 2009 and 2016 are set out in Tables 8A and 11A (for non-bulky comparison

goods) and 8B and 11B (bulky comparison goods). Due to the increase in demand (as a result

of population growth and rising consumer expenditure) the assessment produces at 2009

higher retail turnover potentials for centres than in the base year (2004). Similarly, the

turnover potentials are even higher for the forecast year of 2016.

Step 5: Determine Level of Potential Headroom Expenditure in the Forecast Years

6.30 It would be wrong to assume that all of the increases in turnover potential for centres within

Reading Borough will be available by the forecast year(s) to support additional comparison

goods shopping. This is because some of the forecast growth in expenditure must be allocated

to existing retailers because the evidence confirms that they increase their sales productivities

in real terms over time.

6.31 In Tables 9A and 9B the turnover allocations for existing retailers are deducted from the 2009

turnover potentials of centres for non-bulky and bulky comparison goods respectively. This

calculation produces estimates of residual turnover potential. The base year (2004) turnovers

are then subtracted from these 2009 residual turnovers to determine the quantums of potential

headroom expenditure in 2009 for each centre. Similar analyses are carried out for non-bulky

and bulky comparison goods for the forecast year of 2016 in Tables 12A and 12B

respectively.

Step 6: Determine Level of Residual Headroom Expenditure in the Forecast Years

6.32 To convert potential headroom expenditure into residual headroom expenditure at each of the

forecast years we must make further (if applicable) deductions to account for that quantum of

retail expenditure which is likely to be soaked up by retail floorspace commitments within

Reading Borough (commitments are retail developments already in the pipeline, which are

either under construction of have planning consent).


- 71 -

6.33 From information supplied to us by Reading Borough Council (summarised in Table 6.1

below), we have assumed that there are no material retail commitments within the borough;

this is because the net change in Class A1 retail floorspace associated with the four modest

schemes in Reading City Centre is virtually zero, whilst an existing commitment on the Battle

Hospital site is not now expected to proceed in its permitted form (although the Council are

currenty in the process of preparing a planning brief for the site) and has therefore been

excluded.

Table 6.1: Retail Commitments in Reading Borough1

Address & Location Details Net Change in Class 1

Retail Floorspace (sq m)

39-41 Broad Street Mall Reading City Centre

Change of use to retail +821

1 Forbury Square Reading City Centre

Change of use to retail +1431

138-141 Friar Street Reading City Centre

Change of use from retail -1172

3-4 Gun Street Reading City Centre

Change of use from retail -917

Source: Reading Borough Council 1 All known commitments as at September 2004 with a net gain or loss of 500 sq m gross or more Class A1 retail are listed.

6.34 Tables 10A and 10B set out our calculations to estimate the residual headroom expenditures

for centres in Reading Borough at the forecast year of 2009 for non-bulky and bulky

comparison goods floorspace respectively. The same assessment is carried out for the forecast

year of 2016 in Tables 13A and Tables 13B respectively.

6.35 The residual headroom expenditures set out above assume that each centre is in retail

equilibrium at the base year (2004). We have already commented upon the fact that this

assumption may be viewed as unlikely. However, as already discussed at paragraphs 6.20 to

6.26, it is, in practice, difficult to define and calculate the equilibrium position for any centre.

6.36 Nevertheless, despite the difficulties of determining the extent of any over or under trading at

the centres within Reading Borough, we consider that including such estimates makes our

quantitative need assessment more reliable and robust than ignoring them. We use the over

and / or under-trading estimates determined at Tables 6A and 6B, to “adjust” our residual

headroom expenditures. In practice, if a centre is estimated to be over-trading at the present

time, this will increase the quantum of residual headroom expenditure at the forecast year(s).

Alternatively, if a centre is estimated to be under-trading now, the reverse will occur and the

residual headroom expenditure totals at the forecast year(s) are decreased. Tables 10A and


- 72 -

10B set out our calculations for making these adjustments to the 2009 residual headroom

expenditures for non-bulky and bulky comparison goods respective ly. Tables 13A and 13B

reproduce the calculations for the forecast year of 2016.

6.37 The adjusted residual headroom expenditure totals for Reading Borough as a whole at each of

the forecast years (2009 and 2016) are summarised in Table 6.2 below.

Table 6.2: Residual Headroom Expenditures Within Reading Borough at 2009 and 2016

(figures are non-cumulative)

Non-bulky Comparison Goods

2009

(£m)

2016

(£m)

198 257

Bulky Comparison Goods

2009

(£m)

2016

(£m)

86 146

6.38 In our view these residual headroom expenditure totals are important because they provide an

estimate of the amount of potential turnover which will be available within Reading Borough

at each of the forecast years given our assumptions of constant market shares. In Section 8, we

describe the last step of the assessment, which is to convert these residual headroom

expenditures into retail floorspace requirements. However, the output of this last stage is

dependent on the application of average sales densities and these, in practice, are likely to vary

enormously depending on the type of development that is proposed. For example, city and

town centre stores comprising non-bulky comparison goods shopping typically trade at much

higher average sales densities than retail warehouse style developments selling mainly bulky

comparison goods. We would therefore recommend that the Council attaches appropriate

weight to the residual headroom expenditure totals, since these are not open to the same levels

of interpretation as are the retail floorspace need estimates set out in Section 8. To estimate the

levels of forecast residual expenditure for comparison goods as a whole, simply add together

the figures for non-bulky and bulky comparison goods at each of the forecast years.


- 73 -

Analysis: Convenience Goods

6.39 Our retail need assessment for convenience goods floorspace follows the same approach as

that for comparison goods (ie. that summarised in Figure 5.1 following page 53). The detailed

calculations underpinning the analysis are reproduced in full in Volume 2 (Tables 1 to 13

inclusive).

Step 1: Calculate Total Available Expenditure in the Catchment Area

6.40 At Tables 1 to 4 inclusive, the total available convenience goods expenditure by zone is

determined for the base year (2004) and the forecast years of 2009 and 2016, The analysis

incorporates EBS’s estimates of average annual spending per head on convenience goods

within each zone, together with their latest expenditure growth forecasts. We again exclude

expenditure by “special forms of trading”, although the EBS allowance is much lower than for

comparison goods shopping.

Step 2: Application of “Market Shares” to Determine Amount of Retained Expenditure

6.41 Using the results of the household telephone survey we derive the base year (2004) market

shares of centres within Reading Borough within each of the 22 zones1. This assessment is set

out at Table 5. Applying the market shares to the total “pools” of available expenditure within

each zone in the base year (2004) (Table 6), gives the monetary flows of consumer spending

from zones to the main centres. We do not make any allowance for in-flow expenditure into

Reading Borough from people living outside our survey area since it has been defined very

widely and we believe all such trips for convenience goods (food) shopping will have been

accounted for. The addition of the flows from each zone gives the total estimated convenience

goods turnover of centres within Reading Borough.

6.42 Tables 6 confirms that centres within Reading Borough have estimated convenience goods

turnovers ranging from just £1.5 million at Whitley Street to £43.0 million in The Meadway

District Centre, whilst major out of centre superstores collectively generate annual sales of

some £107 million.

1 This involves grouping together the expenditure flows to individual named stores in order to establish the overall market share of a centre.


- 74 -

Step 3: Determine Whether Existing Retail Economy is Trading at Equilibrium

6.43 For convenience goods shopping, we now replicate the analysis carried out earlier in relation

to comparison goods, and calculate the extent of any over or under-trading within the centres

at the base year (2004). In estimating the equilibrium convenience goods retail turnover for

each centre in the base year we have assumed a range of “company average” sales densities

for individual major food stores and other convenience goods shopping. Our calculations are

set out in full in Appendix 6A. Table 6 sets out our estimates of the extent of over / under-

trading at the base year (2004) for each of the centres within Reading Borough. We refer to

these estimates again at Stage 6 below.

Step 4: Calculate Growth in Retained Expenditure through to the Forecast Years

6.44 As for comparison goods, our benchmark position is that we adopt a constant market share

when estimating the quantitative need for additional convenience goods floorspace. Table 8

therefore replicates the market shares derived from the household telephone survey, with the

exception of those relating to a number of the District and Local Centres which, due to their

small size, had been under-represented by the survey. We apply the same market shares to the

higher “pools” of available expenditure within the zones at the forecast years of 2009 and

2016 to derive the turnover potentials of the centres at each year. These calculations are set out

in Table 8 (for 2009) and Tables 11 for 2016 respectively.

Step 5: Determine Level of Potential Headroom Expenditure in the Forecast Years

6.45 At Tables 9 and 12 we determine the levels of potential headroom expenditure within

Reading Borough at the forecast years of 2009 and 2016 respectively. As for comparison

goods, it is necessary to set aside a little of the expenditure growth for existing retailers to

account for their real gains in sales productivity over time.

Step 6: Determine Level of Residual Headroom Expenditure in the Forecast Years

6.46 To convert the potential headroom expenditure figures into residual headroom expenditure

estimates, we would normally take into account at this stage the projected turnover of any

existing convenience goods retail commitments within Reading Borough. However, as

confirmed in Table 6.1, there are no retail commitments in the Borough.

6.47 Tables 10 and 13 set out our calculations to determine residual headroom expenditures for

individual centres within Reading Borough at the forecast years 2009 and 2016 respectively.


- 75 -

6.48 As with comparison goods, we adjust the convenience goods residual headroom expenditures

to take into account any over or under-trading that exists in each centre at the base year

(2004).

6.49 The adjusted residual headroom expenditure totals for Reading Borough as a whole at each of

the forecast years are set out in Table 6.3 below.

Table 6.3: Residual Headroom Expenditures within Reading Borough 2009 and 2016 –

Convenience Goods

2009

(£m)

2016

(£m)

30 44

Step 7: Estimate Capacity for Additional Retail Floorspace in the Forecast Years

6.50 In Section 8 we convert these adjusted residual headroom expenditures into retail floorspace

requirements (Step 7) but, as with comparison goods, these floorspace estimates are entirely

dependent on the average sales density applied to the floorspace. For this reason, we

recommend that the Council places appropriate levels of emphasis on the forecast quantums of

residual expenditure available at the forecast years in relation to convenience goods.

Summary

6.51 The main purpose of this section has been to assess in quantitative terms the likely retail

expenditure capacity within Reading Borough through to 2016. It must be stressed, however,

that any quantitative analysis over such a long time-period (12 years from the adopted base

year of 2004) is likely to be subject to a margin of error, particularly in the later stages, since it

is based on a number of assumptions which are difficult to forecast accurately. In addition,

there are three further key assumptions which have a material bearing on the forecast levels of

residual headroom expenditure, which are as follows:

• Special forms of trading – we have based our assumption on EBS’s 2003 based

estimates for “special forms of trading” for convenience and non-bulky and bulky

comparison goods shopping through to 2016. There is currently much speculation that

electronic shopping is likely to increase significantly in the future. If this was to occur

at a rate in excess of the general real increase in consumer retail shops would decline.


- 76 -

If this were to happen the projected levels of retail expenditure capacity would be less

than those forecast in this report for each of our scenarios.

• Over / Under Trading at the base year – our household survey results (Section 3)

and the conclusions of our retail overview (Section 4) indicate that a number of

centres within Reading Borough – particularly the city centre – are currently over /

under-trading in certain of the good categories and we have taken this into account in

our quantitative need assessment. However, without undertaking surveys of the traders

themselves it is difficult to establish what is the true retail equilibrium position.

Clearly, if we have over-estimated the amount of over-trading, for example, the retail

expenditure capacity estimates will be lower than those set out above; conversely, if

we have under-estimated the capacity estimates will be greater.

• Constant Market Shares – our quantitative assessment (so far) assumes that each

centre within Reading Borough and the Borough as a whole retains its existing (base

year) market share of available expenditure through to 2016 (but see paragraph 6.52

below).

6.52 At the present time, and on the basis of the information and evidence available to us, we are of

the opinion that our key assumptions form a robust basis on which to prepare long-term

estimates of retail expenditure capacity. Our “benchmark” forecasts in this section assume that

the strategy of the Council is to maintain the present retail attractiveness of Reading

Borough’s centres going forward. This “constant market share” approach is normally realistic

given that adjoining Councils will be planning to improve their own centres and it is important

not to “double count” consumer retail spend. However, there may be a planning case for

“clawing back” some, or all, of the expenditure that was lost to the 79,000 sq m gross Festival

Place Shopping Centre at Basingstoke, which opened in 2002. Equally major new

developments elsewhere in the future, such as the redevelopment of nearby Bracknell Town

Centre, may actually reduce the retail dominance of Reading within the region. In Section 8

we examine the effect of increasing / decreasing Reading’s market share on the future need for

additional comparison goods floorspace in Reading City Centre.


- 77 -

7. THE NEED FOR FURTHER LEISURE DEVELOPMENT

Introduction

7.1 As stated in Section 1, an important objective of the study is to assess the need for further

leisure development within Reading Borough in order to inform the emerging Local

Development Framework. The Study Brief indicates that leisure should be considered in

accordance with the provisions of government guidance set out in PPG 6 and draft PPS 6, and

should, in particular, focus on the need for:

• A Cultural Quarter

• Further restaurants, pubs and clubs

• Ten pin bowling and / or an ice rink

• Additional hotels

• More health and fitness facilities

• Improved bingo and casino provision.

7.2 PPG 6 states that town centres provide:

• “a convenient location for developments, such as shops, leisure facilities and

restaurants, entertainment and the arts,” (Paragraph 4)

and thus leisure is an important land use which underpins the foundation of town centres.

7.3 PPG 6 stresses that variety and diversity are essential elements of town centre vitality and

viability and that uses such as entertainment facilitie s, museums, hotels and conference

centres, restaurants and cafes should be encouraged by local authorities.

7.4 Draft PPS 6 reinforces the guidance contained in PPG 6. Objectives of the Government set out

in the document includes requirements:

• “to enhance consumer choice by making provision for a range of shopping, leisure

and local services, which allow genuine choice to meet the needs of the entire

community, and particularly socially-excluded groups”.


- 78 -

• “to support an efficient, competitive and innovative retail and leisure sector, with

improving productivity. (Paragraph 1.3).

7.5 Draft PPS 6 makes clear that planning policy on town centres applies to:

• “leisure, entertainment facilities, and the more intensive sport and recreation uses

(such as cinemas, restaurants, drive-through restaurants, bars and pubs, night-clubs,

casinos, health and fitness centres, bowling alleys, and bingo halls, as well as arts,

culture and tourism (theatres, museums, galleries and concert halls, hotels and

conference facilities) (Paragraph 1.7).

7.6 The draft PPS 6 makes it clear that it is the role of the regional planning body within their

Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) to assess the overall need for additional leisure floorspace

over the plan period and for five year periods within it (Paragraphs 2.10 and 2.11). Plans at the

local level should draw on the RSS with local authorities setting out a vision and strategy for

the pattern and hierarchy of centres within their area. In particular, local planning authorities

in relation to le isure should identify any deficiency and gaps in provision and assess the need

for new town centre leisure facilities / floorspace (Paragraph 2.14), paying special attention to

managing the evening economy and the identification of distinct leisure quarters.

7.7 Draft PPS 6 confirms that in assessing the need and capacity for additional leisure

development, local planning authorities:

• “should place greater weight on quantitative considerations, based on data and other

objective evidence” (Paragraph 2.27),

although full account should be taken of both quantitative and qualitative considerations.

7.8 In assessing quantitative need, draft PPS 6 states that local planning authorities:

• “should assess the likely demand for additional … floorspace, based on existing and

forecast population levels and expenditure,” (Paragraph 2.28)

whilst in assessing qualitative need, the key consideration is to provide for consumer choice,

by ensuring that:


- 79 -

• “a range of sites is brought forward to meet the needs of a variety of …. leisure

operators.” (Paragraph 2.29)

7.9 In preparing our assessment of leisure need we have used a variety of sources of information

as follows:

• The results of our household telephone survey carried out during September / October

2004;

• Existing reports published by the Council

• Other published data on the leisure industry (eg. from Mintel); and

• The ‘expert’ market view of leisure sector specialists at Colliers CRE.

The Existing Supply of Leisure Facilities

7.10 We begin by describing the existing supply of le isure facilities available to residents within

Reading Borough. Much of the detailed information is summarised in a series of tables in

Appendix 8, whilst below we summarise the current provision and show how it is distributed

around the Borough in a series of maps.

7.11 Figure 7.1 overleaf shows the locations of existing hotels within Reading Borough. The map

confirms there are 29 hotels with 10 bedrooms or more and that these are generally spread

throughout the borough, although the major hotels (those with more than 50 bedrooms) are

mainly, located in Reading City Centre, or close to Junction 11 of the M4. Appendix 8A,

Table 1 provides full details of each hotel, such as number of bedrooms and its star rating.

7.12 The principal arts and entertainment venues in Reading Borough are shown in Figure 7.2

overleaf. Not surprisingly there is a heavy concentration of facilities in or around the city

centre. Many venues provide more than one type of entertainment; for example, The Hexagon

presents music / concerts, conferences / events, comedy, theatre and film. Appendix 8B,

Table 2 provides full details of each venue.

7.13 The existing provision of museums and libraries in Reading Borough is shown in Figure 7.3

overleaf. Unlike for arts and entertainment, the facilities are more spread throughout the

borough; thus residents have easy access to museums and particularly libraries. Appendix 8C,

Table 3 provides full details of the museums and libraries located within the Borough.

Fig 7.1 Hotels in Reading Borough

A329(M)

M4

Shinfield

Sonning

Charvil

Binfield HeathShiplake

Dunsden Green

Play Hatch

Sulhamstead

Pangbourne

Tidmarsh


Theale

Sulham

Sheffield Bottom

Burghfield

Mapledurham

Tokers Green

Winnersh

Twyford

Sindlesham

Woodley

Purley on Thames

Tilehurst TriangleOxford Road West

The Meadway

Caversham

Whitley Street

Shinfield Road

Emmer Green

Wokingham Road

Cemetery Junction

Reading Town Centre��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

J11

J12

��

��

Hotels Data 2004

10 to 25 Bedrooms��

26 to 50 Bedrooms��

51 to 75 Bedrooms��76 to 100 Bedrooms��> 100 Bedrooms��


Fig 7.2 Principal Arts and Entertainment Venues in Reading Borough

The Hexagon

The Concert Hall

South Street Arts Centre

Progress Theatre

Rising Sun Arts Centre

Vue Cinema

Rivermead Leisure Complex

Grosvenor Casino

Stanley Reading Sporting Club Casino

Laserquest

Mecca Bingo

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

� ��

�

�

��

M4

Reading Entertainment 2

Music/Concerts�

Theatre�

Comedy��

Dance�

Cinema/Film�

Bingo/Amusements�

Events/Conferences�

Casinos�


��

�

�

Fig 7.3 Museums and Libraries in Reading Borough

A329(M)

M4

Sonning

Charvil

Binfield Heath

Dunsden Green

Play Hatch

Sulhamstead

Pangbourne

Tidmarsh


Theale

Sulham

Sheffield Bottom

Burghfield

Mapledurham

Tokers Green

Shinfield

Winnersh

Sindlesham

WoodleyTilehurst

Purley on Thames

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Oxford Road West

The Meadway

Caversham

Whitley Street

Cemetery Junction

Reading Town Centre

Shinfield Road

Wokingham Road

Tilehurst Triangle

Emmer Green

The Museum of Reading The Riverside Museum at Blake's Lock

Reading Central Library

Battle Library

Caversham Library

The Cole Museum of Zoology

Palmer Park Library

Tilehurst Library

Southcote Library

Whitley Library

� �

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

J12

J11

��

��

Reading Museums and Libraries

Museum�

Library�


��

�

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��


- 80 -

7.14 The locations of swimming pools and major sports facilities within Reading Borough are

shown in Figure 7.4 overleaf. The map confirms that most areas of the borough have

convenient access to a swimming pool and health / sports centre. Unlike for other leisure uses,

the sports facilities are not located in Reading City Centre, but in suburban areas. Further

information on Reading’s swimming pools and sports facilities is given in Appendix 8D,

Table 4.

7.15 Leisure provision also includes soft uses such as parks and gardens. Such open spaces are

found throughout Reading Borough and in the city centre at Forbury Gardens, which is

currently being refurbished as part of a new ‘heritage hub’.

7.16 Lastly, Reading Borough is host to a significant number of public festivals and other leisure

events each year, including Reading Pride, WOMAD (World of Music, Arts and Dance) and

the Reading Festival. Appendix 8E, Table 5 provides a full list of events.

Leisure Trip Patterns

7.17 In carrying out an assessment of leisure need, it is necessary to determine whether the existing

supply of leisure facilities within Reading Borough as described above meets the requirements

of local residents and visitors. Therefore, our household telephone survey also incorporated a

number of questions on participation levels for a range of leisure activities and sought to

identify the broad pattern of leisure trips across the sub-region.

7.18 Our survey sought information on the following 13 leisure activities: visiting the cinema,

theatre / concerts, bingo, casinos, ten pin bowling, restaurants, pubs / bars, night clubs / discos,

swimming pools, health centres / gyms, public parks, museums and ice rinks. The full results

of the household survey are presented in Appendix 3D.

7.19 Overall, the frequency of carrying out these leisure activities is very low in comparison to trips

made for shopping purposes. Accordingly, the number of positive responses across some of

the activities is quite low and the results should therefore be treated with some caution1.

Figure 7.5 overleaf shows the proportion of households that undertake each type of leisure

activity monthly or more often.

1 We would advise that a bespoke leisure survey is commissioned by the Council if a detailed assessment is required of leisure activity levels and patterns within the Reading Area.

Fig 7.4 Principal Sports and Leisure Facilities in Reading Borough

A329(M)

M4

Shinfield

Sonning

Charvil

Dunsden Green

Play Hatch

Sulhamstead

Pangbourne

Tidmarsh


Theale

Sulham

Sheffield Bottom

Burghfield

Mapledurham

Tokers Green

Winnersh

Twyford

Sindlesham

TilehurstWoodley

Purley on Thames

Central Swimming Pool

Highdown Sports Centre

Meadway Sports Centre

South Reading Leisure Centre

Palmer Park Sports Stadium

Rivermead Leisure Complex

Arthur Hill Pool & Fitness Studio

�

�

�

�

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��Tilehurst Triangle

Oxford Road West

The Meadway

Caversham

Whitley Street

Shinfield Road

Emmer Green

Wokingham Road

Cemetery Junction

Reading Town Centre��

��

��

��

��

��

Fitness First

Reflex Fitness

��

��

J11

J12

��

��

Reading Sports and Leisure

Health/Sports Centre�

Swimming Pool�


� �

�

�

�

�

�


- 81 -

Figure 7.5: Frequency with which Households Undertake Leisure Activities, 2004

Visit monthly or more often

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Resta

urant

Pub /

Bar Pa

rk

Swimming

Health

Club

/ Gym

Cinem

a

Night Clu

b / D

isco Bin

go

Thea

tre

Ten P

in Bow

lingMuse

um

Ice R

ink

Casin

os

Activity

% o

f House

hold

s

Visit monthly ormore often

7.20 Visiting a restaurant is the activity carried out most frequently with 38% of households

making a visit at least once a month. Visits to pubs / bars, public parks and swimming pools

are also reasonably popular being undertaken monthly or more often by 31%, 25% and 23% of

households respectively. However, all other specified leisure activities are undertaken monthly

or more often by fewer than one in five households, with ten pin bowling, casinos, museums

and ice rinks being visited by less than 3% of households each month.

7.21 Throughout the whole survey area the results confirm that Reading is a popular destination for

leisure trips; of the 13 different activities listed the town is the most visited area for six of

them – cinema, bingo, casino, night clubs / disco, swimming and health centre / gym.

London’s West End is top spot for visits to the theatre, whilst Bracknell (ice rink),

Maidenhead (ten pin bowling) and Windsor (public parks) each achieve a single top position.

Visits to restaurants and pubs / bars are very diverse with no single centre receiving a material

proportion of trips.

7.22 In addition to providing a general overview of leisure activity, the survey also gives an

indication of the pattern of leisure trips across the area for the different types of leisure use. An

analysis of this information enables some conclusions to be reached regarding the qualitative

need for certain types of leisure provision within Reading Borough. Figure 7.6 overleaf

summarises the dominance of Reading for different leisure activities across the survey area as

a whole, whilst each leisure use is now discussed in further detail.


- 82 -

Figure 7.6: Dominance of Reading for Range of Leisure Activities

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Night C

lub / D

isco Bin

goCa

sino

Cinema

Resta

urant

Ten P

in Bow

lingMuse

um

Pubs

/ Bar

Swimming

Health

Club / G

ym Parks

Thea

tre / C

once

rt Hall Ice

Rink

No

of Z

on

es in

wh

ich

Rea

din

g is

mo

st p

op

ula

r d

estin

atio

n

Cinema

7.23 Reading is the most popular cinema destination for residents living within eight of the 22

survey zones. (Appendix 3D. Table 27A). Moreover, the town is the dominant location for

cinema within all zones covering the borough (Zones 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15), which confirms

that cinema facilities within the Reading area are adequate; there is, for example, no material

leakage of visits to cinemas in other towns / areas.

Theatre / Concert

7.24 For this leisure activity London’s West End is the most popular destination in 13 of the 22

zones (Appendix 3D, Table 27B). Thus there is a major out-flow of theatre / concert trips

from the survey area as a whole, including from the Reading area. Within the five zones

covering Reading Borough, the town is cited as the main theatre destination in just two zones,

thus indicating that there is some potential to improve the town’s theatre / concert offer in the

future, albeit there will always be a degree of leakage of visits to Central London.

Bingo

7.25 Reading is rated the most popular destination for bingo in 10 of the 22 survey zones

(Appendix 3D, Table 27C), with its dominance being particularly strong amongst households

living within the borough. Accordingly, there does not appear to be a material need for

additional bingo halls.


- 83 -

Casino

7.26 Existing patronage of casinos is extremely low amongst our survey sample and therefore the

results must be treated with caution. The existing casinos in Reading appear to serve

adequately the present levels of use (Appendix 3D, Table 27D), although clearly there may

be a consumer demand for further provision should the market grow.

Ten-Pin Bowling

7.27 Reading is the most popular destination for ten-pin bowling for residents living in seven of the

22 zones (Appendix 3D, Table 27E). However, the town’s influence is mainly restricted to

the Reading urban area and even then there is an out-flow of trips to Wokingham from zones

10 and 17 (Reading Central and Reading Shinfield respectively). We therefore conclude that

whilst this form of leisure facility is provided in Reading, it is not especially dominant with

some local residents preferring to travel to ten-pin bowling at Wokingham.

Restaurants

7.28 For visits to restaurants Reading is the most popular location for residents within eight of the

22 zones (Appendix 3D, Table 27F). Not surprisingly, given that people tend to travel locally

for this form of leisure activity, Reading’s dominance is mainly restricted to its own urban

area. Nevertheless, there appears to be a sufficient range of restaurants in Reading to meet the

needs of its own residents.

Pubs / Bars

7.29 Reading’s popularity for pubs / bars closely mirrors that for restaurants, with the town

dominating six local zones out of the 22 in the survey area (Appendix 3D, Table 27G). Given

that the town retains virtually all trips to pubs / bars, we conclude that there is no material need

for further representation.

Night Clubs / Discos

7.30 Reading is most dominant for this form of leisure activity with the town being the most

popular destination in 13 of the 22 zones (Appendix 3D, Table 27G), including all those

zones covering its own urban area. Accordingly, we believe that the existing range of clubs /

discos meets the needs of not only its own residents, but those over a wider area.


- 84 -

Swimming Pools

7.31 For this form of leisure activity, Reading is the most popular destination for residents living in

six of the 22 zones (Appendix 3D, Table 27I), which broadly cover the Borough. Therefore

the present level of provision appears to be adequate , although not sufficiently attractive to

attract users from further afield.

Health Centres / Gyms

7.32 Reading is the most popular destination for health centres / gyms within five of the 22 zones

(Appendix 3D, Table 27J). These again cover the local area. The pattern of visits is therefore

very similar to that for swimming, indicating an adequate but not particularly strong level of

provision in the Borough.

Public Parks

7.33 For visits to public parks Reading is the popular location for residents in just four of the 22

zones (Appendix 3D, Table 27K). These zones broadly cover the borough, thus indicating

that public open space is generally sufficient to meet the needs of the local population, but is

not sufficiently attractive to pull people in from outside. However, we would expect most

visits to parks to be local and therefore this pattern of behaviour is not unexpected. The

Thames Parks Plan sets out a way forward for the improvement of the parks along the Thames.

Museums

7.34 Reading is the most popular destination for museums amongst households living in six of the

22 zones (Appendix 3D, Table 27 L). These zones cover virtually all of the town’s urban area

(and borough), thus confirming that the current range of museums is sufficient to retain most

trips for this form of leisure activity. Accordingly, there doesn’t appear to be a material need

for further museums in the borough.

Ice Rink

7.35 Given that there is no ice rink facility in Reading, it is not surpris ing that the town fails to

dominate any zones for this form of leisure activity (Appendix 3D, Table 27M).

Consequently, Reading residents who wish to go ice skating must travel out of the town to

venues elsewhere; the survey indicates that most people go to Bracknell. Clearly in terms of

consumer choice there is a need for an ice rink in Reading Borough.


- 85 -

7.36 Although the survey results on leisure use patterns (described above) give a good indication of

the qualitative need for additional leisure facilities in Reading Borough, the survey sought

clarity on the issue by specifically asking respondents what particular type of new leisure

facility, if any, Reading was most in need of. The full results are set out in Appendix 3D,

Table 28, but the analysis confirms that, from a consumer perspective, only two new leisure

facilities appear to be “needed” in Reading Borough – an ice rink and a swimming pool /

leisure centre. For these two uses there is support from households throughout the survey area,

but especially from residents living in Reading itself. Overall, however, significant numbers of

households are ‘happy’ with the existing range of leisure facilities in Reading and / or couldn’t

think of what particularly new leisure facility is needed.

7.37 In relation to the range of potential new leisure facilities respondents were asked to say how

often they would use it if it was built. For an ice rink, 62% said they would use such a facility

in Reading monthly or more often (17% at least once a week), whilst the corresponding

proportion for a new swimming pool / leisure centre was 86% (67% at least once a week). Full

results are given in Appendix 3D, Table 29.

The Need for Further Leisure Development in Reading Borough

7.38 The household survey has shown that Reading Borough is generally well supplied with a good

range of leisure facilities and that these already ‘retain’ a very high proportion of visits locally.

The only leisure uses for which there appears to be a material qualitative need are an ice rink

and a swimming pool / leisure centre, although the quality of theatre / concert hall and ten-pin

bowling facilities could be improved. In addition, consumer need for another casino could

come about on the back of a national growth in gaming encouraged by government de-

regulation of the industry.

7.39 Below, we examine the need for further leisure development in Reading in more detail by

considering the Council’s existing plans for the sector, quantitative need and market demand.

The Present Position

7.40 The Council continue to monitor the use of, and need for, leisure provision across the borough

and regularly commission consumer surveys and other reports on certain aspects of the

market. Our understanding of the present position is as follows:

• The Council has aspirations for a new theatre in Reading City Centre – the Council’s

aspiration is to replace the Hexagon Theatre with a much larger, more modern and


- 86 -

flexible facility that will provide a range of theatre, conference, music, arts and

catering spaces. To achieve this, the Counc il will need to work closely with an

investment developer and with other developers to ensure that the town has sufficient

hotel accommodation to service such a venue;

• A new 25 metre swimming pool is to be provided as part of the major mixed use city

centre extension at Chatham Place – this pool will replace the existing Central

Swimming Pool;

• The Council is hopeful of providing further swimming pools at Palmer Park and at the

University;

• The Council feel that more hotel capacity is needed as Reading develops as a business

and tourist centre;

• The £2.8 million restoration of Forbury Gardens in the city centre as a Victorian

Garden is well advanced and is due to open in mid 2005;

• The Council is aware that there is no ice rink in Reading, but with such facilities

available at Bracknell, Swindon, Oxford, Basingstoke and Slough, questions whether

there is the catchment to support such a facility in Reading.

Qualitative Need

7.41 The leading market research company, Mintel, forecasts that the out-of-home leisure business

market1 will show steady year on year growth at current prices, reaching a volume of almost

£42 billion in 2007, an increase of 15% from the 2003 level of £36.4 billion. However, once

the effects of inflation for leisure services are taken into account, the market is expected to

remain virtually static through to 2007 (see Table 7.1 overleaf).

1 Excluding eating out and holidays abroad, but including pubs (excluding meals), gambling, sports / fitness participation, entertainment and culture.


- 87 -

Table 7.1: Forecast Out of Home Leisure Business Market, 2003-2007

Year £m (at 2003 prices) Index

2003 36,441 100

2004 35,903 99

2005 36,110 99

2006 36,182 99

2007 36,614 100

Source: Mintel, The Leisure Business UK, August 2003

7.42 Although a static leisure market looks discouraging, it nevertheless represents a significant

improvement on the performance between 1998 and 2002, when the market fell by 16% in real

terms. Looking forwards over the medium term the out of home leisure market is therefore set

to show a period of consolidation, with the market growing in line with inflation over the

forecast period. The onus is therefore on leisure businesses to make their ‘product’ more

attractive and also to improve their marketing and advertising; the rapid growth in foreign

holidays / city breaks is increasingly draining spend from out of home leisure and the sector

must fight back.

7.43 General trends in out of home leisure spend do not lend support for a material quantitative

need for additional leisure facilities within the UK as a whole, at least over the next 3 to 4

years. Moreover, the aging UK population is likely to act as a constraint to the leisure market

as many activities (eg. cinemas, ten-pin bowling, health and fitness clubs etc) are currently

carried out primarily by the young and this age group will increasingly become a smaller

proportion of the consumer market. There is no reason why Reading’s population should

exhibit a different trend to that nationally, whilst the population of Reading Borough is

expected to show only modest growth through to 2016 (see Volume 2, Table 1), thus

relatively little net additional real leisure spend can be expected from this source.

7.44 Therefore, unlike in the retail sector where need for additional floorspace is primarily driven

by a quantitative year on year real increase in consumer retail expenditure, the need for leisure

facilities largely stems from qualitative factors, such as “gaps” in the local market, changes in

consumer leisure interests over time and market demand. Our earlier analysis identified the

main gaps and deficiencies in Reading’s present leisure offer from a consumer perspective.

Below we consider the town’s leisure provision from a market demand point of view and flag-

up the likely requirements for additional leisure facilities in the borough from operators.


- 88 -

Restaurants

7.45 Reading has long been an attractive proposition for the restaurant sector owing to the key

values of strong markets in retail, residential and offices.

7.46 Located within a commuter belt for London and also Thames valley, Reading is considered to

be both accessible and affluent for restaurant customers. In addition, the central retail

attractions within the town open up markets to the outlining suburbs and this in turn offers a

steady flow of customers to the varied food offerings during the daytime and evening, seven

days a week. We therefore consider Reading will continue to offer a vibrant market for the A3

sector.

7.47 The traditional areas within the town have continually offered opportunities and many branded

restaurant groups have sought space close to Friar Street and Broad Street.

7.48 Market demand is strong and we are aware of a number of operators who are looking for

representation in the town (see Appendix 9B). Demand ranges from traditional restaurants to

fast-food outlets and the recent and very successful lettings at the Oracle Centre illustrates this

point. Restaurant units which have become vacant have quickly been re-let and we expect this

to continue.

7.49 Newcomers to the town include Wagamamas, Strada and a site is being negotiated for Ciao

Baby Cucuina, a South African owned group with an Italian offer. Krispy Kreme and Island

Drive Coffee both have a requirement for Reading. Many of the existing restaurant groups

have reported strong customer demand with increasing sales in most cases; these include Ma

Potters, Loch Fyne, Nando’s, Santa Fe and Tootsies.

7.50 One scheme, however, which has proved difficult to let is at Forbury Square, the legal quarter.

Although a relatively recent development and significantly part of the millennium

development area under construction there does not appear to be a big enough awareness

within the local Reading community as to it’s whereabouts. It is located off-pitch but close to

the main shopping area.

7.51 We consider Reading will continue to offer opportunities to the restaurant operator and

customer. Residential developments point to an increasing in-town population, strong demand

for office space and improvements in road and rail links in and out of the town only serve to

increase its attractiveness.


- 89 -

Cinemas

7.52 The Reading urban area benefits from one of the earlier first generation multiplexes with

Showcase opening a 12 screen complex close to Junction 10 of the M4 in December 1996 with

2,975 seats. This multiplex has ancillary restaurants and substantial free surface car parking. In

addition, Reading City Centre also benefited from two traditional 1930’s cinemas, an Odeon

and ABC.

7.53 The redevelopment of the Oracle by Hammersons included a new leisure quarter featuring a

modern 10 screen Warner Village (now Vue) 1,873 seat multiplex which opened in November

1999. The opening of this second generation multiplex hastened the demise of the two

traditional cinemas in the city centre; the ABC and Odeon were subsequently sold for

redevelopment.

7.54 Vue, whilst linking into the Oracle Shopping Centre, also benefits from its own bespoke multi-

storey car park and is the focal point of the new prime leisure pitch within Reading City

Centre. Reading now provides a second generation multiplex with all the additional benefits of

improved stadia seating which the first generation schemes fail to provide.

7.55 Although the potential for Art House Cinemas is growing throughout the UK, Reading already

has sufficient numbers of screens to cater for Art House films within the two multiplexes and

as such is unlikely to see any further demand from this sector.

7.56 Looking ahead, the competition from rival cinema operators within the sub-region will

continue to grow. There are currently proposals for a 12 screen multiplex, bowl and

restaurants being developed within Camberley Town Centre and further proposals for smaller

leisure developments also featuring miniplexes of 6-8 screens in Aldershot and Newbury.

These towns have already secured cinema anchor tenants and are now looking to secure

ancillary bar and leisure tenants. The increased competition is not expected to have a material

impact on Reading’s existing cinema offer because of rising demand, but it is unlikely to leave

much scope to add to the town’s existing cinema facilities.

Health and Fitness

7.57 The health and fitness market has grown substantially over the last decade from boxing /

weight lifting and squash clubs through to new modern family orientated facilities ranging


- 90 -

from smaller 1,000 sq m operations such as Fitness First and LA Fitness in the heart of town

centres to larger 4,000 sq m clubs to the full eight acre tennis clubs situated on edge of town

sites.

7.58 Reading is well provided for in the smaller and family orientated clubs market with most of

the major operators including Fitness First, LA Fitness, Cannons, David Lloyd and Spirit

found in the town. In addition, Holmes Place is also located close by in Wokingham.

7.59 The health and fitness market is now perceived to have reached saturation point. However, this

is mainly in the 4,000 sq m family clubs market where most operators have severely curtailed

their expansion plans. The two areas of the market which continue to see some growth are

first, tennis centres with operators such as Next Generation and Esporta, and second, the

smaller 1,000 sq m gyms, such as those operated by LA Fitness and Fitness First.

7.60 The presence of most of these occupiers within Reading City Centre indicates that an

oversupply may already exist. Although there may be some opportunities for more specialised

offers such as ‘ladies only’ or ‘kick boxing’ gyms, we believe these are likely to replace rather

than enhance the number of existing clubs in Reading.

7.61 Tennis based clubs also offer some potential but with the current perceived over supply in the

Reading area this may again involve the closure of an existing family club pr ior to a new

operator preparing to commit. Their requirements are normally 6-8 acres.

Bowling

7.62 Reading residents currently have access to one commercial bowling unit at Pincents Kiln in

Calcot, although this is not located within the borough. However, this is very much a first

generation bowling centre, whilst the closure of the adjoining large night club (formerly

operated by First Leisure) has not assisted this location.

7.63 The growth in the bowling market is somewhat piecemeal in that whilst operators such as

Bowlplex, Hollywood Bowl and Tenpin (formerly Megabowl) are selectively acquiring new

units the rental values these uses can afford are relatively low and need to be part of a larger

leisure development to be financially viable.

7.64 The existing bowling centre run by Tenpin at Pincents Kiln is an old unit which, if could be

relocated to a more suitable leisure destination, would certainly be considered by the

operators. However, no competitor is likely to emerge until this operation closes. Demand for


- 91 -

modern bowling facilities is for clubs of approximately 2,500-3,000 sq m featuring modern

diners / bars and AWP play areas in tandem with 28 lane facilities, together with

approximately 100 on site car parking spaces.

Gaming

7.65 The gaming market can be divided into two main sectors: the traditional pursuit of bingo and

the new ‘buzz’ market of casinos.

7.66 Bingo facilities in Reading comprise the Mecca Bingo located above the former bus station at

Station Street, together with the independent operator B J’s on Gillette Way. The

redevelopment of the bus station site will probably result in the future closure of the Mecca

Bingo, which we understand trades poorly. Such a closure is likely to see demand for new

bingo premises elsewhere within Reading. Current demand for modern clubs is for edge of

town locations with a minimum of 100-150 parking spaces and with 2,500 sq m of space.

7.67 The bingo market is divided into two principal operators: Mecca Bingo (Rank) and Gala

Bingo. However, there are also a host of smaller operators who are also seeking to increase

their market share. For example, the former Masquerade Nightclub in Bracknell was recently

let to The Point Bingo, a local operator with three or four clubs. We believe that the closure of

the Mecca Bingo in Reading is likely to see demand arise for a new club within the next 3-5

years.

7.68 The casino market is more volatile given the proposed change in Gaming legislation. Casinos

are currently restricted to 53 permitted areas throughout the UK, including Reading. The

proposed changes to the legislation focus on large ‘Regional Casinos’ of 10-15,000 sq m and

also seeks to scrap the restrictions on permitted areas and provide local authorities with the

choice as to whether to allow casinos in their town or district. The consequence of this is that

some large towns which for historic reasons have been precluded from having a casino may

now look to incorporate new modern venues. As a consequence the two existing casinos in

Reading, which are relatively small, may well face competition from either a larger casino of

4,000 sq m or possibly even a ‘Regional Casino’ of 10,000 sq m.

7.69 We understand that Gala Casinos are already looking at the Reading area for a 2,500-4,000 sq

m operation, whilst there may be an opportunity for an even larger ‘Regional Casino’. The

Secretary of State has recently proposed to limit these ‘Regional Casinos’ to eight in the first


- 92 -

wave of ‘pilot’ schemes. However, this is likely to preclude Reading as indications are these

areas will need to be driven largely by regeneration.

7.70 The likelihood of larger casinos immediately seeking representation within Reading is

however strong and with other operators such as London Clubs, Aspinalls as well as Gala all

in the market doubtless local competition will emerge in this sector.

Nightclubs / Bars

7.71 The traditional nightclub market with large cavernous sheds often situated in edge of town

locations has declined in recent years due mainly to the growth of the managed bar operations

and the relaxation of licensing restrictions. Tradition previously dictated that an “evening out”

started in a pub or bar which closed at 11pm and then continued to a larger nightclub, which

was licensed for dancing and drinking till 2-3 am. However, this is no longer the case.

7.72 The advent of the “chameleon bar” brought about by operators such as Regent Inns

(Walkabout), Luminar Leisure (Chicago Rock) and Urbium (Tiger Tiger) changed this with

their concepts of eateries during the day evolving to bar and club at night within one larger

venue. This precludes the need to go on to a nightclub.

7.73 Thus nationally we have seen the collapse of specialist nightclub operators such as

Springwood, Kingfisher and First Leisure who operated such venues. Whilst these companies

have now been resurrected albeit in smaller forms, the large out of town ‘black box’

nightclubs continue to fight for their survival, since the consumer demand for such venues is

now limited.

7.74 In contrast the managed bar operation has grown significantly since the mid 1990s. There has

been an increasing number of operators opening newer brands such as O’Neills (M&B),

Walkabout (Regent Inns), Lloyds No 1 (JD Wetherspoons) and Chicago Rock Café (Luminar).

Although some brands have not fared so well (for example, Springbok, Old Monk and Po Na

Na have ceased trading) many of their existing units have not disappeared but have re-opened

under new fascias. In Reading City Centre, for example, Barracuda have taken over the former

DP Woods & Co unit, whilst JD Wetherspoon brought the Broadwalk for Lloyds No 1.

7.75 Nevertheless, the sector’s casualties have taken the froth out of the market and A3 operators

no longer bid against each other and force up rents to unrealistic levels. This is particularly


- 93 -

true for the vertical drinking establishments where demand for premises is now much more

realistic with a consequent slow down in rental expectations; the days of the super pub which

needed to take £60-70,000 per week have been replaced by more realistic targets.

7.76 On the corporate side many of the acquisitive managed bar operations have either faltered or

been acquired by the larger pub operators such as Spirit, Enterprise Inns and Wolverhampton

& Dudley. As a result the roll out programmes for these chains have reduced. However, this

does not mean that this market has ceased to evolve; operators which seek to create several

concepts within one unit are still actively seeking space. These include Luminar for their

Oceana concept and Urbium for their Tiger Tiger concept. These units comprise anywhere

between 800-1,500 sq m and need to be clearly visible within the existing drinking circuits.

7.77 In Reading the difficulty that many of the bar operators currently encounter is that they wish to

locate close to The Oracle Centre and / or to the west of Friar Street and as space is not readily

available demand remains unsatisfied. Whilst the former Shopping Centre on Friars Walk is

currently being marketed as a potential leisure scheme the integral mall is deterring many of

today’s modern operators.

7.78 Looking ahead, demand within the managed bar sector is relatively weak in Reading due to

the number of existing units. Expansion in the bar / club market is likely to be from the larger

destination units. Known operators seeking representation in Reading include Urbium,

Ultimate Leisure and Luminar. All are keen to secure space but only in the right location.

Non-Commercial Leisure

7.79 Non-commercial leisure is difficult to assess in that normally it is present in an area either

because of historic reasons or as a result of a decision by local authorities to improve facilities

at the expense of, for example, capital receipts on development land.

7.80 The ice rink at Basingstoke, for example , was created as part of an overall leisure development

scheme and doubtless was underpinned by lower land values for the residue of the site.

Although ice skating is commercially viable as a business it becomes unviable when factors

such as the cost of capital to build such facilities are included into any business plan. As a

consequence, construction of such facilities tends to be limited to those towns that provide

financial support.


- 94 -

7.81 Another example is the growth of arenas. Cities such as Southampton, Bristol and Croydon

already have plans to improve their leisure facilities by developing arenas varying in size from

4-5,000 seats up to 8-10,000 seats. These arenas enable a wide range of activities to be

provided such as concerts, shows, conferences and exhibitions. In Reading, such events are

probably already catered for to some extent by the Madejski Stadium.

7.82 An arena venue in Reading would raise the town’s profile and complement the already

established Reading Festival by providing a secure venue for bands. The site requirements for

an arena vary but approximately one acre is normally required. Often arenas incorporate an ice

rink, thus providing the benefit of both operations. The major problem is the high cost,

typically around £8-10 million.

The Hotel Market

7.83 Neither Reading Borough Council or Tourism Southeast provide a complete listing of hotel

accommodation in the Reading area but our research suggests that the primary supply of hotels

in Reading is as set out in Appendix 8A. We estimate the present provision is just under 1,500

rooms.

7.84 We are also aware that there are currently a substantial number of permissions for additional

hotel rooms in the borough. In its most recent monitoring report (April 2004), the Council

identified 1,267 additional hotel bedrooms currently permitted but not started within the

borough. This is a considerable total, and dwarfs the number that may be required given the

expected rise in employment. However, in practice, many of these rooms are tied up in more

major redevelopment proposals and may not be delivered quickly, whilst some proposals may

in fact not be implemented at all due to viability issues.

7.85 It is generally accepted that a reasonably sized hotel can be profitable in a market with a

sustainable bedroom occupancy of 60%. Demand for hotel accommodation in Reading is

currently above this “viability” level as shown in Table 7.2 overleaf, indicating that demand is

currently healthy relative to the supply of hotel rooms.


- 95 -

Table 7.2: Reading Hotel Market: Market Performance

Year Occupancy (%) AARR (£) Yield (£)

2004 YTD 65.7 70.54 46.33

2003 63.8 65.87 42.04

Sample includes: Holiday Inn, Reading Moat House, Courtyard by Marriott and Travelodge

Note: Yield has been calculated on absolute figures

Note: YTD includes up to July 2004

Source: PKF Monthly Regional UK Trends

7.86 The data indicates that it is reasonable to assume that existing demand for hotels in Reading

would actually support a greater level of supply – perhaps by as much as a further 110 – 150

bedrooms.

7.87 Corporate demand for hotel bedrooms is mainly linked to the performance of the local

economy. Reading Borough Council estimate that the number of full-time equivalent (FTE)1

people employed in Reading will grow from 77,430 people in 1996, to 96,240 by 2006 and

then to 100,280 by 2016. It follows that, between 2006 and 2016, there will need to be an

increase in hote l supply of only some 4% in order to accommodate the expected increase in

demand for hotel accommodation based solely on economic factors.

7.88 If we then allow for a demand growth of 4% over the next decade – mainly the result of rising

corporate demand – this would suggest that Reading needs a supply of around 200-250 hotel

bedrooms by 2016, in addition to those listed at Appendix 8A. Given the importance of

corporate demand we feel that 3 and 4 star hotels are needed most. However, if the conference

market developed further on the back of new venues and better marketing, then perhaps the

need would be much higher than this, although not significantly, since Reading is not a tourist

centre. Nevertheless, the current pipeline of 1,267 rooms seems well in excess of what is likely

to be required through to 2016. Accordingly, if many of these additional hotel rooms are built,

we do not feel there is a need for any more hotels in Reading. Figure 7.7 overleaf presents a

SWOT analysis of the Reading Hotel Market.

1 The FTE figures were produced for the Joint Strategic Planning Unit by Experian Business Strategies in 2003 for the Berkshire Structure Plan Examination in Public. The forecasts predict change in workplace-based employment levels within the Borough, and are based on assumptions of continued supply side constraints and the housing figures contained in Regional Planning Guidance 9.


- 96 -

Figure 7.7: Reading Hotel Market: SWOT Analysis

Strengths

• Strong midweek demand

• Good midweek yields

• Good communication links

• Growing local economy

• Diverse business community

Weaknesses

• Limited weekend demand

• Poor weekend yields

• Lack of significant tourist attractions

• Reliance on midweek business

• Poor road system

• Limited centrally located sites

• Expensive land

Opportunities

• Improve weekend occupancies

• Build more hotel accommodation

• Promote Reading’s proximity to

London and airports

• Improve traffic management

• Free up more affordable central sites

• Potential replacement theatre /

conference venue

Threats

• To many new hotels built

• Supply outstrips demand

• Not improving traffic management

and road system

• Continued poor weekend occupancy

• Demand and yields reduced through

over supply

7.89 It is relevant to acknowledge, as is accepted by various Council’s in the UK, that:

• “tourism suffers from being a low value-added sector in a high cost based economy

and like other key sectors, has to respond to competing pressures for limited

resources…”

(Source: Surrey Economic Development Action Plan)

7.90 Accordingly, hotel developers cannot generally compete with alternative users as the low

added-value associated with hotel development results in the fact that developers of other

facilities – such as offices and residential – are able to offer a higher price for land. This is one

reason why hotels are increasingly being developed in secondary locations in terms of land

values. For the same reason it is quite probable that a number of the planned hotel

developments in central Reading will not actually come about as alternative uses will create

greater added-value.


- 97 -

7.91 In conclusion we consider there are opportunities for further hotel development within

Reading, although future demand is likely to be met by the existing pipeline. However, the

difficulty will be in finding commercially viable sites at realistic prices. The limited weekend

business means that profitability is reliant on the midweek corporate market, which could be

diluted by over expansion of supply.

Summary

7.92 Reading already benefits from a substantial leisure offer and our household survey confirms

that for many leisure activities the town not only serves its own residents but also attracts users

from over a much wider area. In this section we have considered both the quantitative and

qualitative need for additional leisure facilities in the borough and also examined the market

demand for further provision.

7.93 The need for further leisure facilities within Reading Borough may be summarised as follows:

• There is a strong qualitative need for a new swimming pool / leisure centre and an ice

rink.

- A new pool is being developed as part of the Chatham Street town centre

development scheme.

- There are no plans or proposals for an ice rink; such schemes normally require

financial assistance but may be provided as part of a new arena development.

• There is more limited qualitative need for improved ten-pin bowling and a theatre /

concert hall.

- bowling provision could be improved through a relocation (2,500 to 3,000 sq

m plus 100 car spaces).

- a new theatre / concert hall venue is a longer term objective, unless also

combined with an arena development.

• There is market demand for a relocated bingo facility and a new large casino (4,000 to

5,000 sq m).

• Demand continues for A3 units in prime pitch (800-1,500 sq m).

• An arena would require a one acre site.


- 98 -

• There is likely to be a need for at least another 200-250 hotel bedrooms by 2016

(mainly in 3 and 4 star hotels to serve the growing corporate market); however, the

existing pipeline of 1,267 bedrooms appears to dwarf the likely need.

7.94 Although we have identified no material need for further cultural facilities in Reading, it

nevertheless makes planning sense, where possible, to group such activities together in a

“cultural quarter”. This helps branding and provides critical mass, thus boosting usage and

visitor numbers.


- 99 -

8. KEY PLANNING ISSUES AND STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 In the final section, we address two main issues as follows:

• we convert residual headroom expenditure into a retail floorspace requirement for

each goods category;

• in relation to non-bulky comparison goods we consider adjusting Reading City

Centre’s market share of available expenditure in the light of alternative assumptions

regarding the future dominance of the town in the regional shopping hierarchy;

and then set out our main study conclusions and recommendations to the Council.

Translating Retail Expenditure Capacity into Retail Floorspace Need

8.2 The last step in any quantitative assessment of retail need is to convert available retail

expenditure into a requirement for more retail floorspace.

8.3 Sales density measures the relative efficiency with which floorspace is used by retailers to

convert sales floorspace into retail turnover. Retailers selling high value goods from a

relatively small unit area generally achieve much higher sales densities than retailer such as

DIY or bulky furniture operators selling lower value products from a large store.

8.4 We use forecast sales densities to convert the available residual headroom expenditure at each

of the forecast years into a need (or requirement) for additional retail floorspace.

8.5 In considering what are the most realistic sales densities to use it is necessary to bear in mind

the following:

• That, due to increasing real sales productivities, sales densities relating to new retail

stores of schemes which will open in the future will generally be higher than those

which apply to all of the existing retail floorspace stock in a centre in the base year

(2004);

• That sales densities vary widely between goods categories, retailers, and for different

stores operated by the same retailers; in addition, average sales density performance

also tends to vary between centres at different levels in the retail hierarchy – higher

order centres generally achieve higher sales densities than lower order centres.


- 100 -

8.6 It is therefore necessary to adopt a range of sales densities in order to account for the

variability in retail performance between different centres and goods categories. Our assumed

sales densities are the “benchmark” sales densities which we assume for each centre / retail

category in 2004 for each main goods category. These are set out in Volume 2, Table 6 for

convenience goods and Volume 2, Tables 6A and 6B for non-bulky and bulky comparison

goods respectively. To estimate the appropriate sales density for each of the forecast years, the

2004 convenience goods sales densities are grown by 0.75% per annum and the 2004

comparison goods sales densitie s are grown by 2.25% per annum. This is to take into account

the real growth in sales productivities that occurs over time.

8.7 On the basis of adopting the above assumptions, the results of our retail need assessment for

Reading Borough as a whole are summarised in Table 8.1 below. Details for individual

centres are set out in Volume 2, Tables 10 and 13 for convenience goods, and Tables 10A

and 10B and 13A and 13B for non-bulky and bulky comparison goods respectively. For the

sake of clarif ication, the retail floorspace need estimates represent the “net additional”

floorspace required within Reading Borough (over that available in 2004) by goods category

and are non-cumulative.

Table 8.1: Indicative Retail Floorspace Need Estimates (Sq M) for Reading Borough as a

whole

Forecast Year

2009 2016 Goods Category

Sq M Net Sq M Gross1 Sq M Net Sq M Gross1

Convenience 3,062 5,103 4,474 7,460

Non-Bulky Comparison 27,568 42,410 30,803 47,390

Bulky Comparison 19,606 30,160 29,504 45,400

8.8 The retail floorspace need estimates set out in Table 8.1 necessarily incorporate broad average

sales density assumptions for future provision across the Borough. The totals indicate that

there is likely to be a need for up to 5,000 sq m gross of additional convenience goods

floorspace provision within the Borough by 2009 rising to around 7,500 sq m gross by 2016.

In broad terms this equates to a single large food superstore during the Plan period, although in

1 Gross retail floorspace estimated by applying the following net to gross ratios: convenience goods 60:100; comparison goods 65:100 (This assumes all comparison goods shopping is located in-centre; in practice, some comparison shopping may be provided in the format of retail warehouses, in which case the gross floorspace total will be lower).


- 101 -

practice new provision may be more suitably met through the development of a number of

smaller stores located within Reading City Centre and / or the District and Local Centres.

8.9 In terms of comparison goods, the assessment identifies a need for some 73,000 sq m gross of

additional floorspace within the Borough by 2011 rising to around 93,000 sq m gross by 2016,

although the totals will be less if any of the floorspace is provided in the form of retail

warehouses. Although this need is for the Borough as a whole, it is likely that a significant

proportion of the new provision would be provided in Reading City Centre. Clearly, the results

suggest there is likely to be sufficient scope to support the development of another large

shopping centre in Reading City Centre within the Plan period; indeed it may be argued that

such a scheme will be necessary if the town is to retail its existing market share of comparison

goods expenditure within the sub-region over the next 12 years. Thus in planning for the

future expansion of the city centre area over the medium to longer term the Council should be

confident of being able to justify the inclusion of significant new retail provision in any

developments.

Alternative Scenarios

8.10 Our main quantitative need assessment assumes that Reading Borough’s existing market share

of available consumer retail expenditure will remain constant through to 2016. In practice,

there may be arguments for assuming that the town’s market share should rise or fall a little

over the Plan period. If this was to happen, then clearly the need for additional retail

floorspace would also increase / decrease from the levels set out in Table 8.1 above.

8.11 The reason for perhaps adjusting Reading’s market share up or down in the future is based on

the recent and forecast retail impacts of new major shopping schemes in nearby towns. As

described in the December 2002 Berkshire Retail Study, there are three principal schemes that

should be considered in this context:

• The Festival Shopping Centre, which opened in Basingstoke Town Centre in 2002;

• The proposed comprehensive redevelopment of Bracknell Town Centre; and

• A proposed major retail scheme in Camberley Town Centre.

8.12 In addition, the Council have asked us to include the proposed town centre retail development

at High Wycombe which, we understand, is to comprise around 49,000 sq m gross of A1 retail

floorspace. This scheme was granted planning consent in Autumn 2004.


- 102 -

8.13 In practice, these four schemes will impact primarily on the non-bulky comparison goods

sector in Reading. This is because the schemes themselves trade primarily in this form of

shopping and also because it is for non-bulky comparison goods shopping that consumers

typically travel over longer distances. Accordingly we focus only on non-bulky comparison

goods; we feel that there are no sound reasons for adjusting Reading’s existing market shares

for bulky comparison goods or convenience goods in the future.

8.14 First, there may be a case for increasing Reading’s market share over its existing (2004) level;

that is, increasing expenditure clawback from competing centres. This is because its share will

have been reduced as a result of trade division to the new Festival Place Shopping Centre at

Basingstoke and that the town’s (higher) market share prior to Festival Place is more

appropriate. However, the Berkshire Retail Study forecast a trade division from Reading to

Basingstoke of just £14 million1, and there is no evidence from the household survey carried

out as part of this study to suggest that the actual division has been significantly higher.

Therefore, we do not feel that there is a strong case for increasing Reading’s market share in

the future, particularly when its share of available spend pre-Festival Place had already risen

on the back of its own Oracle Shopping Centre scheme (1999). Moreover, draft PPS 6 states

that planners should:

• “develop a vision and strategy for the development of a balanced network of centres

in their region and for each sub-region, and avoid excessive concentration of facilities

in the highest level of centres” (Paragraph 2.11).

8.15 Second, there may be a case for reducing Reading’s market share in the future; that is

accepting that expenditure leakage to other centres will increase. This is because the major

retail commitments at Bracknell, Camberley and High Wycombe will give a significant boost

to the status of these towns and their additional retail facilities will divert trade away from

Reading. The Berkshire Retail Study estimated that the Bracknell and Camberley schemes

would be likely to divert around £85 million of non-bulky comparison goods trade from

Reading by 20112. In addition, and this is only a very rough estimate indeed, we may expect

the High Wycombe town centre redevelopment to divert around £25 million of non-bulky

comparison goods expenditure from Reading City Centre in 2011. This assumes a scheme

turnover of around £150-200 million. If all of this happened in practice, then our estimate of

residual headroom expenditure in Reading City Centre would reduce from an estimated £254

1 At 2006 in 2000 prices. Source: Berkshire Retail Study Table 7.2. 2 Source: Berkshire Retail Study Tables 7.3 and 7.4. Converted to 2003 prices.


- 103 -

million in 2016 to around £144 million, and in the borough as a whole from £257 million to

around £147 million. The effect of such a reduction in turnover would be to reduce Reading

City Centre’s share of available non-bulky comparison goods expenditure within the survey

area from around 26% (now) to 23% (in 2016) - a fall of 3% points.

8.16 In practice, it is difficult to be precise about the likely impact of future shopping schemes and

therefore the estimated trade divisions away from Reading should be treated with considerable

caution. However, it is logical to assume that the major redevelopment of Bracknell,

Camberley and High Wycombe Town Centres, will attract some existing spend away from

Reading and that this will reduce the expenditure capacity of Reading and therefore the need

for additional retail floorspace in the borough in the future. In these circumstances the

assumption of constant market shares may lead to a “double counting” of consumer spend (ie.

it would assume that some money is spent twice – in Reading and say also at Bracknell and /

or Camberley) and thus could actually inflate the quantitative need for additional retail in

Reading. Equally, however, the provision of major new retail facilities in Reading City Centre

in the future could clawback some, or all, of the expenditure lost to Bracknell, Camberley and

High Wycombe etc, thus moving the position back towards the borough maintaining its

existing market share. On balance, we therefore recommend that the Council treat the retail

floorspace need estimates in Table 8.1 (and in Volume 2) as maximums and that actual need

may be less. Nevertheless, there still remains a considerable need for further comparison

goods shopping over the next decade and on a scale to justify the proposed expansion of

Reading City Centre.

Main Conclusions and Recommendations to the Council

8.17 Adopting a constant market share approach, we forecast a growing quantitative need for

additional comparison goods retail floorspace within Reading Borough through to 2016. An

important component of this need, however, is derived from the substantial level of over-

trading which we estimate is characterising the city centre and out of centre retail warehousing

at the present time.

8.18 For comparison goods as a whole, and assuming a constant market share, we forecast a retail

expenditure capacity within Reading Borough of £284 million in 2009, rising to £403 million

by 2016. These figures comprise £198 million and £86 million for non-bulky and bulky

comparison goods respectively in 2009 and £257 million and £146 million in 2016. We

recommend that these expenditure capacity totals are treated as maximums because of the


- 104 -

possible future trade divisions to the comprehensive town centre retail schemes at Bracknell,

Camberley and High Wycombe.

8.19 In terms of future comparison goods retail investment, we recommend that this is targeted

primarily at Reading City Centre. There appears to be sufficient quantitative need to support

another major shopping centre in the city centre during the Plan period or significant

additional retail provision in other formats consistent with the planned extension of the city

centre are over the medium to long term.

8.20 We therefore recommend that the Council supports proposals that may come forward within

Reading City Centre to improve the quality of the retail offer and shopping environment for

consumers, particularly if these will provide the fashion and specialist / independent shops

which are currently underprovided.

8.21 We would anticipate that there is likely to be retail demand in the future for only very modest

comparison goods additions to retail floorspace at the nine District and Local Centres in

Reading Borough, especially if the city centre significantly extends its retail offer. In fact, the

focus may well be on the need to protect the existing retail offer from a growing demand from

services uses and residential for change of use. We believe that the District and Local Centres

will continue to perform a vital function in providing for the everyday shopping needs of local

people and therefore should complement the city centre as it develops into a major comparison

goods shopping, leisure and business destination.

8.22 For convenience goods , we forecast a modest expenditure capacity of around £30 million

within Reading Borough in 2009, assuming a constant market share, rising to £44 million by

2016. This is sufficient to support a new large superstore by 2016, although a number of

smaller stores in District and Local Centres may be more appropriate in planning terms.

8.23 In terms of leisure , there is a strong qualitative need for a new swimming pool / leisure centre

and an ice rink. The former is already being provided for as part of the Chatham Street town

centre development, whilst the latter is likely to be viable only with financial support from the

public sector, although it could be combined with a new arena development

8.24 In addition, we have identified a need for improved ten-pin bowling and a theatre / concert

hall. The provision of the former is dependent on the relocation / closure of the existing low


- 105 -

grade facility at Calcot, which is located outside of the Borough, whilst the latter is a longer

term objective, but could perhaps be combined with an arena development.

8.25 We have also identified likely market demand for a relocated bingo facility and a new large

casino, whilst demand continues for A3 units in prime pitch locations in Reading City Centre.

8.26 Lastly, we consider there is a need for around 200-250 additional hotel bedrooms in the

Reading area through to 2016, although this requirement is already dwarfed by the existing

pipeline in the Borough of 1,267 rooms As future demand will originate mainly from the

corporate sector, we recommend that 3 and 4 star hotels are provided.

READING BOROUGH COUNCIL

RETAIL & LEISURE STUDY OF READING

APPENDICES



APPENDIX 1

Consultants Brief

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Team Client: Reading Borough Council Project Leader: Kiaran Roughan Day-to-day contact: Mark Worringham 1.2 Background Information Reading Borough Council is in the process of reviewing its Local Plan and producing a Local Development Framework. In January 2003, the Council published the Reading Borough Local Plan: Issues Report and Draft Spatial Strategy for public consultation. This can be viewed at: http://www.reading.gov.uk/Documents/servingyou/planning/futuredevelopments/issues-report.pdf During the course of 2004, the Council will prepare a draft Local Development Framework to replace the Local Plan. The proposed Study would underpin policies within the Local Development Framework. Draft Planning Policy Statement 6 directs that local planning authorities, in conjunction with business and other interests, should ‘assess the need for new floorspace for retail, leisure and other key town centre uses, taking account of both quantitative and qualitative factors’ (paragraph 2.14). It also states that local needs assessments ‘will form part of the evidence base for Development Plan Documents, particularly the core strategy’ (paragraph 2.26). In addition, the Statement directs that ‘local planning authorities should allocate sufficient sites to meet anticipated demand for the next five years’ (paragraph 2.44). Underlining this, Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9) states in policy Q5 that; ‘in preparing development plans, local authorities should: … (ii) assess the need for retail, leisure and office development in their area’. This demonstrates the need for further retail study work to be undertaken in Reading Borough. In 2002, Colliers CRE produced a Berkshire Retail Study on behalf of the six Berkshire unitary authorities, including Reading Borough Council. This identified need for future retail development in both qualitative and quantitative terms, and need for major leisure development in qualitative terms. This study should provide the context for further retail and leisure work in Reading. It can be viewed at: http://www.berks-jsu.gov.uk/statistical/stats_eco.htm 1.3 Objective The objective of the study is to identify the level of retail and leisure development needed within Reading Borough, in accordance with PPG6/PPS6, to provide a context for policies and proposals in the forthcoming Local Development Framework for Reading Borough and any Action Area Plan for the Reading Central Area, with particular reference to the amount of floorspace that needs to be allocated on sites to provide for future development.

2. STUDY DETAILS 2.1 Scope of the Study The study should be an assessment of need for further retail and leisure development within Reading Borough, in both quantitative and qualitative terms, in order to inform the emerging Local Development Framework for Reading Borough. This should include development within the town centre, district and local centres and in other out of town locations. 2.2 Content and Methodology RETAIL The study should assess both quantitative and qualitative need for new retail floorspace and facilities. Whilst quantitative need takes precedence as the key driver for assessing the level of future retail floorspace needed, qualitative need is also an important aspect of overall need. The assessment of quantitative need for further retail development should be based on the existing catchment area of Reading centre, as set out in the Berkshire Retail Study 2002. This catchment extends substantially further than the boundaries of Reading Borough itself. Assessment of need for retail floorspace should be broken down into three categories: non-bulky comparison goods, bulky comparison goods, and convenience goods. LEISURE Leisure should be considered within the Review in accordance with the provisions of PPG6/PPS6. Matters to be considered should include: • A Cultural Quarter • Range of restaurants, pubs and clubs • Ten pin bowling/ice rink • Hotel requirements by star rating • • Health and fitness (see Sports Facilities and University PMP work) • Bingo and casino (review current provision, assess future demand and location) RESULTS The results of the study should be expressed in terms of need for further retail and leisure floorspace over the fifteen years from the base year. This should be broken down into three five-year periods. The Consultant should seek the input of the local business community, insofar as is possible, in the production of the study.

2.3 Surveys required The assessment of quantitative need will require a bespoke household survey. Tenderers should provide for the cost of carrying out these surveys, providing justification for the number of surveys proposed to achieve a robust study. There will need to be strong justification for bespoke surveys to provide an assessment of qualitative need. Where possible, the study should draw on the qualitative need assessment already carried out for Reading in the Berkshire Retail Study 2002. 2.4 Base Year The base year for the study should be 2001. The end year of the study will be 2016. 3. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 3.1 Data Sources The Consultant will be required to utilise the following sources of data provided by the Council.

• Existing retail floorspace: the Council will provide accurate floorspace data from its own surveys.

• Population: the Population in Berkshire document produced by the Joint Strategic Planning Unit will be used.

• Household Survey extent: the extent of the household survey will be decided with reference to the Berkshire Retail Study 2002 produced by Colliers CRE.

• Leisure information can be made available in the form of the following studies:

• Sports Facilities Strategy - Strategic Leisure • Playing Pitch Strategy - Strategic Leisure/Scott Wilson • Cultural Strategy - RBC • Thames Parks Plan - RBC • Waterways Vision - RBC/EA/BW/Waterways Trust

These rely to various extents on household surveys and other questionnaire studies the results of which can be made available for use in this study.

Other required data sources should be agreed with the client before work begins on the study. 3.2 Outputs The finished report should be presented in a number of parts: • An interim report; • A series of digitised maps as appropriate; • A copy of all GIS data captured for this audit along with analysis in MapInfo

compatible format to be supplied on cd-rom; • Suitable analysis of findings on needs and requirements; • Text report outlining the aims of the study, methodology, assumptions made and

analysis of results and recommendations in terms of the assessment and review of the local plan and;

• Text report outlining and including recommendations for policies in the forthcoming review of the Council’s local plan

The consultant will be responsible for defining information needs and obtaining the necessary information. The consultants will have access to the Council’s mapping services for base map information and existing relevant digitised information. All information supplied will be subject to copyright protection in terms of its use. Two bound and one unbound copy of the study, along with an electronic copy on CD-Rom, will be delivered to the Council upon completion. 3.3 Timetable and Meetings The Council’s programme envisages that the assessment should be available by October 2004 to enable it to inform broad strategy on retail and leisure provision in the Borough and a more detailed Action Area Plan for the Reading Central Area. The consultants will be required to provide a work programme designed to meet these deadlines, allowing for appropriate liaison with council officers on draft findings and the draft strategy. The consultant and client will hold meetings as and when necessary, but as a minimum will include the following: • Project Set-up meeting to confirm the project process and timetable and establish

information needs and sources (July 2004, before work begins on the study); • Discussion of conclusions on existing information and recommendations on

further requirements in respect of the assessment of need (end of August 2004); • Survey Work and assessment (September/October 2004); • Presentation to officers of draft report (end of November 2004); • Final presentation to officers and invited Members (December 2004). Either party may request further meetings to update progress, clarify requirements or discuss emerging issues, although it is anticipated that this will entail no more than two additional meetings. 4. TENDER PROCESS You are asked to submit the following information as part of your tender submission;

� A full statement of the approach and methodology of how the identified work will

be carried out for each phase of the project Taking account of the work already undertaken as part of the Berkshire Study.

� A detailed project timetable, outlining how your approach would fit with the key dates outlined in these tender documents.

� A breakdown of the project costs, including the time spent by each nominated individual against specific tasks.

� An indication of where additional work (not identified in this document) is considered essential as part of the project.

� Examples of similar work undertaken elsewhere, including contact names to whom the council can refer for references;

� Names of individuals who will be actively involved in the project and their expertise and relevant experience. Brief CVs to be included as an annex.

� Details of how the project will be managed.

� An electronic version of the submission should also be submitted.

The fee for this study will be fixed and inclusive of all expenses but excluding VAT. The exact amount will be agreed with the consultant before commencement of the study. The consultant will invoice the client for this agreed fee on delivery of the completed study, whereupon payment will become due. When payment is made to the consultant, the copyright of all elements of the project shall become the property of the client. Tenders should set out the proposed fixed price for completing the work within the timescales specified including any expenses and other costs. Rates for any additional work to that set out in the above specification should also be provided. The successful company/practice will be expected to enter into a formal contract based on the above specification. Bidding consultants should aim for a tender document of no more than 12 A4 pages, excluding plans and CVs. 4.1 Delivery of the Tender Submissions should be made in a sealed envelope, marked ‘tender’ and with no other distinguishing features, and received by 5.00pm, Wednesday 23 June 2004. Tenders should be addressed to: Kiaran Roughan Planning and Transport Directorate Reading Borough Council Civic Offices Reading RG1 7TD

4.2 Selection Criteria The evaluation of the submissions will be based on the following criteria. � Value for money � Quality of submission � Relevant experience and quality of nominated individuals involved � Proposed methodology and approach � Track record in successfully undertaking and completing similar projects 4.3 Decision and Interviews The Council reserves the right to make a provisional decision solely on the basis of the submitted tender documents, although a final offer would normally be subject to interview. If no clear winner emerges from the selection process, a shortlist will be prepared and candidates will be invited to make a presentation on 30 June 2004 at

the Civic Offices, Reading. It is intended that the successful tender be chosen, subject to references and contract, by no later than 7July 2004. Reading Borough Council is commissioning the project in accordance with its standing orders. Officers will provide project management advice and monitor performance. If you have had any involvement in work that may give rise to a conflict of interest, please can you indicate this within your tender submission. 4.4 Contacts The principal contacts for this project will be: Mark Worringham (Planner, Berkshire Joint Strategic Planning Unit) 01628 796518 [email protected] Kiaran Roughan (Team Leader, Planning Section) 0118 939 0900 Ext 4530 [email protected] Steve Ward (Manager, Leisure Services) 0119 939 0379 [email protected]



APPENDIX 2

The Deposit Draft Berkshire Structure Plan, 2001-2016 (Extract)



APPENDIX 3

Household Tele phone Survey



APPENDIX 3A

Survey Methodology and Sampling



APPENDIX 3B

Definition of Zones


Definition of Household Survey Zones

Zone Name Postcode

Zone 1 Hungerford & Wantage OX12 0 OX12 7 OX12 8 OX12 9 RG17 0 RG17 7 RG17 8 RG20 7 RG20 8 SN8 2

Zone 2 Whitchurch & Ludgershall RG17 9 RG20 0 RG20 4 RG20 5 RG20 9 RG25 3 RG28 7 SN8 3 SP11 0 SP11 6 SP11 9

Zone 3 Didcot & Wallingford OX10 0 OX10 6 OX10 8 OX10 9 OX11 0 OX11 7 OX11 8 OX11 9 OX14 4 OX49 5 RG9 5 RG9 6

Zone 4 Pangbourne & Goring RG18 0 RG18 9 RG20 6 RG7 5 RG7 6 RG8 0 RG8 7 RG8 8 RG8 9


Zone 5 Newbury & Thatcham RG14 1

RG14 2 RG14 3 RG14 5 RG14 6 RG14 7 RG18 3 RG18 4 RG19 3 RG19 4

Zone 6 Tadley RG19 6 RG19 8 RG26 3 RG26 4 RG26 5 RG7 2 RG7 3 RG7 4 RG7 8

Zone 7 Basingstoke RG21 3 RG21 4 RG21 5 RG21 6 RG21 7 RG21 8 RG22 4 RG22 5 RG22 6 RG23 7 RG23 8 RG24 7 RG24 8 RG24 9 RG25 2 RG27 9 RG29 1

Zone 8 High Wycombe HP10 0 HP10 8 HP10 9 HP11 1 HP11 2 HP12 3 HP12 4 HP13 5 HP13 6 HP13 7 HP14 3 HP14 4 HP15 6 HP15 7 HP9 1 HP9 2 SL7 3 SL8 5


Zone 9 Henley on Thames RG9 1

RG9 2 RG9 3 RG9 4 RG10 8

Zone 10 Reading – Caversham RG4 5 RG4 7 RG4 8 RG4 9

Zone 11 Reading – Woodley RG4 6 RG5 3 RG5 4 RG6 1

Zone 12 Reading – Central RG1 1 RG1 2 RG1 3 RG1 4 RG1 5 RG1 6 RG1 7 RG1 8

Zone 13 Reading – Tilehurst RG30 1 RG30 2 RG30 4 RG30 6 RG31 5 RG31 6

Zone 14 Reading – Calcot RG30 3 RG31 4 RG31 7

Zone 15 Reading – Whitley RG2 0 RG2 6 RG2 7 RG2 8

Zone 16 Reading – Shinfield RG2 9 RG6 4 RG6 5 RG6 6 RG6 7

Zone 17 Reading – Spencers Wood RG7 1


Zone 18 Camberley, Fleet &

Farnborough GU11 2 GU14 0 GU14 6 GU14 7 GU14 8 GU14 9 GU15 1 GU15 2 GU15 3 GU15 4 GU16 6 GU16 7 GU16 8 GU16 9 GU17 0 GU17 9 GU46 6 GU46 7 GU47 0 GU47 8 GU47 9 GU51 1 GU51 2 GU51 3 GU51 4 GU51 5 GU52 0 GU52 6 GU52 7 GU52 8 GU52 9 RG27 0 RG27 8 RG40 3 RG40 4 RG45 6 RG45 7

Zone 19 Wokingham RG10 0 RG10 9 RG40 1 RG40 2 RG40 5 RG41 1 RG41 2 RG41 3 RG41 4 RG41 5 RG42 4 RG42 5 RG8 3


Zone 20 Windsor & Maidenhead RG42 6

SL3 9 SL4 1 SL4 2 SL4 3 SL4 4 SL4 5 SL4 6 SL6 0 SL6 1 SL6 2 SL6 3 SL6 4 SL6 5 SL6 6 SL6 7 SL6 8 SL6 9 SL7 1 SL7 2

TW19 5 Zone 21 Bracknell & Ascot GU18 5

GU19 5 GU20 6 GU24 8 GU24 9 GU25 4 RG12 0 RG12 1 RG12 2 RG12 7 RG12 8 RG12 9 RG42 1 RG42 2 RG42 3 RG42 7 SL5 0 SL5 7 SL5 8 SL5 9

TW20 0


Zone 22 Slough SL0 0

SL0 9 SL1 1 SL1 2 SL1 3 SL1 4 SL1 5 SL1 6 SL1 7 SL1 8 SL1 9 SL2 1 SL2 2 SL2 3 SL2 4 SL2 5 SL3 0 SL3 6 SL3 7 SL3 8

TW18 4 TW19 6



APPENDIX 3C

Catchment Area Definitions

Reading – Household Telephone Survey

Objective

• A telephone survey of households living within the Reading area and its shopping hinterland was

carried out during September / October 2004. The objective was to obtain comprehensive information

on consumer shopping trip patterns and to establish the reason(s) why households shop at particular

centres for convenience goods (food), and non-bulky and bulky comparison goods (non-food)

shopping.

Methodology

• It was agreed that the survey would concentrate on households living within 22 zones, each being

defined in terms of postal geography, as is usual (see Appendix 3B for definitions).

• Structured interviews were carried out, by telephone, with the person responsible for the main shop.

For the Reading survey, we interviewed a total of 1,700 households to ascertain their actual shopping

patterns and their views.

• The aim was to achieve around 77 interviews in each zone. The normally accepted minimum size for

statistical purposes is 70 interviews per zone. Adopting what is standard practice, we opted for a

consistent absolute sample in each zone, rather than one proportional to zone population. This is

because the latter approach would have meant a significantly larger number of interviews overall to

ensure a minimum absolute number of interviews in the less densely populated zones. There was not

the budget available to adopt this approach, nor was it considered essential.

• By adopting a consistent number of interviews within the zones irrespective of the population size of

each zone, we accordingly over sample in some zones and under sample in others, while maintaining

the same overall sample size. At the analysis stage of the survey, the individual samples are then

“weighted” to their appropriated representation within the survey population to produce an overall

result which is representative of the survey area as a whole. Without the weighting, the less densely

populated zones would have a disproportionately large effect on the overall survey results contrary to

their population size. The whole principle of weighting therefore allows the characteristics of less

densely populated zones to be accurately represented without the unnecessary cost of a grossly inflated

sample.

Catchment Area Definitions

• Our analysis permits the core, primary, secondary and tertiary catchments to be defined for Reading.

Although there are many ways of defining different types of catchment areas, for the purpose of this

study we have adopted the following definitions:-

− core catchment: comprising those zones from which a centre attracts the majority of generated

expenditure (ie. 51% or more);

− primary catchment: comprises those zones from which a centre attracts the largest single flow of

generated expenditure (this may be less than 50%);

− secondary catchment: comprises those remaining zones from which a centre attracts 10% or

more of generated expenditure;

− tertiary catchment: comprises all remaining zones from which a centre attracts 2% or more of

generated expenditure.

• Beyond the tertiary catchment, the full results show that Reading may attract even smaller amounts of

expenditure from additional zones. Such expenditure flows will typically account for very low

proportions of overall town turnover. We have therefore excluded these zones from our wider

definition of a catchment area, although such flows have been considered as part of the retail

floorspace need assessment set out in Section 5, 6 and 8 in the main report.



APPENDIX 3D

Key Results

Colliers CREResearch and Consultancy

Retail and Leisure StudyReading Borough Council

Volume 2: Appendices

TABLE 1: AGE AND GENDER OF RESPONDENTS (%)

16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Refused Male Female

1 Hungerford & Wantage 1.3 7.6 11.4 13.9 16.5 49.4 0.0 32.9 67.1

2 Whitchurch & Ludgershall 0.0 6.4 25.6 12.8 12.8 39.7 0.0 28.2 71.8

3 Didcot & Wallingford 2.6 9.0 15.4 12.8 12.8 46.2 0.0 25.6 74.4

4 Pangbourne & Goring 1.3 6.4 10.3 9.0 20.5 51.3 0.0 32.1 67.9

5 Newbury & Thatcham 1.3 9.0 15.4 16.7 19.2 37.2 0.0 38.5 61.5

6 Tadley 1.3 15.4 21.8 17.9 11.5 32.1 0.0 35.9 64.1

7 Basingstoke 5.2 16.9 16.9 10.4 10.4 37.7 1.3 29.9 70.1

8 High Wycombe 3.8 9.0 16.7 12.8 10.3 43.6 2.6 32.1 67.9

9 Henley on Thames 3.9 9.1 22.1 13.0 16.9 35.1 0.0 28.6 71.4

10 Reading - Caversham 2.6 3.9 21.1 13.2 21.1 38.2 0.0 35.5 64.5

11 Reading - Woodley 2.6 15.6 13.0 23.4 16.9 28.6 0.0 36.4 63.6

12 Reading - Central 7.8 19.5 19.5 9.1 10.4 33.8 0.0 62.3 37.7

13 Reading - Tilehurst 6.4 23.1 15.4 7.7 14.1 32.1 0.0 29.5 70.5

14 Reading - Calcot 3.9 13.0 22.1 24.7 10.4 26.0 0.0 40.3 58.4

15 Reading - Whitley 5.2 18.2 16.9 15.6 11.7 32.5 0.0 37.7 62.3

16 Reading - Shinfield 6.5 23.4 24.7 14.3 11.7 19.5 0.0 31.2 68.8

17 Reading - Spencers Wood 2.6 13.0 19.5 18.2 6.5 39.0 1.3 35.1 64.9

18 Camberley, Fleet & Farnborough 5.2 11.7 16.9 11.7 14.3 35.1 1.3 37.7 62.3

19 Wokingham 3.9 11.7 16.9 16.9 16.9 32.5 0.0 32.5 67.5

20 Windsor & Maidenhead 3.9 13.2 30.3 17.1 9.2 25.0 1.3 31.6 68.4

21 Bracknell & Ascot 7.8 13.0 13.0 15.6 20.8 27.3 0.0 37.7 58.4

22 Slough 5.2 14.3 14.3 16.9 7.8 40.3 0.0 36.4 57.1

TABLE 2: SAMPLE PROFILE (%)

AB C1 C2 D E1 E2 Refused

1 Hungerford & Wantage 21.5 22.8 20.3 11.4 20.3 1.3 2.5 100

2 Whitchurch & Ludgershall 16.7 20.5 29.5 6.4 17.9 0.0 9.0 100

3 Didcot & Wallingford 23.1 23.1 12.8 5.1 24.4 1.3 10.3 100

4 Pangbourne & Goring 28.2 23.1 14.1 7.7 12.8 2.6 11.5 100

5 Newbury & Thatcham 20.5 30.8 9.0 14.1 10.3 0.0 15.4 100

6 Tadley 26.9 25.6 14.1 5.1 10.3 2.6 15.4 100

7 Basingstoke 20.8 18.2 10.4 7.8 40.3 0.0 2.6 100

8 High Wycombe 21.8 20.5 5.1 2.6 43.6 0.0 6.4 100

9 Henley on Thames 24.7 32.5 20.8 3.9 15.6 0.0 2.6 100

10 Reading - Caversham 17.1 39.5 17.1 2.6 17.1 1.3 5.3 100

11 Reading - Woodley 6.5 40.3 16.9 7.8 27.3 0.0 1.3 100

12 Reading - Central 9.1 45.5 29.9 5.2 10.4 0.0 0.0 100

13 Reading - Tilehurst 11.5 33.3 17.9 7.7 24.4 2.6 2.6 100

14 Reading - Calcot 15.6 40.3 26.0 2.6 10.4 1.3 3.9 100

15 Reading - Whitley 11.7 26.0 20.8 6.5 26.0 6.5 2.6 100

16 Reading - Shinfield 23.4 40.3 18.2 3.9 11.7 2.6 0.0 100

17 Reading - Spencers Wood 18.2 36.4 13.0 3.9 15.6 1.3 11.7 100

18 Camberley, Fleet & Farnborough 22.1 20.8 9.1 2.6 41.6 1.3 2.6 100

19 Wokingham 39.0 35.1 7.8 3.9 10.4 1.3 2.6 100

20 Windsor & Maidenhead 22.4 40.8 10.5 3.9 11.8 5.3 5.3 100

21 Bracknell & Ascot 14.3 40.3 13.0 7.8 20.8 0.0 3.9 100

22 Slough 26.0 20.8 10.4 13.0 23.4 3.9 2.6 100

Average for all Centres 20.1 30.8 15.8 6.2 20.3 1.6 5.5 100

GenderAge

Zone

Zone

Social GradeTotal

HOUSEHOLD SURVEY

Colliers CRE Research & Consultancy

Retail & Leisure StudyReading Borough Council


HOUSEHOLD SURVEY TABLES

TABLE 3: CATCHMENT AREAS OF TOWN CENTRES FOR NON-BULKY COMPARISON GOODS SHOPPING

Zones From Which Centre Attracts

Centre

The Majority (51% or more) of Available Expenditure (%) Core Catchment

Area

The Largest Share of Available

Expenditure (%) Primary Catchment

Area

10% or More of Available

Expenditure (%) Secondary

Catchment Area


Expenditure (%) Tertiary Catchment

Area

Outside Catchment

Area

Reading City Centre/ Oracle Centre/ Broad St Mall

Zone 4 (62.7%) Zone 10 (78.5%) Zone 11 (76.2%) Zone 12 (95.9%) Zone 13 (91.3%) Zone 14 (82.8%) Zone 15 (87.7%) Zone 16 (80.1%) Zone 17 (68.4%)

Zone 9 (49.5%) Zone 19 (45.9%)

Zone 3 (28.2%) Zone 5 (15.4%) Zone 6 (19.3%) Zone 8 (12.4%) Zone 18 (10.7%) Zone 20 (12.4%) Zone 21 (19.3%)

Zone 1 (7.1%) Zone 2 (3.2%) Zone 7 (7.7%)

Zone 22 (2.2%)

-

Reading – Emmer Green District Centre - - - - Zones 1-22

Reading – Caversham District Centre - - - - Zones 1-22

Reading – Tilehurst Triangle District Centre - - - - Zones 1-22

Reading – Meadway District Centre - - - - Zones 1-22

Reading – Cemetery Junction District Centre - - - - Zones 1-22

Reading – Wokingham Rd District Centre - - - - Zones 1-22

Reading – Oxford Rd West District Centre - - - - Zones 1-22



Volume 2: Appendices Reading – Whitley St Local Centre - - - - Zones 1-22

Reading – Shinfield Rd Local Centre - - - - Zones 1-22

Basingstoke

Zone 6 (58.3%) Zone 7 (76.0%) - Zone 2 (27.0%)

Zone 5 (8.6%) Zone 14 (2.8%) Zone 15 (3.7%) Zone 17 (9.9%) Zone 18 (5.1%)

Zones 1, 3, 4, 8-13, 16 and 19-22

Bracknell - - Zone 21 (19.8%) Zone 19 (8.8%) Zones 1-18, 20 and 22

Camberley

- Zone 18 (37.0%) Zone 21 (22.7%) -

Zone 7 (2.1%) Zone 16 (2.0%) Zone 17 (4.8%) Zone 19 (3.7%)

Zones 1-6, 8-15, 20 and 22

Guildford - - Zone 18 (13.4%) Zone 7 (2.5%) Zone 21 (7.5%)

Zones 1-6, 8-17, 19, 20 and 22

High Wycombe Zone 8 (55.0%) - - Zone 3 (3.0%) Zones 1, 2, 4-7 and 9-22

Maidenhead - - Zone 20 (25.3%) Zone 9 (2.1%)

Zone 19 (2.6%) Zone 22 (3.3%)

Zones 1-8, 10-18 and 21

Newbury Zone 5 (69.1%) Zone 2 (28.7%)

Zone 1 (15.2%) Zone 4 (22.5%) Zone 6 (16.4%)

Zone 3 (3.8%) Zones 7-22

Oxford - Zone 3 (28.5%) Zone 1 (24.2%) Zone 4 (2.2%) Zone 9 (2.2%)

Zone 10 (2.4%)

Zones 2, 5-8 and 11-22

Slough Zone 22 (67.7%) - Zone 20 (12.0%) Zone 8 (3.0%) Zone 21 (4.3%) Zones 1-7 and 9-19




Windsor - Zone 20 (30.8%) Zone 22 (11.2%)


Zones 1-8, 10 and 12-18

Note: Only centres with an overall market share of available expenditure of 2.0% or more for non-bulky comparison goods are listed, with the exception of District and Local Centres in Reading Borough.




TABLE 4: NON BULKY COMPARISON GOODS SHOPPING - USAGE OF CENTRES (%)

Town CentreMain

Nominated Centre

SecondNominated

Centre

Reading Town Centre / Oracle Centre / Broad Street Mall 24.4 20.7

Basingstoke 7.9 4.1

Bracknell 1.9 3.4

Camberley 6.5 8.0

Guildford 2.4 4.3

High Wycombe 4.1 2.0

Maidenhead 2.7 3.6

Newbury 4.7 3.7

Oxford 1.9 4.0

Slough 7.8 4.6

Windsor 4.9 5.0

Other 30.8 36.6

Total 100 100

Note: Only centres with an overall market share of available expenditure of 2.0% or more for non-bulky comparison goods are listed.

TABLE 5: NON BULKY COMPARISON GOODS SHOPPING - FREQUENCY OF VISIT TO MAIN CENTRE(%)

Town CentreMore than

once a week

Once a week

2-3 times a month

Once a monthOnce every 2-3 months

Once every 4-6 months

Less oftenDon't know /

VariesTotal

Reading Town Centre / Oracle Centre / Broad St Mall 4.5 14.2 18.7 24.0 21.9 7.4 6.1 3.2 100

Basingstoke 6.0 17.5 17.4 24.5 13.6 4.4 16.6 0.0 100

Bracknell 7.3 21.8 14.4 14.4 18.1 7.3 14.5 2.3 100

Camberley 0.0 11.0 26.5 12.7 20.8 12.7 16.2 0.0 100

Guildford 8.0 4.7 12.7 29.0 28.7 8.8 8.0 0.0 100

High Wycombe 13.1 10.2 13.1 16.4 14.5 9.8 22.9 0.0 100

Maidenhead 0.6 25.2 32.7 0.9 18.3 4.2 18.2 0.0 100

Newbury 9.5 27.5 16.5 21.1 6.0 12.0 6.7 0.7 100

Oxford 3.4 12.6 14.7 30.6 22.8 15.9 0.0 0.0 100

Slough 6.9 10.3 24.0 21.5 9.6 3.5 19.0 5.2 100

Windsor 0.0 9.8 38.2 16.2 14.4 15.5 3.5 2.3 100

Average for all Centres 5.4 15.0 20.8 19.2 17.2 9.2 12.0 1.2 100


HOUSEHOLD SURVEY




TABLE 6: NON BULKY COMPARISON GOODS SHOPPING - REASON FOR VISITING MAIN CENTRE (%)

Town CentreClose to home /

convenient

Close to

work

Good choice of

shops/ range of stores

Good range of

major stores

Pedestrianised streets / attractive

environment

Goodvalue

for money

Good/ cheap public

transport

Ease of

parking

Free/ cheap

parking

Good quality

products

Part of joint to trip to other

facility/ centre

More convenient/ easier to get

to

Friends/ family take me

Habit / familiar / always

go there

Undercover / All under one

roof

Just a nice

centreOther Total

Reading Town Centre / Oracle Centre / Broad St Mall 52.5 3.1 35.0 4.0 0.1 0.3 1.2 0.8 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 100

Basingstoke 45.6 2.5 29.8 3.3 1.2 0.0 1.2 2.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 6.1 100

Bracknell 62.6 0.0 28.5 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Camberley 43.1 0.0 29.8 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.8 0.0 3.0 100

Guildford 21.6 0.0 28.0 0.0 18.3 0.0 0.0 24.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 100

High Wycombe 87.5 0.0 5.9 0.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Maidenhead 83.8 0.0 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Newbury 51.5 1.0 34.2 3.7 1.8 0.6 0.0 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 100

Oxford 3.0 3.0 61.8 13.2 0.0 9.9 6.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Slough 79.1 3.4 11.2 0.3 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.4 100

Windsor 64.0 0.0 20.5 7.8 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Average for all Centres 53.7 2.2 30.2 2.7 2.2 0.7 0.7 2.4 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 1.8 0.1 1.9 100


HOUSEHOLD SURVEY




TABLE 7: NON BULKY COMPARISON GOODS SHOPPING - MODE OF TRANSPORT TO MAIN CENTRE(%)

Town CentreCar

DriverCar

passenger

Carpark &

rideBus Train Walked Cycle Taxi Other Total

Reading Town Centre / Oracle Centre / Broad St Mall 52.4 7.2 3.4 21.1 6.3 8.3 0.9 0.4 0.1 100

Basingstoke 55.3 13.3 0 15.5 0.4 9.3 0.0 6.2 0.0 100

Bracknell 58.4 23.8 0 6.0 6.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Camberley 73.3 10.6 0 11.8 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Guildford 97.7 0.0 0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

High Wycombe 54.9 20.1 0 15.6 0.0 9.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Maidenhead 75.4 4.2 0 4.2 0.0 8.4 7.9 0.0 0.0 100

Newbury 63.1 12.5 0 8.4 0.8 15.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Oxford 50.2 21.3 14.2 9.2 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Slough 55.0 17.9 0 10.2 1.4 15.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Windsor 66.0 9.7 0.0 7.8 0.0 14.1 0.0 2.3 0.0 100

Average for all centres 63.8 12.8 1.6 10.0 2.4 7.8 0.8 0.8 0.0 100


TABLE 8: NON BULKY COMPARISON GOODS SHOPPING - JOURNEY TIME TO MAIN CENTRE BY ZONE (%)

Zone5 mins or less

6-10mins

11-15mins

16-20 mins

21-25mins

26-30mins

Over30 mins

Total






6 Tadley 4.3 8.7 33.3 39.1 4.3 1.4 8.7 100

7 Basingstoke 21.1 36.8 19.3 8.8 3.5 5.3 5.3 100

8 High Wycombe 17.3 21.2 19.2 9.6 13.5 3.8 15.4 100

9 Henley on Thames 20.3 11.6 14.5 34.8 5.8 7.2 5.8 100


11 Reading - Woodley 10.8 23.0 20.3 25.7 6.8 8.1 5.4 100

12 Reading - Central 17.3 33.3 28.0 14.7 1.3 4.0 1.3 100


14 Reading - Calcot 17.1 25.7 20.0 18.6 4.3 8.6 5.7 100

15 Reading - Whitley 22.9 25.7 25.7 17.1 5.7 0.0 2.9 100




19 Wokingham 9.5 24.3 9.5 37.8 6.8 2.7 9.5 100


21 Bracknell & Ascot 7.5 31.3 22.4 14.9 7.5 4.5 11.9 100

22 Slough 12.1 50.0 15.2 13.6 3.0 4.5 1.5 100

Average for all Zones 11.2 22.3 18.0 25.1 9.2 5.9 8.3 100

TABLE 9: NON BULKY COMPARISON GOODS SHOPPING - JOURNEY TIME TO MAIN CENTRE BY CENTRE (%)

Town Centre5 mins or less

6-10 mins

11-15 mins

16-20 mins

21-25mins

26-30mins

Over 30 mins

Total

Reading Town Centre / Oracle Centre / Broad St Mall 5.3 17.0 17.5 29.8 10.4 9.7 10.3 100

Basingstoke 14.3 30.3 26.3 15.3 6.8 1.7 5.4 100

Bracknell 32.7 32.7 20.8 2.9 0.0 0.0 10.8 100

Camberley 20.7 39.1 25.5 11.2 1.8 0.0 1.7 100

Guildford 8.0 0.0 12.7 33.4 12.2 11.2 22.5 100

High Wycombe 25.0 34.4 28.1 10.8 1.8 0.0 0.0 100

Maidenhead 29.4 53.3 14.0 2.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 100

Newbury 13.5 26.1 18.2 24.8 9.8 2.4 5.2 100

Oxford 3.0 0.0 3.0 18.4 30.7 9.2 35.6 100

Slough 11.9 41.9 14.9 18.5 7.9 3.2 1.7 100

Windsor 21.5 46.0 10.9 12.8 5.0 0.0 3.8 100



HOUSEHOLD SURVEY




TABLE 10: NON BULKY COMPARISON GOODS SHOPPING - CENTRE USED FOR OCCASIONAL / CHRISTMAS SHOPPING BY ZONE (%)

1 2 4 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Reading Town Centre / Oracle Centre / Broad St Mall 8.2 7.8 28.4 56.5 21.1 16.7 2.6 9.1 51.9 85.9 75.3 96.1 84.1 74.6 83.3 88.4 58.1 13.0 58.1 25.3 21.1 4.5 44.1

Basingstoke 1.4 16.9 0.0 0.0 5.6 52.8 39.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.4 2.8 1.4 6.8 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0

Bracknell 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.1 0.0 0.7

Camberley 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.4 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.4 4.1 16.9 1.4 0.0 8.5 0.0 1.8

Guildford 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.4 13.0 1.4 0.0 9.9 0.0 1.5

High Wycombe 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.9 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.0

Maidenhead 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 1.5 1.0

Newbury 12.3 23.4 2.7 13.0 53.5 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3

Oxford 23.3 1.3 23.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 2.6 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5

Slough 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.7 2.8 53.0 3.3

Windsor 1.4 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.3 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 16.0 1.4 7.6 1.5

Town Centre Ave.Survey Zone

HOUSEHOLD SURVEY




TABLE 11: CATCHMENT AREAS OF TOWN CENTRES FOR BULKY COMPARISON GOODS SHOPPING


Centre

The Majority (51% or more) of Available Expenditure (%) Core Catchment

Area



Area



Catchment Area



Area

Outside Catchment

Area

Reading City Centre/ Oracle Centre/ Broad St Mall

Zone 11 (58.1%)


Zone 3 (11.4%) Zone 9 (19.9%) Zone 14 (19.7%) Zone 15 (11.3%) Zone 16 (25.4%) Zone 17 (19.2%) Zone 19 (26.4%)


Zone 18 (4.9%) Zone 20 (3.2%)

Zones 8, 21 and 22

Reading – Brunel Retail Park/ Rosekiln Lane

- Zone 16 (38.4%) Zone 15 (10.3%)

Zone 3 (2.0%) Zone 4 (4.9%) Zone 7 (4.3%)


Zones 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-11, 17, 18, 20 and 22

Reading – Forbury Retail Park 1&2/ Kenavon Drive

- Zone 9 (28.8%) Zone 10 (31.2%) Zone 12 (13.6%)

Zone 8 (2.4%) Zone 11 (3.3%) Zone 13 (4.0%) Zone 14 (4.6%) Zone 15 (2.1%) Zone 16 (7.0%) Zone 18 (5.4%) Zone 19 (7.6%)

Zones 1-7, 17 and 20-22




Reading – Reading Gate Retail Park/ Reading Relief Rd

Zone 15 (54.0%) Zone 14 (33.5%) Zone 17 (31.2%)

Zone 13 (16.0%) Zone 16 (10.1%)

Zone 3 (2.0%) Zone 4 (4.9%) Zone 9 (4.6%)


Zones 1, 2, 5-8, 11, 18, 19 and 22

Reading – Reading Retail Park, Oxford Rd

- - Zone 13 (27.3%) Zone 14 (14.9%) Zone 15 (13.8%)

Zone 3 (3.0%) Zone 4 (8.6%) Zone 7 (4.3%)

Zone 12 (7.8%)

Zones 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-11 and 16-22

Reading – Emmer Green District Centre - - - - Zones 1-22

Reading – Caversham District Centre - - - - Zones 1-22

Reading – Tilehurst Triangle District Centre - - - Zone 4 (3.0%) Zones 1-3 and 5-22

Reading – Meadway District Centre - - - - Zones 1-22

Reading – Cemetery Junction District Centre - - - - Zones 1-22

Reading – Wokingham Rd District Centre - - - - Zones 1-22

Reading – Oxford Rd West District Centre - - - - Zones 1-22

Reading – Whitley St District Centre - - - - Zones 1-22

Reading – Shinfield Rd District Centre - - - - Zones 1-22

Abingdon - Zone 3 (37.2%) Zone 1 (18.3%) - Zones 2, 4-22

Basingstoke Zone 7 (64.0%) Zone 6 (47.5%) Zone 2 (24.7%) Zone 17 (3.3%) Zone 18 (3.3%)

Zones 1, 3-5, 8-16 and 19-22




Bracknell - Zone 19 (32.1%) Zone 21 (48.6%) -

Zone 11 (4.7%) Zone 16 (3.4%) Zone 18 (8.2%)

Zones 1-10, 12-15, 17, 20 and 22

Camberley - - Zone 18 (11.4%) Zone 21 (10.7%) Zone 22 (2.4%) Zones 1-17, 19 and 20

Farnborough - Zone 18 (38.1%) - Zone 7 (2.8%) Zone 21 (9.5%)

Zones 1-6, 8-17, 19, 20 and 22

High Wycombe Zone 8 (80.7%) - Zone 20 (10.0%)

Zone 3 (4.9%) Zone 9 (9.1%)

Zone 11 (3.7%) Zone 21 (3.4%)

Zones 1, 2, 4-7, 10, 12-19 and 22

Newbury Zone 5 (86.0%) Zone 2 (30.9%) Zone 1 (14.5%) Zone 4 (16.9%) Zone 6 (21.2%)

Zone 14 (4.4%) Zone 3, 7-13 and 15-22

Slough Zone 22 (84.8%) Zone 20 (49.0%) - Zone 8 (7.3%) Zone 1-7, 9-19 and 21

Note: Only centres / retail parks with an overall market share of available expenditure of 2.0% or more for bulky comparison goods are listed, with the exception of District and Local Centres in Reading Borough

.




TABLE 12: BULKY COMPARISON GOODS SHOPPING - USAGE OF CENTRES (%)

Town CentreMain

Nominated Centre

SecondNominated

Centre

Reading Town Centre / Oracle Centre / Broad St Mall 6.7 8.1

Reading - Brunel Retail Park / Rosekiln Lane 1.3 4.1

Reading - Forbury Retail Park 1 & 2 / Kenavon Drive 2.5 2.3

Reading - Reading Gate Retail Park / Reading Relief Rd 2.8 2.4

Reading - Reading Retail Park, Oxford Rd 1.6 3.1

Abingdon 1.6 0.9

Basingstoke 5.2 3.3

Bracknell 4.7 4.8

Camberley 1.6 4.1

Farnborough 4.2 3.0


Newbury 4.6 2.4

Slough 9.1 2.3

Other 49.0 55.0

Total 100 100

Note: only centres with an overall market share of available expenditure of 2.0% or more for bulky comparison goods are listed.

TABLE 13: BULKY COMPARISON GOODS SHOPPING - FREQUENCY OF VISIT TO MAIN CENTRE (%)

Town CentreMore than

once a week

Once a week

2-3 times

a month

Once a month

Once every

2-3 months

Once every

4-6 months

Less often

Don't know

/ VariesTotal

Reading Town Centre / Oracle Centre / Broad St Mall 0.0 4.8 1.1 2.9 12.6 15.6 50.8 12.1 100

Reading - Brunel Retail Park / Rosekiln Lane 0.0 0.0 8.8 4.2 8.3 7.7 67.4 3.6 100

Reading - Forbury Retail Park 1 & 2 / Kenavon Drive 0.0 0.0 2.1 11.5 16.1 17.5 36.5 16.2 100

Reading - Reading Gate Retail Park / Reading Relief Rd 1.8 3.5 8.3 13.2 13.9 21.7 29.5 8.1 100

Reading - Reading Retail Park, Oxford Rd 0.0 2.9 2.9 4.9 11.5 21.7 38.6 17.5 100

Abingdon 0.0 6.4 6.4 2.6 15.5 30.9 11.5 26.7 100

Basingstoke 0.0 2.0 1.9 3.2 12.4 17.4 62.2 1.0 100

Bracknell 0.0 2.8 2.8 17.0 10.4 28.9 38.0 0.0 100

Camberley 0.0 0.0 7.4 14.9 18.0 0.0 59.7 0.0 100

Farnborough 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 14.5 16.8 66.0 0.0 100

High Wycombe 0.0 0.0 2.7 10.1 3.2 4.2 79.1 0.6 100

Newbury 0.8 12.7 14.3 16.4 14.4 25.7 14.2 1.4 100

Slough 0.0 0.0 4.2 4.0 16.3 15.1 46.1 14.4 100

Average for all Centres 0.2 2.7 4.8 8.3 12.9 17.2 46.1 7.8 100


HOUSEHOLD SURVEY




TABLE 14: BULKY COMPARISON GOODS SHOPPING - REASON FOR VISITING MAIN CENTRE (%)

Town CentreClose to home /

convenient

Close to work

Good choice of shops / range of stores

Good range of

major stores

Pedestrianised streets /

attractive environment

Good value for money

Good / cheap public

transport

Ease of

parking

Free / cheap

parking

Good quality

products

Part of joint to trip to

other facility/ centre

More convenient /

easier to get to

Friends / family live

there

Friends / family

take me

Habit/ familiar/

always go there

Just a nice

centreOther Total

Reading Town Centre/Oracle Centre/Broad St Mall 45.3 2.8 32.1 10.5 0.0 2.6 0.4 0.7 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.9 100

Reading - Brunel Retail Park/Rosekiln Lane 44.3 1.9 26.4 23.2 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Reading - Forbury Retail Park 1&2/Kenavon Drive 40.4 0.0 44.1 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Reading - Reading Gate Retail Park/Reading Relief Rd 54.0 2.4 20.5 8.3 0.0 7.8 0.0 3.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 100

Reading - Reading Retail Park, Oxford Rd 34.2 0.0 21.8 28.8 0.0 2.5 0.0 8.1 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Abingdon 3.5 3.5 53.7 15.1 0.0 6.9 0.0 17.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Basingstoke 54.7 0.6 25.9 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 2.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.6 0.0 1.3 0.6 0.0 100

Bracknell 58.6 0.0 12.0 12.0 1.2 2.4 0.0 7.3 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 100

Camberley 70.1 0.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 100

Farnborough 44.4 0.0 34.5 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

High Wycombe 68.6 0.0 13.3 5.0 4.7 2.1 0.0 2.4 0.0 2.9 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Newbury 57.6 0.4 32.0 1.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 2.3 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 3.8 100

Slough 68.6 0.0 17.3 12.7 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Average for all centres 49.6 0.9 26.3 10.2 0.6 2.2 0.0 6.2 1.7 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 1.1 100


HOUSEHOLD SURVEY




TABLE 15: BULKY COMPARISON GOODS SHOPPING - MODE OF TRANSPORT TO MAIN CENTRE (%)

CentreCar -

DriverCar -

PassengerBus Train

Park & Ride

Walked Cycle Taxi Other Total

Reading Town Centre / Oracle Centre / Broad St Mall 52.0 12.0 18.1 3.7 3.1 10.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 100

Reading - Brunel Retail Park / Rosekiln Lane 74.3 13.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 7.9 0.0 100

Reading - Forbury Retail Park 1 & 2 / Kenavon Drive 58.6 24.9 7.2 0.6 0.0 7.4 1.2 0.0 0.0 100

Reading - Reading Gate Retail Park / Reading Relief Rd 80.8 15.9 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Reading - Reading Retail Park, Oxford Rd 65.8 19.9 7.9 0.0 0.0 5.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 100

Abingdon 89.4 4.7 0.0 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Basingstoke 58.2 15.5 2.0 16.4 0.0 5.9 0.0 2.0 0.0 100

Bracknell 65.7 28.3 0.0 0.0 3.6 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Camberley 65.2 11.1 0.0 23.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Farnborough 77.2 18.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

High Wycombe 69.0 16.9 0.0 9.4 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Newbury 67.3 22.4 0.0 8.3 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Slough 66.7 22.0 0.0 7.2 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Average for all centres 68.5 17.3 3.0 5.8 0.5 3.9 0.2 0.8 0.0 100


TABLE 16: BULKY COMPARISON GOODS SHOPPING - JOURNEY TIME TO MAIN CENTRE BY ZONE (%)

Zone5 mins or less

6-10 mins

11-15 mins

16-20 mins

21-25mins

26-30mins

Over 30 mins

Total






6 Tadley 4.8 16.1 27.4 25.8 14.5 3.2 8.1 100

7 Basingstoke 15.2 37.0 10.9 15.2 4.3 10.9 6.5 100

8 High Wycombe 26.2 33.3 9.5 14.3 2.4 7.1 7.1 100

9 Henley on Thames 11.1 11.1 19.0 28.6 14.3 12.7 3.2 100


11 Reading - Woodley 25.0 9.4 31.3 25.0 9.4 0.0 0.0 100

12 Reading - Central 12.5 31.3 31.3 17.2 4.7 3.1 0.0 100


14 Reading - Calcot 23.3 43.3 18.3 10.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 100

15 Reading - Whitley 34.6 32.7 13.5 7.7 3.8 0.0 7.7 100




19 Wokingham 7.0 19.3 21.1 43.9 7.0 0.0 1.8 100


21 Bracknell & Ascot 20.0 36.4 18.2 20.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 100

22 Slough 14.6 48.8 12.2 17.1 2.4 2.4 2.4 100

Average for all zones 13.0 25.0 18.8 23.3 9.3 4.7 5.9 100

HOUSEHOLD SURVEY




TABLE 17: BULKY COMPARISON GOODS SHOPPING - JOURNEY TIME TO MAIN CENTRE BY CENTRE (%)

Town Centre5 mins or less

6-10 mins

11-15 mins

16-20 mins

21-25mins

26-30mins

Over 30 mins

Total

Reading Town Centre / Oracle Centre / Broad St Mall 3.5 22.7 18.4 31.7 10.6 4.7 8.3 100

Reading - Brunel Retail Park / Rosekiln Lane 11.9 23.4 19.6 26.9 0.0 14.4 3.8 100

Reading - Forbury Retail Park 1 & 2 / Kenavon Drive 10.9 16.9 14.2 44.0 1.9 4.0 8.1 100

Reading - Reading Gate Retail Park / Reading Relief Rd 12.4 25.2 15.7 27.2 6.3 6.2 6.9 100

Reading - Reading Retail Park, Oxford Rd 24.2 24.9 20.8 11.6 4.1 12.8 1.5 100

Abingdon 0.0 13.9 30.1 17.5 25.8 0.0 12.8 100

Basingstoke 13.8 29.1 21.7 17.0 7.2 6.0 5.3 100

Bracknell 21.8 33.2 24.2 12.5 5.3 0.0 3.0 100

Camberley 18.8 25.7 44.5 0.0 0.0 8.2 2.9 100

Farnborough 18.2 41.8 18.2 19.5 2.4 0.0 0.0 100

High Wycombe 23.6 34.9 9.7 17.7 1.9 6.1 6.2 100

Newbury 17.5 28.8 17.7 19.5 9.1 4.4 3.0 100

Slough 8.6 35.3 21.1 23.2 5.2 6.6 0.0 100



HOUSEHOLD SURVEY




TABLE 18: CATCHMENT AREAS OF TOWN CENTRES FOR CONVENIENCE GOODS SHOPPING


Centre The Majority (51% or more) of Available Expenditure (%) Core Catchment

Area



Area



Catchment Area



Area

Outside Catchment

Area

Reading – City Centre - - Zone 12 (24.4%)


Zones 1-9, 14, 16 and 18-22

Reading – Tilehurst Triangle - - - - Zones 1-22

Reading – Oxford Rd West - - - - Zones 1-22

Reading – The Meadway - Zone 13 (33.8%) Zone 14 (20.8%)

Zone 4 (9.2%) Zone 6 (3.1%)

Zone 12 (2.6%)

Zones 1-3, 5, 7-11 and 15-22

Reading – Emmer Green - - - Zone 10 (2.7%) Zones 1-9 and 11-22

Reading – Caversham - Zone 10 (48.6%) -

Zone 4 (6.6%) Zone 11 (2.6%) Zone 12 (4.3%) Zone 13 (4.2%) Zone 15 (2.8%) Zone 17 (5.0%)

Zones 1-3, 5-9, 14, 16 and 18-22

Reading – Whitley St - - - Zone 15 (5.3%) Zones 1-14 and 16-22

Reading – Cemetery Junction - - - Zone 12 (2.3%) Zones 1-11 and 13-22

Reading – Wokingham Rd - - - - Zones 1-22




Reading – Shinfield Rd - - - - Zones 1-22

Reading – Tesco, Napier Rd - Zone 12 (29.7%) Zone 10 (22.5%)

Zone 13 (15.4%)


Zones 1-3, 5-9, 14-15 and 18-22

Reading – Waitrose, Oxford Rd - - Zone 4 (10.3%)

Zone 13 (19.8%)

Zone 10 (2.2%) Zone 12 (2.6%) Zone 14 (6.9%)

Zones 1-3, 5-9, 11 and 15-22

Reading – Safeway, Rose Kiln Lane - - Zone 12 (16.5%)

Zone 15 (26.2%)


Zones 1-3, 5-11, 16 and 18-22

Outside Reading – Asda, Lower Earley Zone 16 (59.7%) Zone 15 (36.8%)

Zone 17 (42.4%) Zone 11 (25.4%) Zone 12 (10.9%)

Zone 14 (5.6%) Zone 19 (4.5%) Zone 21 (3.3%)

Zones 1-10, 13, 18, 20 and 22

Basingstoke Zone 7 (87.2%) - Zone 2 (14.1%) Zone 6 (22.7%) - Zones 1, 3-5 and 8-22

Bracknell Zone 21 (54.4%) - - Zone 11 (2.5%) Zone 18 (2.1%) Zone 19 (7.1%)

Zones 1-10, 12-17, 20 and 22

Camberley - Zone 18 (33.5%) Zone 21 (12.4%) - Zones 1-17, 19-20 and 22

Didcot Zone 3 (60.0%) - - Zone 4 (6.1%) Zones 1-2 and 5-22

High Wycombe - Zone 8 (47.3%) - Zone 3 (2.1%)

Zone 20 (2.0%) Zone 22 (3.2%)

Zones 1-2, 4-7, 9-19 and 21

Newbury Zone 5 (79.8%) Zone 2 (35.9%) Zone 6 (24.7%) Zone 1 (12.7%) Zone 4 (9.5%)

Zone 14 (3.3%) Zones 3, 7-13

and 15-22

Slough Zone 22 (82.3%) - Zone 20 (12.4%) Zone 8 (3.4%) Zones 1-7, 9-19 and 21




Wantage Grove Zone 1 (60.1%) - - - Zones 2-22

Windsor - Zone 20 (34.8%) - - Zones 1-19 and 21-22

Wokingham Zone 19 (69.8%) - Zone 16 (12.4%) Zone 17 (10.5%) Zone 18 (10.6%)

- Zones 1-15 and 20-22

Note: Only centres with an overall market share of available expenditure of 2.0% or more for convenience goods are listed, with the exception of Local Centres in Reading Borough.




TABLE 19: CONVENIENCE GOODS SHOPPING - USAGE OF CENTRES / STORES (%)

Centre / StoreMain

Nominated Centre

SecondNominated

Centre

Reading - Asda, Honey Lane, Tilehurst 1.7 0.4

Reading - Safeway, Rosekiln Lane 1.1 0.5

Reading - Tesco, Napier Rd 1.8 0.4

Reading - Waitrose, Oxford Road, Tilehurst 1.0 0.2

Reading - Waitrose, Church St, Caversham 1.1 0.5

Asda, Lower Earley 3.5 0.7

Basingstoke 6.0 2.2

Bracknell 5.0 0.8

Camberley 4.6 2.6

Didcot 2.9 0.1


Newbury 5.3 1.7

Slough 5.1 1.4

Windsor 3.1 0.6

Wokingham 3.8 1.8Other 49.7 84.4Total 100 100

TABLE 20: CONVENIENCE GOODS SHOPPING - DAY OF THE WEEK MAIN FOOD SHOPPING IS UNDERTAKEN (%)

Centre / StoreWeekdays(Mon-Fri)Daytime

Weekdays(Mon-Fri)Evening

Saturday SundayVaries / No

particular timeTotal

Reading - Asda, Honey End Lane, Tilehurst 46.6 18.1 11.2 2.5 21.6 100

Reading - Sainsbury Central, Broad Street, Town Centre 49.9 0 12.5 0.0 37.5 100

Reading - Safeway, Rose Kiln Lane 37.4 15.8 19.4 4.9 22.5 100

Reading - Tesco, Napier Road 28.6 31.9 9.4 3.1 27.1 100

Reading - Waitrose, Oxford Road, Tilehurst 45.2 5.8 12.7 0.0 36.4 100

Reading - Waitrose, Church Street, Caversham 65.2 15 2.4 0.0 17.4 100

Asda, Lower Earley 50.8 16.3 7.8 10.8 14.4 100

Basingstoke 54.1 19.4 5.5 0.0 21.1 100

Bracknell 47.6 11.2 4.5 6.7 29.9 100

Camberley 57.8 24 0 0.0 18.3 100

Didcot 46.1 5.9 9.8 1.0 37.2 100

High Wycombe 48.1 21 5.3 5.7 19.9 100

Newbury 60.3 12.1 9 4.2 14.4 100

Slough 31.1 14.9 7.5 5.2 41.2 100

Windsor 44.2 26.3 11 0 18.4 100

Wokingham 59.7 11.4 17.3 1.5 10.1 100

Average for all Centres / Stores 53.2 15.5 7.8 2.6 20.9 100

Note: Only centres / stores with an overall market share of available expenditure of 2.0% or more for convenience goods are listed. Within Reading Borough all individual stores with an overall market share of 1.0% or more are listed.


HOUSEHOLD SURVEY




Town CentreAverage

Spend per Trip (£)

Reading - Asda, Honey End Lane, Tilehurst 65.91

Reading - Sainsbury Central, Broad Street, Town Centre 34.65

Reading - Safeway, Rose Kiln Lane 56.19

Reading - Tesco, Napier Road 63.97

Reading - Waitrose, Oxford Road, Tilehurst 67.10

Reading - Waitrose, Church Street, Caversham 62.07

Asda, Lower Earley 65.09

Basingstoke 66.11

Bracknell 75.47

Camberley 84.64

Didcot 61.93

High Wycombe 73.23

Newbury 59.32

Slough 66.81

Windsor 65.45

Wokingham 72.63

Average for all Centres / Stores 64.97

TABLE 21: CONVENIENCE GOODS SHOPPING - AVERAGE SPEND PER TRIP AT MAIN CENTRE / STORE (%)


HOUSEHOLD SURVEY




TABLE 22: CONVENIENCE GOODS SHOPPING - FREQUENCY OF VISIT TO MAIN CENTRE / STORE(%)

Centre / Store3 times a week or

more often

Twice a week

Once a week

Once a fortnight

Once a month or less often

Total

Reading - Asda, Honey End Lane, Tilehurst 7.2 11.3 69.5 5.1 6.9 100

Reading - Sainsbury Central, Broad St 19.6 46.2 27.4 6.8 0.0 100

Reading - Safeway, Rose Kiln Lane 7.5 24.0 66.4 2.1 0.0 100

Reading - Tesco, Napier Road 14.1 16.5 63.3 4.6 1.4 100

Reading - Waitrose, Oxford Road, Tilehurst 12.9 17.5 59.1 10.6 0.0 100

Reading - Waitrose, Church Street, Caversham 24.4 17.1 56.1 0.0 2.4 100

Asda, Lower Earley 8.1 22.9 58.9 3.9 6.1 100

Basingstoke 12.2 25.8 48.7 8.7 4.6 100

Bracknell 22.5 20.7 54.6 2.2 0.0 100

Camberley 12.6 4.2 79.0 0.0 4.2 100

Didcot 5.9 30.4 59.8 4.0 0.0 100

High Wycombe 13.7 27.2 56.3 0.0 2.7 100

Newbury 18.5 14.9 59.4 3.6 3.6 100

Slough 12.7 23.2 56.1 2.6 5.2 100

Windsor 3.7 55.2 41.1 0.0 0.0 100

Wokingham 17.3 31.0 44.2 6.9 0.6 100

Average for all Centres / Stores 14.1 21.9 57.9 3.6 2.5 100


HOUSEHOLD SURVEY




TABLE 23: CONVENIENCE GOODS SHOPPING - REASON FOR VISITING MAIN CENTRE / STORE (%)

Centre / StoreClose to Home /

Convenient

Close to Work

Close to Street

Markets

Ease of Parking

Free Parking

Good / Cheap Public

Transport

Wide Choice of Goods /

Products

Close to Other Shops

Good prices / value

for money

Good quality goods /

products

Pleasant Staff / Good

Service

Friends / Family live

there

Friends / Family

take me

Habit / Familiarity / Always Go

There

Home Deliver /

They Deliver

Other

Don't Know / No Particular Reason

Total

Reading - Asda, Honey End Lane, Tilehurst 61.3 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 31.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 100

Reading - Sainsbury Central, Broad St 66.3 26.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Reading - Safeway, Rose Kiln Lane 83.1 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.9 2.3 2.3 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Reading - Tesco, Napier Road 50.6 7.9 1.9 3.2 0.0 0.0 13.9 0.0 18.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 100

Reading - Waitrose, Oxford Road, Tilehurst 49.4 4.1 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 5.8 0.0 4.4 29.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 100

Reading - Waitrose, Church Street, Caversham 79.5 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 5.2 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Asda, Lower Earley 70.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 4.7 0.0 17.6 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 100

Basingstoke 54.7 6.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 18.2 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 6.6 0.0 100

Bracknell 73.6 3.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 3.4 2.3 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Camberley 51.3 8.4 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 21.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 100

Didcot 69.6 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 2.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 100

High Wycombe 64.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.2 0.0 5.6 8.2 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 100

Newbury 50.3 6.0 0.0 3.3 1.8 0.0 7.2 0.9 10.8 5.1 0.6 0.0 2.1 2.7 0.0 8.2 0.9 100

Slough 63.3 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Windsor 77.3 0.6 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 14.7 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Wokingham 42.8 7.9 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 17.4 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 100

Average for all Centres / Stores 63.5 3.3 0.1 1.9 0.4 0.2 9.9 0.2 9.9 4.4 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.8 0.1 4.4 0.1 100


HOUSEHOLD SURVEY




TABLE 24: CONVENIENCE GOODS SHOPPING - MODE OF TRANSPORT TO MAIN CENTRE / STORE (%)

Centre / Store Car - DriverCar -

passengerBus Train

Park & Ride

Walk CycleMotor Cycle

Taxi Other Total

Reading - Asda, Honey End Lane, Tilehurst 61.1 23.4 4.3 0.0 0.0 7.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 100

Reading - Sainsbury Central, Broad Street 12.2 5.5 19.6 0.0 0.0 50.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.3 100

Reading - Safeway, Rose Kiln Lane 65.4 18.5 7.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Reading - Tesco, Napier Road 79.3 11.7 0.0 2.3 0.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Reading - Waitrose, Oxford Road, Tilehurst 76.3 9.9 2.8 0.0 0.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 100

Reading - Waitrose, Church Street, Caversham 70.5 7.6 4.9 0.0 0.0 17.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Asda, Lower Earley 70.5 21.4 1.7 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.4 100

Basingstoke 70.0 14.5 5.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.5 100

Bracknell 75.3 13.5 2.2 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Camberley 77.8 18.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Didcot 69.6 6.9 2.0 0.0 0.0 15.7 2.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 100

High Wycombe 67.0 16.5 11.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Newbury 70.0 16.8 4.4 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 100

Slough 66.4 25.8 2.6 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Windsor 59.5 18.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.4 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 100

Wokingham 72.3 13.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 13.1 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Average for all Centres / Stores 66.4 16.7 5.1 0.0 0.0 10.1 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.9 100


HOUSEHOLD SURVEY




TABLE 25: CONVENIENCE GOODS SHOPPING - JOURNEY TIME TO MAIN CENTRE / STORE(%)

Centre / Store5 mins or less

6-10 mins

11-15 mins16-20 mins

21-25mins

26-30mins

Over 30 mins

Total

Reading - Asda, Honey End Lane, Tilehurst 39.0 30.4 14.8 6.1 0.0 4.3 5.4 100

Reading - Sainsbury Central, Broad Street 15.1 28.2 36.2 14.5 5.9 0.0 0.0 100

Reading - Safeway, Rose Kiln Lane 30.3 25.8 19.9 13.8 5.2 4.9 0.0 100

Reading - Tesco, Napier Road 17.4 35.7 28.6 14.3 0.0 4.0 0.0 100

Reading - Waitrose, Oxford Road, Tilehurst 43.0 45.9 5.3 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Reading - Waitrose, Church Street, Caversham 47.9 26.8 19.6 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Asda, Lower Earley 29.1 29.4 21.2 13.3 4.8 1.4 0.7 100

Basingstoke 40.2 25.2 21.2 11.1 0.0 2.3 0.0 100

Bracknell 42.5 36.3 14.3 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Camberley 36.1 35.0 13.8 15.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Didcot 20.0 35.9 21.0 14.0 3.0 1.0 5.0 100

High Wycombe 30.2 41.2 24.9 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 100

Newbury 23.6 25.7 24.7 19.9 4.7 0.0 1.3 100

Slough 28.1 55.8 7.7 5.7 0.0 0.0 2.7 100

Windsor 57.7 26.9 3.8 7.7 0.0 3.8 0.0 100

Wokingham 31.6 46.2 12.6 8.1 1.5 0.0 0.0 100

Average for all Centres / Stores 32.3 35.3 16.9 10.6 2.1 1.7 1.3 100


HOUSEHOLD SURVEY




TABLE 26: LEISURE TRIP PATTERNS - KEY FEATURES (%)

Weekly / more often

2-3 times

a month

Once a month

Once every 2

or 3 months

Less often

Never

Don't know /

no reply

Total Main centre %

Cinema 1.7 5.8 9.1 12.7 16.3 53.9 0.4 100 Reading 19.9

Theatre / concert 0.2 0.7 3.0 10.4 22.1 63.1 0.6 100 London - West End 32.1

Bingo 3.1 0.5 0.7 0.7 2.2 92.5 0.4 100 Reading 19.6

Casinos 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.6 1.5 97.1 0.4 100 Reading 47.3

Ten pin bowling 0.5 1.0 1.5 5.7 11.1 79.5 0.6 100 Maidenhead 27.7

Restaurant 9.6 12.2 16.2 12.9 9.8 38.9 0.3 100 Varies 21.7

Pubs / Bars 13.1 10.2 8.1 5.2 6.8 56.2 0.5 100 Varies 17.6

Night Club / Disco 1.5 2.1 1.7 1.2 3.3 89.2 1.0 100 Reading 32.6

Swimming 14.3 5.5 3.6 3.2 4.7 68.2 0.5 100 Reading 12.4

Health centre / gym 14.8 2.5 1.3 1.1 2.6 76.9 0.8 100 Reading 13.8

Public Park 12.3 6.7 5.7 3.0 7.8 63.9 0.6 100 Windsor 12.2

Museum 0.4 0.5 1.9 3.9 15.7 77.0 0.6 100 London - West End 37.0

Ice Rink 0.5 0.1 0.5 1.6 4.8 91.9 0.7 100 Bracknell 41.4

Frequency of Visit

Activity

Most Popular Centres

HOUSEHOLD SURVEY




TABLE 27a: TRENDS IN LEISURE ACTIVITIES: CINEMA

Visit at least

monthly

Visit Less often

Main centre %

1 Hungerford & Wantage 15.7 84.2 Wantage 63.6

2 Whitchurch & Ludgershall 14.2 85.9 Basingstoke 67.9

3 Didcot & Wallingford 10.5 89.5 Reading 50.0

4 Pangbourne & Goring 10.2 89.8 Reading 73.7

5 Newbury & Thatcham 21.7 78.2 Basingstoke 50.0

6 Tadley 18.0 82.1 Basingstoke 84.0

7 Basingstoke 16.9 83.1 Basingstoke 100.0

8 High Wycombe 15.4 84.5 High Wycombe 100.0

9 Henley on Thames 21.1 79.0 Henley 70.6

10 Reading - Caversham 21.0 78.9 Reading 72.4

11 Reading - Woodley 31.6 68.4 Other 64.9

12 Reading - Central 26.0 74.1 Reading 100.0

13 Reading - Tilehurst 17.9 82.1 Reading 95.2

14 Reading - Calcot 16.9 83.1 Reading 76.9

15 Reading - Whitley 22.1 78.0 Reading 86.2

16 Reading - Shinfield 20.8 79.3 Other 92.9

17 Reading - Spencers Wood 19.7 80.3 Reading 46.2

18 Camberley, Fleet & Farnborough 13.0 87.0 Basingstoke 33.3

19 Wokingham 13.0 87.1 Other 51.5

20 Windsor & Maidenhead 18.4 81.5 Maidenhead 51.7

21 Bracknell & Ascot 15.9 83.9 Bracknell 50.0

22 Slough 16.9 83.2 Slough 66.7

TABLE 27b: TRENDS IN LEISURE ACTIVITIES: THEATRE / CONCERT

Visit at least

monthly

Visit Less often

Main centre %

1 Hungerford & Wantage 3.9 96.0 Bristol - Bath / Newbury / Oxford 25.0


3 Didcot & Wallingford 6.5 93.5 London - West End / Oxford 37.5

4 Pangbourne & Goring 3.9 96.2 London - West End 30.8

5 Newbury & Thatcham 9.1 91.0 Newbury 31.6

6 Tadley 2.6 97.5 Basingstoke / London - West End 40.0


8 High Wycombe 3.8 96.0 High Wycombe / London - West End 50.0

9 Henley on Thames 5.3 94.6 London - West End 29.4

10 Reading - Caversham 9.5 90.5 London - West End 38.1

11 Reading - Woodley 13.3 86.7 Reading 42.9

12 Reading - Central 5.2 94.9 London - West End 56.3


14 Reading - Calcot 0.0 100.0 London - West End / Other 33.3


16 Reading - Shinfield 5.2 94.9 London - West End 62.5


18 Camberley, Fleet & Farnborough 2.6 97.4 London - West End 40.0

19 Wokingham 2.6 97.5 London - West End 59.1

20 Windsor & Maidenhead 2.6 97.4 London - West End / Windsor 35.7

21 Bracknell & Ascot 5.3 94.7 London West End / Woking 30.8

22 Slough 3.9 96.1 Windsor 81.8

Zone


Frequency of visit %


Zone


HOUSEHOLD SURVEY




TABLE 27c: TRENDS IN LEISURE ACTIVITIES: BINGO

Visit at least

monthly

Visit Less often

Main centre %

1 Hungerford & Wantage 5.1 94.9 Other 33.3


3 Didcot & Wallingford 6.5 93.5 Didcot 60.0


5 Newbury & Thatcham 7.7 92.3 Basingstoke / Newbury 50.0




9 Henley on Thames 5.2 94.8 Reading 50.0

10 Reading - Caversham 0.0 100.0 London - West End / Reading 50.0

11 Reading - Woodley 4.0 96.0 Reading / Slough 25.0



14 Reading - Calcot 1.3 98.7 Basingstoke 100.0


16 Reading - Shinfield 1.3 98.7 Reading 100.0


18 Camberley, Fleet & Farnborough 6.5 93.5 None in Particular - Varies 33.3

19 Wokingham 1.3 98.7 Wokingham 100.0

20 Windsor & Maidenhead 3.0 96.0 Maidenhead / Slough / Windsor 33.3

21 Bracknell & Ascot 2.6 97.2 Reading / Local Village Hall 33.3

22 Slough 5.2 94.8 Slough 50.0

TABLE 27d: TRENDS IN LEISURE ACTIVITIES: CASINOS

Visit at least

monthly

Visit Less often

Main centre %

1 Hungerford & Wantage 0.0 100.0

2 Whitchurch & Ludgershall 0.0 100.0

3 Didcot & Wallingford 0.0 100.0


5 Newbury & Thatcham 0.0 100.0

6 Tadley 0.0 100.0

7 Basingstoke 0.0 100.0

8 High Wycombe 1.3 98.8 London - West End 100.0

9 Henley on Thames 0.0 100.0 Reading 100.0


11 Reading - Woodley 0.0 100.0



14 Reading - Calcot 0.0 100.0




18 Camberley, Fleet & Farnborough 1.3 98.7 Beaconsfield / Varies 50.0

19 Wokingham 0.0 100.0 Reading 100.0

20 Windsor & Maidenhead 0.0 100.0

21 Bracknell & Ascot 0.0 100.0 Reading 100.0

22 Slough 0.0 100.0

Zone



Zone



HOUSEHOLD SURVEY




TABLE 27e: TRENDS IN LEISURE ACTIVITIES: TEN-PIN BOWLING

Visit at least

monthly

Visit Less often

Main centre %

1 Hungerford & Wantage 1.3 98.7 Newbury 50.0


3 Didcot & Wallingford 2.6 97.4 Oxford 40.0

4 Pangbourne & Goring 5.1 94.9 Calcot / Reading / Thatcham 25.0

5 Newbury & Thatcham 3.9 96.1 Thatcham 100.0



8 High Wycombe 1.3 98.7 High Wycombe / Maidenhead 50.0

9 Henley on Thames 1.3 98.7 Maidenhead 100.0

10 Reading - Caversham 2.8 97.3 Calcot / Reading / Thatcham 33.3

11 Reading - Woodley 8.0 91.9 Wokingham 44.4

12 Reading - Central 1.3 98.7 Reading / Wokingham 50.0




16 Reading - Shinfield 1.3 98.7 Wokingham 100.0

17 Reading - Spencers Wood 1.3 98.7 Calcot / Reading 33.3

18 Camberley, Fleet & Farnborough 3.9 96.1 Farnborough 33.3




22 Slough 2.6 97.4 Maidenhead 50.0

TABLE 27f: TRENDS IN LEISURE ACTIVITIES: RESTAURANT

Visit at least

monthly

Visit Less often

Main centre %


2 Whitchurch & Ludgershall 35.5 64.5 Other 47.2

3 Didcot & Wallingford 43.2 56.8 Varies 70.3

4 Pangbourne & Goring 40.8 59.2 Varies 70.5


6 Tadley 40.0 59.9 Varies 46.5












18 Camberley, Fleet & Farnborough 28.6 71.4 Varies 37.0




22 Slough 44.2 55.9 Windsor 26.3

Zone


Zone




HOUSEHOLD SURVEY




TABLE 27g: TRENDS IN LEISURE ACTIVITIES: PUBS / BARS

Visit at least

monthly

Visit Less often

Main centre %



3 Didcot & Wallingford 40.3 59.7 Other 13.3

4 Pangbourne & Goring 39.7 60.3 Other 22.9






10 Reading - Caversham 30.7 69.4 Other 53.6







17 Reading - Spencers Wood 40.8 59.2 Local Village Pub 30.0





22 Slough 18.4 81.5 Other 35.7

TABLE 27h: TRENDS IN LEISURE ACTIVITIES: NIGHT CLUB / DISCO

Visit at least

monthly

Visit Less often

Main centre %

1 Hungerford & Wantage 5.2 94.9 Newbury 40


3 Didcot & Wallingford 2.6 97.4 Oxford / Reading / Varies 33.3



6 Tadley 3.9 96.2 Reading / Varies 33.3

7 Basingstoke 1.3 98.6 Reading 33.3

8 High Wycombe 3.9 96.2 High Wycombe / London - West End / Marlow 33.3











19 Wokingham 2.6 97.4 Camberley / Reading 33.3


21 Bracknell & Ascot 0.0 100.0

22 Slough 5.2 94.8 Varies 50


Zone



Zone


HOUSEHOLD SURVEY




TABLE 27i: TRENDS IN LEISURE ACTIVITIES: SWIMMING

Visit at least

monthly

Visit Less often

Main centre %






6 Tadley 35.1 64.9 Tadley 57.1












18 Camberley, Fleet & Farnborough 18.2 81.8 Farnborough / Fleet 23.5




22 Slough 18.2 81.8 Slough 64.3

TABLE 27j: TRENDS IN LEISURE ACTIVITIES: HEALTH CENTRE / GYM

Visit at least

monthly

Visit Less often

Main centre %


















18 Camberley, Fleet & Farnborough 14.3 85.7 Fleet 25.0


20 Windsor & Maidenhead 32.9 67.0 Windsor 57.7


22 Slough 17.1 82.9 Slough 69.2


Zone


Zone

Frequency of visit % Most Popular Centres

HOUSEHOLD SURVEY




TABLE 27k: TRENDS IN LEISURE ACTIVITIES: PUBLIC PARK

Visit at least

monthly

Visit Less often

Main centre %








8 High Wycombe 6.4 93.6 Marlow 60.0



11 Reading - Woodley 46.0 54.1 Woodley 68.4






17 Reading - Spencers Wood 19.9 80.0 Other 35.3

18 Camberley, Fleet & Farnborough 7.8 92.2 Camberley / Fleet 28.6

19 Wokingham 24.7 75.4 Bracknell / Twyford 10.0

20 Windsor & Maidenhead 56.6 43.4 Windsor 48.0

21 Bracknell & Ascot 36.5 63.6 Other 44.8

22 Slough 20.8 79.2 Slough 43.8

TABLE 27l: TRENDS IN LEISURE ACTIVITIES: MUSEUM

Visit at least

monthly

Visit Less often

Main centre %


2 Whitchurch & Ludgershall 1.3 98.7 London - West End / Newbury 50.0


4 Pangbourne & Goring 3.9 96.1 London - West End 50.0

5 Newbury & Thatcham 3.9 96.1 Varies 57.1



8 High Wycombe 2.6 97.5 High Wycombe / London - West End 50.0

9 Henley on Thames 2.6 97.3 London - West End 47.1


11 Reading - Woodley 3.9 96.1 Varies 41.7





16 Reading - Shinfield 1.3 98.7 London - West End / Reading 50.0

17 Reading - Spencers Wood 3.9 96.1 London - West End 71.4


19 Wokingham 0.0 100.0 London - West End 87.5

20 Windsor & Maidenhead 2.6 97.4 London - West End 71.4

21 Bracknell & Ascot 4.0 96.0 London - West End 60.0

22 Slough 1.3 98.7 London - West End 100.0

Zone


Zone


HOUSEHOLD SURVEY




TABLE 27m: TRENDS IN LEISURE ACTIVITIES: ICE RINK

Visit at least

monthly

Visit Less often

Main centre %

1 Hungerford & Wantage 0.0 100.0



4 Pangbourne & Goring 0.0 100.0 Abingdon 50.0

5 Newbury & Thatcham 1.3 98.7 Basingstoke / Oxford 50.0


7 Basingstoke 0.0 100.0

8 High Wycombe 0.0 100.0

9 Henley on Thames 1.3 98.6 Bracknell 60.0

10 Reading - Caversham 1.3 98.7 Bracknell 75.0

11 Reading - Woodley 2.6 97.4 Bracknell 66.7

12 Reading - Central 1.4 98.7 Bracknell 50.0

13 Reading - Tilehurst 0.0 100.0 Bracknell 100.0

14 Reading - Calcot 1.3 98.7 Bracknell 100.0

15 Reading - Whitley 0.0 100.0 Bracknell / Oxford 50.0

16 Reading - Shinfield 2.6 97.4 Bracknell 66.7

17 Reading - Spencers Wood 0.0 100.0 Bracknell 100.0


19 Wokingham 3.9 96.1 Bracknell 90.0

20 Windsor & Maidenhead 2.6 97.4 Slough 100.0


22 Slough 2.6 97.4 Slough 100.0

Zone


HOUSEHOLD SURVEY




TABLE 28: TYPE OF NEW LEISURE FACILITY MOST NEEDED IN READING BY ZONE

Nothing needed /

Happy as it is

Don't Know

No Idea / Never

visit the area

Leisure Centre /

Swimming Pool

Health Club / Gym

Cinema TheatreConcert

Hall / Venue

MuseumTen Pin Bowling

Ice Rink

Skateboard / Roller Skating

Park

More / Better Pubs / Wine

Bars

More / Better Restaurants

Restaurants Pubs for Families

Other Total

1 Hungerford & Wantage 31.3 53.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 1002 Whitchurch & Ludgershall 2.6 92.2 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 1003 Didcot & Wallingford 33.8 46.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 10.8 1004 Pangbourne & Goring 17.1 48.7 0.0 9.2 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.8 1005 Newbury & Thatcham 6.4 71.8 2.6 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.3 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 1006 Tadley 5.1 82.1 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 6.4 1007 Basingstoke 4.3 21.7 69.6 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 1008 High Wycombe 0.0 8.1 75.7 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 1009 Henley on Thames 18.3 62.0 1.4 4.2 1.0 0.0 4.2 1.4 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 101

10 Reading - Caversham 2.9 45.7 0.0 18.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 20.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 10011 Reading - Woodley 0.0 49.4 0.0 15.6 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.0 0.0 2.6 5.2 2.6 0.0 0.0 1.3 19.5 10012 Reading - Central 62.3 0.0 0.0 14.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.0 0.0 2.6 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 9.1 10013 Reading - Tilehurst 12.5 25.0 0.0 23.6 0.0 1.4 2.8 0.0 0.0 1.4 19.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.9 10014 Reading - Calcot 24.7 16.9 1.3 29.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 10.4 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 10015 Reading - Whitley 44.7 9.2 0.0 6.6 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 13.2 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.4 10016 Reading - Shinfield 22.4 35.5 0.0 9.2 1.3 1.3 3.9 1.3 0.0 0.0 19.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 10017 Reading - Spencers Wood 29.0 53.6 0.0 8.7 1.4 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 10018 Camberley, Fleet & Farnborough 3.3 11.5 85.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10019 Wokingham 32.5 39.0 18.2 6.5 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10020 Windsor & Maidenhead 55.3 15.8 6.6 2.6 0.0 1.3 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.8 10021 Bracknell & Ascot 58.1 28.4 1.4 2.7 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 10022 Slough 4.1 86.3 8.2 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Avearge for all Zones 21.4 41.0 12.3 7.4 0.3 0.6 1.1 0.3 0.0 0.7 5.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 8.4 100

TABLE 29: FREQUENCY OF USING NEW LEISURE FACILITY IN READING (IF BUILT)

More than once a week

Once a week

2-3 times a month

Once a month



Less Often

Don't Know

Total

30.1 36.6 12.9 6.8 1.3 1.3 9.5 1.5 100100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10015.8 70.6 0.0 13.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1000.0 0.8 5.8 34.9 11.4 40.0 0.0 7.1 1000.0 0.0 0.0 68.7 0.0 31.3 0.0 0.0 1000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.0 19.4 34.6 31.8 0.0 14.2 0.0 0.0 1003.3 13.8 19.6 25.3 8.6 1.6 24.7 3.1 10044.8 22.5 0.0 11.9 7.7 0.0 13.1 0.0 1000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 019.8 23.1 57.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Skateboard / Rller Skating ParkMore / Better Pubs / Wine BarsMore / Better RestaurantsRestaurants / Pubs for Families

Concert Hall / VenueMuseumTen Pin BowlingIce rink

Leisure Centre / Swimming PoolHeath Club / GymCinemaTheatre

Zone

Facility

Facility

Facility

HOUSEHOLD SURVEY




23.5 25.0 17.1 12.4 7.1 2.4 8.9 3.6 100Other

HOUSEHOLD SURVEY




TABLE 30: USE OF LOCAL CENTRE(S) IN READING BOROUGH BY ZONE

Yes No Don't Know

1 Hungerford & Wantage 2.6 96.2 1.3 1002 Whitchurch & Ludgershall 1.3 97.4 1.3 1003 Didcot & Wallingford 5.1 94.9 0.0 1004 Pangbourne & Goring 5.1 88.5 6.4 1005 Newbury & Thatcham 11.5 88.5 0.0 1006 Tadley 15.4 84.6 0.0 1007 Basingstoke 0.0 100.0 0.0 1008 High Wycombe 1.3 93.6 5.1 1009 Henley on Thames 1.5 62.1 36.4 100

10 Reading - Caversham 52.0 45.3 2.7 10011 Reading - Woodley 90.8 7.9 1.3 10012 Reading - Central 14.3 83.1 2.6 10013 Reading - Tilehurst 41.6 53.2 5.2 10014 Reading - Calcot 54.5 45.5 0.0 10015 Reading - Whitley 46.8 53.2 0.0 10016 Reading - Shinfield 17.6 70.3 12.2 10017 Reading - Spencers Wood 27.3 70.1 2.6 10018 Camberley, Fleet & Farnborough 0.0 98.7 1.3 10019 Wokingham 2.6 97.4 0.0 10020 Windsor & Maidenhead 2.6 97.4 0.0 10021 Bracknell & Ascot 6.7 93.3 0.0 10022 Slough 1.4 97.3 1.4 100

TABLE 31: WHICH LOCAL CENTRE IN READING IS USED MOST OFTEN

%

Caversham 16.014.6

Meadway 5.4Emmer Green 3.7Whitley St 3.1Oxford Road West 2.8

2.02.0

Cemetery Junction 1.747.11.7

Note: Answered by only those respondents saying 'yes' at Table 30.

TABLE 32: FREQUENCY OF USING LOCAL CENTRES IN READING

Three times a week or

more often

Twice a week

Once a week

Once a fortnight

Once a month

Once every 2 months

Less often Don't Know

49.0 14.5 16.1 12.5 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.0 10030.2 20.3 17.6 5.0 9.5 5.8 9.0 2.6 10018.1 11.4 33.5 1.3 20.7 6.4 5.2 3.4 1004.0 21.8 33.6 15.8 20.8 0.0 4.0 0.0 100

18.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.2 37.5 0.0 0.0 10016.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.5 0.0 28.2 0.0 1000.0 24.6 25.8 21.4 1.9 14.4 11.8 0.0 1008.4 0.0 0.0 25.3 49.4 8.4 8.4 0.0 100

24.7 0.0 15.1 2.7 39.8 15.1 0.0 2.7 10025.5 13.2 15.3 6.8 12.2 4.9 22.0 0.1 100

Note: Answered by only those respondents saying 'yes' at Table 30.

Other

Total

Wokingham RoadOxford Road WestWhitley StShinfield Road

CavershamTilehurst TriangleMeadwayCemetery Junction

Shinfield Road

Frequency

Emmer Green

Local Centre

Zone

Use?

Local Centre

Total

Tilehurst Triangle

Wokingham Road

OtherDon’t Know

HOUSEHOLD SURVEY



Volumes 2: Appendices

TABLE 33: PURPOSE OF VISITING LOCAL CENTRES IN READING

Shopping Visit PubMeet

FriendsVisit Bank

/ PO

Visit Services / Pay Bills

Visit Doctor / Chemist

Visit Library

Visit Restaurant

/ Take Away

Visit Off Licence /

Wine Merchant

Other

79.6 26.3 31.0 30.6 2.4 42.7 18.5 0.0 0.0 32.983.1 3.7 7.9 22.5 9.3 26.2 16.9 0.0 0.0 10.875.7 0.0 6.5 21.2 3.5 8.7 12.4 0.0 0.0 5.656.3 3.4 0.0 3.4 0.0 3.4 3.4 3.4 0.0 37.070.9 0.0 18.6 15.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.171.0 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.766.0 8.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.345.5 8.0 38.6 0.0 8.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.020.4 2.7 2.7 0.0 0.0 12.4 0.0 12.4 0.0 61.877.4 9.8 15.9 45.9 33.1 46.1 27.2 0.6 0.0 16.7

Note: Answered by only those respondents saying 'yes' at Table 30.Note: Row percentages sum to more than 100% due to respondents giving more than one answer

Oxford Road WestWhitley StShinfield RoadOther

Tilehurst TriangleMeadwayCemetery JunctionWokingham Road

Local Centre

Frequency

Emmer GreenCaversham

HOUSEHOLD SURVEY



APPENDIX 3E

Copy of Survey Questionnaire

Job No: GW/04/231

STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL BEACON RESEARCH

Suite 3, The Resource Centre, Bridge Street, Garstang. Lancs. PR3 1YB Tel: 01995 606330 Fax: 01995 605336

READING HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ON BEHALF OF COLLIERS CRE (SEPTEMBER 2004)

Name: Address: Postcode: C1 Age: 16-24 1 Supervisor/Manager/Self Employed 25-34 2 Size of company 35-44 3 No. of employees 45-54 4 55-64 5 If Retired 65 + 6 Company pension–ask previous occupation State pension only – code 5 below C2 Sex: Male 1 Female 2 If Unemployed Less than 2 months – ask about previous C3 What is the occupation of the chief occupation wage earner in your household? Over 2 months – code 6 below Full/Part time employed 1 Retired 2 Now Assess Social Grade Unemployed 3 AB 1 C1 2 Occupation C2 3 D 4 Rank/Status E1 (Retired) 5 E2 (Unemployed) 6 No. of Employees Refused 7 Qualifications Interviewer Signature: Date:

AREA

Job No: GW/04/231

Good morning / afternoon, my name is ................................................................ We are doing some research on behalf of The Council to improve shopping facilities in this area and I’d like to ask you a few questions. Are you / may I speak to the person responsible for the majority of your household shopping? YES 1 NO 2 - CLOSE INTERVIEW As we need to speak to people across a number of areas, could you please tell me your full postcode? WRITE IN POST CODE HERE ______________________ Refer to quota and check that respondent is eligible for interview - if not, thank and close.

Job No: GW/04/231

Q1a Can I ask you first of all, excluding Mail Order and shopping over the Internet, at which Centre or Retail Park do you do most of your shopping for non-food goods such as Clothing & Footwear, books, gifts and jewellery?

Q1b And how often do you visit ..................... Centre or Retail Park for this type of non-

food shopping? Q1c And what percentage or proportion of your total expenditure on such non-food goods would

you say that you do in ....................... Centre or Retail Park? IF READING TOWN CENTRE NOT MENTIONED AT Q1a – OTHERS GO TO Q2a

Q1d Why do you not use Reading Town Centre as your main centre for non-food shopping? Q2a Excluding Mail Order and shopping over the Internet, what is your second most important

Centre or Retail Park for non-food shopping such as Clothing & Footwear, Books, gifts and Jewellery? (SINGLE CODE)

Q2b And how often do you visit ..................... Centre or Retail Park for this type of non-

food shopping? Q2c And what percentage or proportion of your total expenditure on such non-food goods would

you say that you do in ....................... Centre or Retail Park?

RECORD ANSWERS BELOW & OPPOSITE - CHECK PERCENTAGES ADD TO 100% AT Q1c/2c A CENTRE Q1 Q2 Reading – Town Centre / Oracle Centre / Broad St Mall 1 1 Reading – Brunel Retail Park/Rosekiln Lane 2 2 Reading – Forbury Retail Park 1 &2/Kenavon Drive 3 3 Reading – Reading Gate Retail Park/ Reading Relief Rd 4 4 Reading – Reading Retail Park, Oxford Rd 5 5 Reading – Reading Link Retail Park, Rosekiln Lane 6 6 Reading – Pincents Lane, Calcot(Allders) 7 7 Reading – Pincents Lane, Calcot(Allied ) 8 8 Reading – Vastern Court Retail Park / Caversham Rd 9 9 Reading – World of Leather, Caversham Rd 10 10 Reading – Office World, Caversham Rd 11 11 Reading – Wickes, Weldale St 12 12 Reading – Focus, Oxford Rd 13 13 Reading - Halfords, Reading Rd, Winnersh 14 14 Reading- Focus,Wokingham Rd, Winnersh 15 15 Reading – Emmer Green Local centre 16 16 Reading – Caversham Local centre 17 17 Reading – Tilehurst Triangle Local centre 18 18 Reading – Meadway Local centre 19 19 Reading – Cemetry Junction Local centre 20 20 Reading – Wokingham Rd Local centre 21 21 Reading – Oxford Rd West Local centre 22 22 Reading – Whitley St Local centre 23 23 Reading – Shinfield Rd Local centre 24 24 Abingdon 25 25 Aldershot 26 26 Andover 27 27 Ascot 28 28

Job No: GW/04/231

Bagshot 29 29 Basingstoke 30 30 Bath 31 31 Bracknell 32 32 Bristol 33 33 Camberley 34 34 Didcot 35 35 Farnham 36 36 Farnborough 37 37 Fleet 38 38 Guildford 39 39 Henley on Thames 40 40 High Wycombe 41 41 Hungerford 42 42 Maidenhead 43 43 Marlow 44 44 Marlborough 45 45 Newbury 46 46 Oxford 47 47 Slough 48 48 Southampton 49 49 Staines 50 50 Swindon 51 51 Uxbridge 52 52 Wallingford 53 53 Wantage 54 54 Watford 55 55 Windsor 56 56 Wokingham 57 57 London – West End 58 58 Local Shops 59 59 Other (Write In)

No Particular Centre / Varies 60 60 None / Don’t shop / Disabled / Mail order only 61 61 No second centre 62 DK / Cant remember 63 63 B FREQUENCY OF VISIT More than once a week 1 1 Once a week 2 2 2-3 times a month 3 3 Once a month 4 4 Once every 2-3 months 5 5 Once every 4-6 months 6 6 Less often 7 7 DK / Can’t remember / Varies 8 8 C % In Location (Write In) % %

D IF NOT READING TOWN CENTRE AT Q1A, WHY NOT. (Most Important Reason Only - (WRITE IN)

Job No: GW/04/231

Q3a You said that ............ is the Centre/Retail Park where you do most of your

clothing & footwear shopping? What is your main reason for choosing that Centre?

Q3b How do you normally travel to / from this Centre / Retail Park? (If more than one mode of transport used, code transport used for longest part of journey)

Car (Driver) 1 Walk 6 Car (Passenger) 2 Cycle 7 Car (Park & Ride) 3 Motor Cycle 8 Bus / Coach 4 Taxi 9

Train 5 Other 10 Q3c On average, how long does it take you to travel to this Centre / Retail Park from

home?

5 minutes or less 1 21 – 25 minutes 5 6 – 10 minutes 2 26 – 30 minutes 6 11 – 15 minutes 3 Over 30 minutes 7 16 – 20 minutes 4

Q4 At which Centre or Retail Park do you normally undertake most of your Christmas or special occasion shopping? (Write in)

Close to home/convenient 1 Good/Cheap Public Transport 7 Close to work 2 Ease of parking 8 Good choice of shops/range of stores 3 Free/cheap parking 9 Good range of major stores 4 Good quality goods/products 10 Pedestrianised streets/attractive environment 5 Part of joint trip to other facility/centre 11 Good prices/Good value for money 6 Other (Write In)

Job No: GW/04/231

Q5a Excluding Mail Order and shopping over the Internet, at which Centre or Retail Park do you do most of your shopping for bulky non-food goods such as DIY, large electrical goods, furniture and carpets (SINGLE CODE)

Q5b And how often do you visit ………. Centre / Retail Park for your main bulky goods shopping? Q5c And what percentage or proportion of your total expenditure on such bulky goods shopping

would you say that you do in ....................... Centre / Retail Park? Q6a Excluding Mail Order and shopping over the Internet, which is your second most important

Centre / Retail Park for bulky goods shopping? (SINGLE CODE) Q6b And how often do you visit ………. Centre / Retail Park for your main bulky goods shopping? Q6c And what percentage or proportion of your total expenditure on such bulky goods shopping

would you say that you do in ....................... Centre / Retail Park? RECORD ANSWERS BELOW & OPPOSITE - CHECK PERCENTAGES ADD TO 100% AT Q5c/6c A CENTRE Q5 Q6 Reading – Town Centre / Oracle Centre / Broad St Mall 1 1 Reading – Brunel Retail Park/Rosekiln Lane 2 2 Reading – Forbury Retail Park 1 &2/Kenavon Drive 3 3 Reading – Reading Gate Retail Park/ Reading Relief Rd 4 4 Reading – Reading Retail Park, Oxford Rd 5 5 Reading – Reading Link Retail Park, Rosekiln Lane 6 6 Reading – Pincents Lane, Calcot(Allders) 7 7 Reading – Pincents Lane, Calcot(Allied ) 8 8 Reading – Vastern Court Retail Park / Caversham Rd 9 9 Reading – World of Leather, Caversham Rd 10 10 Reading – Office World, Caversham Rd 11 11 Reading – Wickes, Weldale St 12 12 Reading – Focus, Oxford Rd 13 13 Reading - Halfords, Reading Rd, Winnersh 14 14 Reading- Focus,Wokingham Rd, Winnersh 15 15 Reading – Emmer Green Local centre 16 16 Reading – Caversham Local centre 17 17 Reading – Tilehurst Triangle Local centre 18 18 Reading – Meadway Local centre 19 19 Reading – Cemetry Junction Local centre 20 20 Reading – Wokingham Rd Local centre 21 21 Reading – Oxford Rd West Local centre 22 22 Reading – Whitley St Local centre 23 23 Reading – Shinfield Rd Local centre 24 24 Abingdon 25 25 Aldershot 26 26 Andover 27 27 Ascot 28 28 Bagshot 29 29 Basingstoke 30 30 Bath 31 31 Bracknell 32 32

Job No: GW/04/231

Bristol 33 33 Camberley 34 34 Didcot 35 35 Farnham 36 36 Farnborough 37 37 Fleet 38 38 Guildford 39 39 Henley on Thames 40 40 High Wycombe 41 41 Hungerford 42 42 Maidenhead 43 43 Marlow 44 44 Marlborough 45 45 Newbury 46 46 Oxford 47 47 Slough 48 48 Southampton 49 49 Staines 50 50 Swindon 51 51 Uxbridge 52 52 Wallingford 53 53 Wantage 54 54 Watford 55 55 Windsor 56 56 Wokingham 57 57 London – West End 58 58 Local Shops 59 59 Other (Write In) No Particular Centre / Varies 60 None / Don’t shop / Disabled / Mail order only 61 61 No second centre 62 DK / Cant remember 63 63 B FREQUENCY OF VISIT More than once a week 1 1 Once a week 2 2 2-3 times a month 3 3 Once a month 4 4 Once every 2-3 months 5 5 Once every 4-6 months 6 6 Less often 7 7 DK / Can’t remember / Varies 8 8 C % In Location (Write In) % %

Job No: GW/04/231

Q7a You said that ............ is the Centre/Retail Park where you do most of your bulky goods shopping? What is your main reason for choosing that Centre?

Q7b How do you normally travel to / from this Centre / Retail Park? (If more than one

mode of transport used, code transport used for longest part of journey)

Car (Driver) 1 Walk 6 Car (Passenger) 2 Cycle 7 Car (Park & Ride) 3 Motor Cycle 8 Bus 4 Taxi 9 Train 5 Other 10

Q7c On average, how long does it take you to travel to this Centre / Retail Park from home?


Close to home/convenient 1 Good/Cheap Public Transport 7 Close to work 2 Ease of parking 8 Good choice of shops/range of stores 3 Free / cheap parking 9 Good range of major stores 4 Good quality goods/products 10 Pedestrianised streets / attractive environment 5 Part of joint trip to other facility / centre 11 Good prices/Good value for money 6 Other (Write In)

Job No: GW/04/231

Q8a At which store and centre do you spend the most on your main food and grocery shopping? (Excluding mail order / shopping over the Internet - Store and Centre needed - Single code)

Q8b And when during the week, would you normally shop at your main food store?

Q9a And at which Store and Centre do you usually do your remaining top-up food and grocery shopping? (Store and Centre needed – Single Code)

RECORD ANSWERS BELOW & OPPOSITE

Q8a Main Store / Centre

Q9a Second Store / Centre

A Reading –Alldays, Whitley St 1 1

Reading –Alldays, Clayhill Rd, Burghfield Common 2 2

Reading –Alldays, Oxford Rd 3 3

Reading –Alldays, Gosbrook Rd, Caversham 4 4

Reading –Alldays, Whitley Wood Rd 5 5

Reading –Alldays, Wokingham Rd, Earley 6 6

Reading –Alldays, Erleigh Rd 7 7

Reading – Asda, Lower Earley 8 8

Reading – Asda, Honey End Lane, Tilehust 9 9

Reading – Budgens, Cavendish Rd, Emmer Green 10 10

Reading – Coop, School Rd, Tilehust 11 11

Reading – Coop, Oxford Rd 12 12

Reading – Coop, Oxford Rd 13 13

Reading – Iceland, Broad St, Town Centre 14 14

Reading – Iceland, Weldale St, Town Centre 15 15

Reading – Iceland, Chalfont Way, Earley 16 16

Reading – Iceland, St Martins Precinct, Caversham 17 17

Reading – Iceland, Crockhamwell Rd, Woodley 18 18

Reading – Sainsbury, Friar St, Town centre 19 19

Reading – Sainsbury, King St Lane, Winnersh 20 20

Reading – Sainsbury Central, Broad St, Town centre 21 21

Reading – Kwik Save 22 22

Reading – M&S, Broad St, Town Centre 23 23

Reading – Sava Centre, Calcot 24 24

Reading – Somerfield, Broad St Mall, Town Centre 25 25

Reading – Somerfield, The Square, Chalfont Way, Earley 26 26

Reading – Somerfield, Oxford Rd 27 27

Reading – Somerfield, Wood Lane, Sonning Common 28 28

Reading – Somerfield, Brindle Path, Woodcote 29 29

Reading – Safeway, Rose Kiln Lane 30 30

Reading – Safeway, Woosehill Shopping Centre 31 31

Reading – Tesco, Church St, Caversham 32 32

Reading – Tesco, Bath Rd, Southcote 33 33

Reading – Tesco, Napier Rd 34 34

Reading – Waitrose, Oxford Rd, Tilehurst 35 35

Reading – Waitrose, London Rd, Twyford 36 36

Reading – Waitrose, Crockhamwell Rd, Woodley 37 37

Reading – Waitrose, Church St, Caversham 38 38

Job No: GW/04/231

Reading – Emmer Green Local centre 39 39

Reading – Caversham Local centre 40 40

Reading – Tilehurst Triangle Local centre 41 41

Reading – Meadway Local centre 42 42

Reading – Cemetry Junction Local centre 43 43

Reading – Wokingham Rd Local centre 44 44

Reading – Oxford Rd West Local centre 45 45

Reading – Whitley St Local centre 46 46

Reading – Shinfield Rd Local centre 47 47

Andover (Any) 48 48

Ascot (Any) 49 49

Aldershot (Any) 50 50

Basingstoke (Any) 51 51

Bracknell (Any) 52 52

Calcot- Sava Centre 53 53

Camberley (Any) 54 54

Didcot (Any) 55 55

Farnham (Any) 56 56

Farnborough (Any) 57 57

Fleet (Any) 58 58

Frimley (Any) 59 59

Guildford (Any) 60 60

Henley on Thames (Any) 61 61

High Wycombe (Any) 62 62

Hungerford (Any) 63 63

Langley (Any) 64 64

Maidenhead (Any) 65 65

Marlow (Any) 66 66

Marlborough (Any) 67 67

Newbury (Any) 68 68

Oxford (Any) 69 69

Rickmansworth (Any) 70 70

Slough (Any) 71 71

Staines (Any) 72 72

Wallingford(Any) 73 73

Wantage (Any) 74 74

Windsor (Any) 75 75

Wokingham(Any) 76 76

Thatcham (Any) 77 77

Local shop / PO / Corner shop 78 78

None in particular / Varies 79 79

No second store / Top up store 80

OTHER (WRITE IN – NAME OF STORE AND TOWN)

B WHEN SHOP

Weekdays (Mon – Fri) Daytime 1

Weekdays (Mon – Fri) Daytime 2

Saturday 3

Sunday 4

Varies / No particular time 5

Job No: GW/04/231

Q10a On average, how much do you and your household spend on food and groceries each week in your main store?

Q10b And how much on average do you spend on food and groceries each week in your second most important food store?

Note: (c) is calculated as (a + b)

Q10d You said that................ is your main store for food/grocery shopping. How often do you visit that store for food and grocery shopping?

Three times a week or more often 1 Once a month 5 Twice a week 2 Once every two months 6 Once a week 3 Less often 7 Once a fortnight 4

Q10e What is the main reason why you and your household choose to shop at the store

where you do your main food / grocery shopping? (Single Code)

Close to home / convenient 1 Close to work 2 Close to street Markets 3

Ease of parking 4 Free parking 5

Cheap parking 6 Good / cheap public transport 7 Wide choice of goods / products 8 Close to other shops 9 Good prices/good value for money 10 Good quality goods / products 11 Other (WRITE IN)

Q10f How do you normally travel to ...........? (If more than one mode of transport

used, code transport used for longest part of journey)

Car (Driver) 1 Walk 6 Car (Passenger) 2 Cycle 7 Bus 3 Motor Cycle 8 Train 4 Taxi 9

Park & Ride 5 Other 10

RECORD BELOW £ P (a) Main’ store weekly total expenditure (b) ‘ Second ’ store weekly food expenditure (c) Total weekly food expenditure

Job No: GW/04/231

Q10g Where does your journey usually start from?

Home 1 Work 2 Other (write in)

ASK ALL SAYING HOME AT Q10g - OTHERS GO TO Q11a

Q10h On average, how long does it take you to travel to this Centre / Store from home?


Job No: GW/04/231

I would now like to ask you a few questions on your household’s leisure activities. Q11a How often, if at all, do you or any member of your household participate in the following leisure activities? (READ OUT) FOR EACH ACTIVITY WHERE ANSWER IS CODED (1-4) ASK Q12b/Q12c – IF NONE MENTIONED GO TO Q13a. Q11b Which town / centre do members of your household visit most often for ……………………………? ACTIVITY Q11a Q11b Weekly

/ more often

2-3 times a month

Once a month

Once every 2 or 3 months

Less often

Never Main Centre (Write in)

Cinema 1 2 3 4 5 6 Theatre / concert 1 2 3 4 5 6 Bingo 1 2 3 4 5 6 Casinos 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ten Pin Bowling 1 2 3 4 5 6 Restaurant 1 2 3 4 5 6 Pubs / Bars 1 2 3 4 5 6 Night club / Disco 1 2 3 4 5 6 Swimming 1 2 3 4 5 6 Health Centre / Gym 1 2 3 4 5 6 Public Park 1 2 3 4 5 6 Museums 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ice Rink 1 2 3 4 5 6 Q12a Which particular type of new leisure facility, if any do you think Reading is most in need of? ( Write In – Single answer) _______________________________________________

Job No: GW/04/231

Q12b And if this facility were built, how often would you or your household use it?

More than once a week 1 Once every 2-3 months 5 Once a week 2 Once every 4-6 months 6 2-3 times a month 3 Less often 7 Once a month 4

Q13a Finally, do you ever use any local centre within Reading Borough other than the

Town / City centre? Yes 1 No 2 IF YES – OTHERS CLOSE Q13b Which local centre within Reading, do you use most often?

Emmer Green Local centre 1 Caversham Local centre 2 Tilehurst Triangle Local centre 3 Meadway Local centre 4 Cemetry Junction Local centre 5 Wokingham Rd Local centre 6 Oxford Rd West Local centre 7 Whitley St Local centre 8 Shinfield Rd Local centre 9 Other(write in)

Q13c How often do you use this centre?

Three times a week or more often 1 Once a month 5 Twice a week 2 Once every two months 6 Once a week 3 Less often 7 Once a fortnight 4

Q13d And for what purpose(s) – Multicode

Shopping 1 Visit services / pay bills 5 Visit pub 2 Visit Doctor / Chemist 6 Meet friends 3 Visit Library 7 Visit Bank/ PO 4 Other (Write in)

COMPLETE CLASSIFICATION - THANK RESPONDENT



APPENDIX 4

Photographs

Colliers CRE Reading Borough Council Research & Consultancy Retail and Leisure Study of Reading Volume 2: Appendices

Photo 1: Reading City Centre, The Oracle Centre

Photo 2: Reading City Centre, Sainsbury’s, Friar Street


Photo 3: Caversham District Centre, Showing Waitrose Food Store

Photo 4: Caversham District Centre, Showing Iceland Food Store


Photo 5: Cemetery Junction District Centre Showing Co-Op Food Store

Photo 6: Emmer Green District Centre Showing Budgens Food Store


Photo 7: The Meadway District Centre Showing Asda Food Store

Photo 8: The Meadway District Centre


Photo 9: Oxford Road West District Centre Showing Co-Op Food Store

Photo 10: Oxford Road West District Centre Showing Lidl Food Store


Photo 11: Shinfield Road Local Centre Showing Tesco Express

Photo 12: Shinfield Road Local Centre Showing Sainsbury’s Local and Premier Food Stores


Photo 13: Tilehurst Triangle District Centre Showing Rusts Food Store

Photo 14: Tilehurst Triangle District Centre Showing Co-Op Food Store


Photo 15: Whitley Street Local Centre Showing Alldays Food Store

Photo 16: Wokingham Road District Centre


Photo 17: Out of Centre Tesco Extra, Napier Road

Photo 18: Out of Centre Safeway, Rose Kiln Lane


Photo 19: Out of Centre Waitrose, Oxford Road

Photo 20: Forbury Retail Park I, Kenavon Drive


Photo 21: Forbury Retail Park II, Kenavon Drive

Photo 22: Reading Gate Retail Park, A33 (Reading Relief Road)


Photo 23: Reading Retail Park, Oxford Road

Photo 24: Brunel Retail Park, Rose Kiln Lane


Photo 25:Vastern Court Road Retail Park



APPENDIX 5

Database Analyser Retail Tool: Extract for Reading



APPENDIX 6

Retail Floorspace and Turnover Data for Reading City Centre, Defined District and Local Centres, Retail Warehouses and Food Superstores



APPENDIX 6A

Convenience Goods: 2004 Benchmark Turnover Estimates

Colliers CRE Reading Borough Council Research & Consultancy Reading Retail and Leisure Study Volume 2 – Appendices

Benchmark Retail Turnover Estimates for 2004: Convenience Goods

(1) In Centre

Centre/Store

Gross Floorspace (sq m) (1)

A

Net Floorspace (sq m) (1)

B

Proportion Selling

Convenience Goods (%) (2)

C

Net Convenience Goods Floorspace

(sq m)

D = B x C

Benchmark Sales Density (£ / sq m) (3)

E

Benchmark Annual

Turnover (£ m)

F = D x E

Reading City Centre

J Sainsbury, Friar Street n/a 1,384 100 1,384 9,100 12.6

J Sainsbury, Broad Street n/a 929 100 929 9,100 8.5

Iceland, Weldale Street n/a 520 100 520 4,700 2.4

Marks & Spencer, Broad Street n/a 836 100 836 9,980 8.3

Other n/a 872 100 872 3,500 3.1

Total 7,415 4,541 4,541 7,686 34.9

Tilehurst Triangle

Co-op, School Road n/a 647 100 647 5,050 3.3

Other (incl. Rusts) n/a 751 100 751 3,500 2.6

Total 2,330 1,398 1,398 4,220 5.9



Centre/Store


A


B

Proportion Selling


C


(sq m)

D = B x C


E

Benchmark

Annual Turnover

(£ m)

F = D x E

Oxford Road West

Co-op, Oxford Road n/a 376 100 376 5,050 1.9

Other (incl. Lidl) n/a 1,119 100 1,119 5,000 5.6

Total 2,491 1,495 1,495 5,017 7.5

The Meadway

Asda, Honey End Lane n/a 2,459 75 1,844 10,200 18.8

Other n/a 1,094 100 1,094 3,500 3.8

Total 4,691 3,553 2,938 7,692 22.6

Wokingham Road

Other 795 477 100 477 3,500 1.7

Total 795 477 477 3,500 1.7



Centre/Store


A


B

Proportion Selling


C


(sq m)

D = B x C


E

Benchmark

Annual Turnover

(£ m)

F = D x E

Emmer Green

Budgens, Cavendish Road n/a 407 100 407 5,090 2.1

Other n/a 290 100 290 3,500 1.0

Total 1,161 697 697 4,448 3.1

Caversham

Waitrose, Church Street n/a 1,116 100 1,116 10,700 11.9

Iceland, St Martin’s Precinct n/a 451 100 451 4,700 2.1 Tesco Express, Church Street (petrol station) n/a 204 100 204 10,200 2.1

Other n/a 63 100 63 3,500 0.2

Total 3,056 1,834 1,834 8,888 16.3



Centre/Store


A


B

Proportion Selling


C


(sq m)

D = B x C


E

Benchmark

Annual Turnover

(£ m)

F = D x E

Whitley Street

Other 762 457 100 457 3,500 1.6

Total 762 457 457 3,500 1.6

Cemetery Junction

Co-op, London Road n/a 425 100 425 5,050 2.1

Other n/a 255 100 255 3,500 0.9

Total 1,133 680 680 4,412 3.0



Centre/Store


A


B

Proportion Selling


C


(sq m)

D = B x C


E

Benchmark

Annual Turnover

(£ m)

F = D x E

Shinfield Road Sainsbury’s Local, Shinfield Road (petrol station) n/a 186 100 186 6,000 1.1

Tesco Express, Shinfield Road n/a 232 100 232 6,000 1.4

Other n/a 324 100 324 3,500 1.1

Total 1,237 742 742 4,852 3.6 Notes:

n/a Not Available (1) Source: IGD Food Stores database and Reading Borough Council. (2) Colliers CRE estimates. (3) Source: The UK Retail Rankings, 2004 (Mintel), Verdict on Grocery Retailers, 2004 and Colliers CRE estimates.


(2) Major Out of Centre Superstores

Store


A


B

Proportion Selling


C


(sq m)

D = B x C


E

Benchmark

Annual Turnover

(£ m)

F = D x E

Safeway, Rose Kiln Lane n/a 4,820 80 3,856 7,900 30.5

Tesco Extra, Napier Road n/a 7,073 70 4,951 10,200 50.5

Waitrose, Oxford Road n/a 2,325 100 2,325 10,700 24.9

Total n/a 14,218 11,132 9,513 105.9 Notes:

n/a Not available (1) Source: IGD Food Stores database and Experian Goad. (2) Colliers CRE estimates. (3) Source: The UK Retail Rankings, 2004 (Mintel), Verdict on Grocery Retailers, 2004 and Colliers CRE estimates.

Figures include VAT and are given in 2003 prices.



APPENDIX 6B

Non-Bulky Comparison Goods: 2004 Benchmark Turnover Estimates


Benchmark Retail Turnover Estimates for 2004: Non-Bulky Comparison Goods

(1) In Centre

Centre


A


B


C

Benchmark Annual

Turnover (£ m)

D = B x C

Reading City Centre 161,872 107,271 6,500 697.3

Tilehurst Triangle 1,038 675 3,000 2.0

Oxford Road West 2,007 1,305 3,000 3.9

The Meadway 978 636 3,000 1.9

Emmer Green 339 220 3,000 0.7

Caversham 2,182 1,418 3,000 4.3

Whitley Street 261 170 3,000 0.5

Cemetery Junction 114 74 3,000 0.2

Wokingham Road 551 358 3,000 1.1

Shinfield Road 259 168 3,000 0.5

Total 169,601 112,295 6,344 712.4 Notes:

(1) Source: Reading Borough Council. (2) Assuming a net gross ratio of 65:100 for normal “high street” units and 90:100 for retail warehouse type floorspace. (3) Source: Colliers CRE estimates based, in part, on The UK Retail Rankings, 2004 (Mintel) and Verdict. Figures include VAT and are given in 2003 prices.


Benchmark Retail Turnover Estimates for 2004: Non-Bulky Comparison Goods

(2) Out of Centre

Store/Retail Park


A


B


C

Benchmark Annual

Turnover (£ m)

D = B x C

Argos Extra, Forbury Retail Park 1,227 1,104 4,300 4.7

Brantano, Brunel Retail Park 962 866 3,200 2.8

Halfords, Reading Retail Park 1,334 1,201 2,140 2.6

Halfords, Brunel Retail Park 1,087 978 2,140 2.1

Hobbycraft, Forbury Retail Park 1,592 1,433 1,760 2.5

JJB Sports, Brunel Retail Park 2,927 2,634 2,460 6.5

JJB Sports, Forbury Retail Park 1,212 1,091 2,460 2.7

Matalan, Reading Link Retail Park 2,362 2,126 3,330 7.1

Mothercare, Vastern Court Retail Park 2,912 2,621 2,520 6.6

Office World, Caversham Road 1,251 1,126 2,500 2.8

Pets At Home, Brunel Retail Park 963 867 2,300 2.0

Staples, Forbury Retail Park 1,922 1,730 2,140 3.7

Toys ‘R’ Us, Forbury Retail Park 4,160 3,744 1,630 6.1

Total 23,911 21,521 2,426 52.2


Notes:

(1) Source: Reading Borough Council. (2) Assuming a net to gross ratio of 90:100. (3) Source: The UK Retail Rankings, 2004 (Mintel), Verdict and Colliers CRE estimates.




APPENDIX 6C

Bulky Comparison Goods: 2004 Benchmark Turnover Estimates


Benchmark Retail Turnover Estimates for 2004: Bulky Comparison Goods

(1) In Centre

Centre


A


B


C

Benchmark Annual

Turnover (£ m)

D = B x C

Reading City Centre 35,434 27,749 4,500 124.9

Tilehurst Triangle 481 313 2,500 0.8

Oxford Road West 2,007 1,305 2,500 3.3

The Meadway 219 142 2,500 0.4

Emmer Green 97 63 2,500 0.2

Caversham 1,110 722 2,500 1.8

Whitley Street 229 149 2,500 0.4

Cemetery Junction 1,099 714 2,500 1.8

Wokingham Road 222 144 2,500 0.4

Shinfield Road 275 179 2,500 0.4

Total 41,173 31,480 4,269 134.4 Notes:

(1) Source: Reading Borough Council. (2) Assuming a net gross ratio of 65:100 for normal “high street” units and 90:100 for retail warehouse type floorspace. (3) Source: Colliers CRE estimates based, in part, on The UK Retail Rankings, 2004 (Mintel) and Verdict.




(2) Out of Centre Retail Parks

Retail Park/Store


A


B


C

Benchmark

Annual Turnover

(£ m)

D = B x C

Brunel Retail Park

Currys 1,959 1,763 5,252 9.3

SCS Furniture 1,435 1,292 2,291 3.0

Fabric Superstore 934 841 2,300 1.9

PC World 1,957 1,761 8,000 14.1

Total 6,285 5,657 5,003 28.3



Retail Park/Store


A


B


C

Benchmark

Annual Turnover

(£ m)

D = B x C

Forbury Retail Park

Furniture Village 3,635 3,272 2,900 9.5

Land of Leather 893 804 2,350 1.9

DFS 1,977 1,779 6,110 10.9

Comet 1,871 1,684 6,604 11.1

DP Furniture Express 951 856 1,880 1.6

Homebase 5,403 4,863 1,680 8.2

Vacant Unit* 1,046 941 3,000 2.8

Total 15,776 14,199 3,240 46.0 *Analysis assumes vacant unit will be re-occupied.



Retail Park/Store


A


B


C

Benchmark

Annual Turnover

(£ m)

D = B x C

Reading Gate Retail Park

B and Q Warehouse 9,970 8,973 2,303 20.7

Allied Carpets 945 851 1,328 1.1

Carpetright 970 873 1,410 1.2

Miller Brothers 967 870 3,901 3.4

Comet 2,831 2,548 6,604 16.8

Vacant Unit* 2,849 2,564 3,000 7.7

Total 18,532 16,679 3,052 50.9

Reading Link Retail Park

Furnitureland 1,116 1,004 2,338 2.3

Magnet 1,167 1,050 1,751 1.8

Harveys 1,454 1,309 1,457 1.9

Total 3,737 3,363 1,784 6.0 *Analysis assumes vacant unit will be re-occupied.



Retail Park/Store


A


B


C

Benchmark

Annual Turnover

(£ m)

D = B x C

Reading Retail Park

MFI 2,870 2,583 2,609 6.7

Carpetright 1,120 1,008 1,398 1.4

Currys 1,480 1,332 5,252 7.0

Focus 4,344 3,910 1,034 4.0

Total 9,814 8,833 2,162 19.1

Vastern Court

Courts 3,299 2,969 2,033 6.0

Total 3,299 2,969 2,033 6.0



(3) Out of Centre Solus Stores

Store


A


B


C

Benchmark Annual

Turnover (£ m)

D = B x C

Other

Kingdom of Leather, Caversham Road 861 775 1,384 1.1

Dreams, Oxford Road 695 626 1,457 0.9

Peter Green, Rose Kiln Lane 2,722 2,450 1,469 3.6

Wickes, Weldale Street 3,110 2,799 2,738 7.7

Total 7,388 6,650 2,000 13.3

Notes:





Summary Table of Out of Centre Retail Parks / Solus Stores

Store


A


B


C

Benchmark Annual

Turnover (£ m)

D = B x C

Brunel Retail Park 6,285 5,657 5,003 28.3

Forbury Retail Park 15,776 14,199 3,240 46.0

Reading Gate Retail Park 18,532 16,679 3,052 50.9

Reading Link Retail Park 3,737 3,363 1,784 6.0

Reading Retail Park 9,814 8,833 2,162 19.1

Vastern Court 3,299 2,969 2,033 6.0

Solus Stores 7,388 6,650 2,000 13.3

Total 64,831 58,350 2,907 169.6 Notes:





APPENDIX 7

Experian Data



APPENDIX 7A

Survey Area Consumer Retail Expenditure Data



APPENDIX 7B

Definition of Convenience and Comparison Goods



APPENDIX 7C

Consumer Retail Expenditure Projections and Forecasts



APPENDIX 7D

Non-Store Retail Expenditure Estimates



APPENDIX 7E

Estimating and Projecting Sales Densities



APPENDIX 8

Leisure Facilities in Reading Borough



APPENDIX 8A

Schedule of Hotels in Reading Borough

APPENDIX 8A: SCHEDULE OF HOTELS IN READING BOROUGH

Name Address 1 Address 2 Town Postcode Owner Number of Beds

Stars

Abadair House Hotel 46 Redlands Rd Reading RG 1 5HE 10 2D Abbey House Hotel 118 Connaught Rd Reading RG30 2UF Fardell Hotels 22 2* Bath Hotel 54 Bath Rd Reading RG 1 6PG 20 3D Beech House Hotel 60 Bath Rd Reading RG30 2AY 15 3D Caversham Bridge Lodge Hotel 172 Caversham Rd Reading RG 1 8AZ 22 Caversham House Lodge 164-166 Caversham Rd Reading RG1 8AZ 14 Comfort Inn Reading 39 Christchurch Rd Reading RG 2 7AN Choice Hotels Europe 80 Crescent Hotel 35 Coley Avenue Reading RG 1 6LL 16 1D Donnington House Hotel 82-86 London Rd Reading RG1 5AV 30 Elmhurst Hotel 51 Church Rd Earley Reading RG 6 1EY 55 2D Express By Holiday Inn Richfield Avenue Caversham Reading RG 1 8EQ Intercontinental Hotels Group 74 BR Hillingdon Prince Hotel 39 Christchurch Rd Reading RG 2 7AN 12 Holiday Inn Reading Basingstoke Rd Reading RG 2 0SL Pedersen Leisure 204 4* Holiday Inn Reading Caversham Bridge Richfield Avenue Reading RG 1 8BD Intercontinental Hotels Group 114 4* Millennium Madejski Hotel Madejski Stadium Reading RG 2 0FL Millennium/Copthorne Hotels 140 4* Old Forge Hotel 109 Grovelands Rd Reading RG30 2PB 12 1D Quality Hotel Reading 648/664 Oxford Rd Reading RG30 1EH Choice Hotels Europe 95 3* Rainbows Lodge Hotel 132/138 Caversham Rd Reading RG 1 8AY 34 2* Renaissance Reading Hotel Oxford Rd Reading RG 1 7RH Marriott International 196 4* Roebuck Hotel Oxford Rd Tilehurst Reading RG31 6TG 13 Royal County Hotel 4 Duke St Reading RG 1 4RY Lester Hotels Ltd 52 3* Thameside Hotel 148/150 Caversham Rd Reading RG 1 8AZ 23 The George Hotel 10/12 King St Reading RG 1 2HE Zola Hotels 75 2* The Reading Hotel 91/95 Basingstoke Rd Reading RG 2 0HA 13 Tower House Hotel 78 Wokingham Rd Reading RG 6 1JL 32 Travelodge 387 Basingstoke Rd Reading RG 2 0JE Travelodge 30 BR Travelodge 60 Oxford Rd Reading RG 1 7LT Travelodge 40 BR Upcross Hotel 68 Berkeley Avenue Reading RG 1 6HY 21 Warren Dene Hotel 1017 Oxford Rd Tilehurst Reading RG31 6TL 10 3D

Source: Hotel Data Ltd 2004 & Reading Tourism Website



APPENDIX 8B

Principal Arts and Entertainment Venues in Reading Borough

APPENDIX 8B: PRINCIPAL ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT VENUES IN READING BOROUGH

Name Address Facilities The Hexagon Queen’s Walk

Reading RG1 7UA

Berkshire’s biggest and busiest entertainment venue. The Hexagon hosts all types of live entertainment (music, comedy, drama, theatre and children’s shows), as well as having occasional film screenings. It is also available to hire for exhibitions, meetings and conferences.

The Concert Hall The Town Hall Blagrave Street Reading RG1 1QH

Centrally located within the Town Hall complex, this newly refurbished Concert Hall provides a varied programme of classical music, organ recitals, blues, jazz, folk, acoustic pop and rock, stand-up comedy, films and lectures. The Town Hall itself can also be hired for conferences, weddings and events.

South Street Arts Centre 21 South Street Reading RG1 4QU

This art centre offers a variety of events including fringe theatre, stand-up comedy, contemporary dance, children's theatre and a variety of upcoming and established musical names.

Progress Theatre The Mount Christchurch Road Reading RG1 5HL

High quality amateur theatre with the emphasis on the unusual. Best known for producing annual open-air Shakespeare in Reading’s Abbey Ruins.

Rising Sun Arts Centre 30 Silver Street Reading RG1 2ST

Community based arts centre offering a comprehensive programme of events, workshops, live music and more. The charity was set up to promote the use of arts in entertainment, learning and development. They run a full schedule, from bands to latin dance, carnival, youth arts, as well as life drawing and other arts events.

Vue Cinema The Oracle Centre Off Mill Lane North Reading RG1 2AG

Open 7 days a week, the cinema has ten screens all of which have the best quality available digital dolby surround sound. The screen sizes range from 80 to a huge 350 seat auditorium. All screens benefit from deluxe seating arranged stadium style for the best view.

Rivermead Leisure Complex Richfield Avenue Reading RG1 8EQ

The venue is available for hire for sporting competitions, concerts, exhibitions and shows, weddings, conferences and events.

Grosvenor Casino Queens Road Reading RG1 4SY

The casino is open daily 2pm-4am, features six slots and twelve table games, poker tournaments, lounge bar and a la carte restaurant, and a free car park (with attendant from 8pm daily).

Stanley Reading Sporting Club Casino 18 Richfield Avenue Reading RG1 8PA

Bar open from 2pm daily, range of tables and jackpot slots, complimentary sandwiches served whilst gaming, complimentary hot and cold drinks, a la carte menu and breakfast menu from midnight, and a large free car park with CCTV.

Laserquest 100 London Street Reading RG1 4SQ

Lasergun games in purpose-built arena.

Mecca Bingo Station Hill Reading RG1 1NF

Bingo, fruit machines, bar and café.



APPENDIX 8C

Schedule of Museums and Libraries in Reading Borough

APPENDIX 8C: SCHEDULE OF MUSEUMS AND LIBRARIES IN READING BOROUGH

Name Address Facilities The Museum of Reading Blagrave Street

Reading RG1 1QH

Full of exhibits about the history and development of Reading, featuring Britain’s “Bayeaux” tapestry – the only full size replica of the world’s most famous embroidery, and the Silchester Gallery, housing a varied display of Roman artefacts found at the nearby site at Calleva Atrebatum.

The Riverside Museum at Blake’s Lock Gas Works Road Reading RG1 3DS

Telling the story of Reading's two rivers - the Kennet and the Thames, this museum details the social and industrial development of Reading. A new Riverside Trail leaflet links the Riverside Museum with the Museum of Reading and has quirky details about other historic sites along the way.

The Cole Museum of Zoology University of Reading Shinfield Road Reading RG6 6AJ

The museum has recently undergone an extensive refurbishment. It contains over 4,000 specimens including skeletons of a male Indian Elephant and a Killer Whale. It is situated in the foyer of the School of Animal and Microbial Science at the University of Reading.

Reading Central Library Abbey Square Reading RG1 3BQ

Open 6 days a week, arranged over 4 floors, accessible by lift and stairs. Facilities include foreign language books, magazines, newspapers, CDs, videos, DVDs, playstation games, free Internet access (30 terminals), word processors, a LearnDirect centre and storytime for under 5s every week.

Battle Library 420 Oxford Road Reading RG30 1EE

Open every day excluding Wednesday and Sunday. Facilities include books, CDs, videos, DVDs, free Internet access (7 terminals), large print books, a Toy Library, storytime for under 5’s and a baby clinic every Tuesday and Thursday, and Ante-Natal and Post Natal classes every Friday (held by Reading Primary Care Trust).

Caversham Library Church Street Caversham RG4 8AU

Open every day excluding Wednesday and Sunday. Facilities include books, CDs, videos, DVDs, free Internet access (3 terminals), large print books, storytime for under 5’s every Thursday and a book group for 8-12 year olds once a month.

Palmer Park Library St Bartholomew’s Road Reading RG1 3QB

Open Mon, Tues, Thurs, Sat. Facilities include adult, children and foreign language books, videos, DVDs, large print books, free Internet access (3 terminals), Toy Library and storytime for under 5’s every Monday.

Southcote Library Southcote Lane Reading RG30 3BA

Open Tues, Thurs, Fri, Sat. Facilities include books, CDs, videos, DVDs, large print books, free Internet access (4 terminals plus 1 for children), toy Library, storytime for under 5’s every Tuesday and a book group for 8-12 year olds which meets on the 1st Thursday of each month.

Tilehurst Library School Road

Tilehurst Reading RG31 5AS

Open every day excluding Wednesday and Sunday. Facilities include books, CDs, videos, DVDs, free Internet access (5 terminals plus 2 for children), large print books, a Toy Library, storytime for under 5’s every Thursday and a book group for 8-12 year olds which meets once a month.

Whitley Library Northumberland Avenue Reading RG2 7PX

Open every day excluding Wednesday and Sunday. Facilities include books, videos, DVDs, free Internet access (3 terminals plus 1 for children), large print books, a Toy Library and storytime for under 5’s every Tuesday.

Mobile Library Services Reading Libraries has two mobile libraries serving up to 80 care establishments in Reading. Each year they make more than 8,000 visits to nursing homes, sheltered housing and people in their own homes. They offer a choice of over 20,000 books, which include more than 8,000 large print books and 2,500 spoken word books on cassette. This is a free service, which also provides information via the Internet.



APPENDIX 8D

Principal Sports Facilities and Swimming Pools in Reading Borough

APPENDIX 8D: PRINCIPAL SPORTS FACILITIES AND SWIMMING POOLS IN READING BOROUGH

Name Address Facilities Arthur Hill Pool & Fitness Studio Kings Road

Reading RG1 4SL

The centre offers a “Fitness Factory” gym and also provides swimming & fitness courses, sessions & aerobics classes. The pool is 27m long, 1m deep at the shallow end with a maximum depth of 1.9m.

Central Swimming Pool Battle Street Reading RG1 7NU

The town’s main swimming complex. The facility offers 4 separate swimming pools (a 25m competition pool (depth 1.2m to 2m), a shallow recreation pool (depth approx. 0.9m), a diving pool with 1m & 3m boards & 5m diving platform (depth 3.8m), and a teaching pool (max. depth 0.8m), along with a programme of lessons & sessions.

Fitness First The Meadway Shopping Centre Tilehurst Reading RG30 4AA

Facilities include a gym, spinning room, steam room, aromatherapy room, sun bed and juice bar. They provide one to one personal trainers, a choice of 16 different music and TV channels, a video library and a range of classes such as aerobics, yoga and Thai-Fit.

Highdown Sports Centre Surley Row Caversham Reading RG4 8NT

Situated on Highdown School campus, the school has priority use during school hours (up to 5pm weekdays). The pool is approx. 17m long (max. depth 1.8m).

Meadway Sports Centre Dunsfold Road Tilehurst Reading RG30 4NN

Dual use facility shared with Meadway School. The school has priority use during school hours (up to 5pm weekdays). The pool is 20m long (max. depth 1.3m).

Palmer Park Sports Stadium Wokingham Road Reading RG6 1LF

Set in acres of parkland, the Stadium offers a variety of indoor and outdoor leisure activities. Facilities include an athletics stadium (track and field events), 460m velodrome, floodlit football pitch, covered grandstand (seating capacity: 780), floodlit multi-sports area, “Fitness Factory” gym, sunbed, bar/refreshments, multi-purpose room, function suite & conference facilities, children’s playground and a car park.

Reflex Fitness Archway Rd Caversham Reading RG4 8AN

Facilities include a gym, 3 squash courts, along with a squash club and regular tournaments, and they offer a range of classes such as yoga, kick boxing, pilates and aerobics. They also have a Chiropractor and Acupuncturist, provide massage treatments, self tanning, facials and manicures etc.

Rivermead Leisure Complex Richfield Avenue

Reading RG1 8EQ

The largest of Reading Borough Council’s centres, it includes a leisure pool and 5 traditional pools. The facility offers an exciting water experience with an 80m flume, wave machine and water play equipment plus a baby pool with a mini slide. The pool has a beached entry with the depth gradually increasing to 1.5m. It also offers an extensive programme of major events (incl. concerts, craft fairs and exhibitions), a sports hall (10 badminton courts and multi sports area), a bowl hall (6-rink indoor, Oct – Apr), “Fitness Factory” gym, café, refreshments and a large car park.

South Reading Leisure Centre Northumberland Ave Reading RG2 8DF

The centre offers a great choice of sports and leisure activities. Facilities include 25m swimming pool, sports hall (4 badminton courts, multi sports area), “Fitness Factory” gym, floodlight hardplay area, sports pitches, snooker room, sunbed, crèche, Yippee’s Yard – Berkshire’s largest children’s indoor play area, bar/ refreshments and car park.



APPENDIX 8E

Schedule of Festivals and Events in Reading Borough

APPENDIX 8E: SCHEDULE OF FESTIVALS AND EVENTS IN READING, 2004/05 September 2004 Event Date Location Facilities Reading Pride 4 September Kings Meadow,

Napier Road A free festival for the local lesbian and gay community which celebrates diversity in Reading. The event is a first for Reading and will adopt a family-friendly policy.

Reading and Wokingham Country Show and Festival of Motoring

5 September The Showground, A33 Swallowfield by-pass South of M4 Jct 11

This annual event is a showcase for rural life and agriculture in Berkshire and provides a range of entertainment for all the family including a fairground, a beer tent, mounted falconry displays in traditional costume, sheep dog and duck demonstrations and parades of hounds, livestock and classic cars. New for this year is the Mega Mini Stunt Show.

Heritage Open Days 10-13 September Venues across Reading Each year, Reading Borough Council coordinates events and activities for Heritage Open Days, working closely with the Civic Trust to allow people access to architecturally and historically important buildings which are not normally open to the general public. It covers 4 days of walks, talks and tours.

San Francisco Libre 10th Anniversary Workshop and Fiesta

11 September Reading International Solidarity Centre, 35-39 London Street

A day of activities and celebrations to mark the 10th anniversary of the twinning link between San Fransico Libre in Nicaragua and Reading. This is a free event which includes an afternoon workshop, a fiesta and a Salsa disco in the evening.

October 2004 Event Date Location Facilities Black History Month 1-31 October Throughout Reading Part of the annual national event, this is a line up of musicians, dancers,

entertainers and comics performing at venues around Reading. Comedy Festival 9-24 October Throughout Reading A brand new event for 2004, the comedy festival will feature a variety of acts

across Reading and will be launched by Lenny Henry at the Hexagon. International Festival 17 October –

3 November Venues across Reading This festival runs for 2 weeks and celebrates Reading’s diverse culture, music,

food, theatre and dance. Events include exhibitions, workshops, feasts and talks on international issues.

Whitley Arts Festival 25-30 October Venues across Whitley Returning for its second year, this week long festival of arts gives you the opportunity to try a range of activities including drama, music, painting, dance and craft. Organised by the Reading Training Employment Advice shop team.

November 2004 Event Date Location Facilities Firework Fiesta 6 November Kings Meadow

An annual firework display and bonfire, with an evening of entertainment and events, including music from the Life FM roadshow.

The Oracle Christmas Light Switch On

12 November The Oracle An evening of fun and entertainment to mark the switching on of the Christmas Lights. This is a free event featuring a laser light show.

The Broad Street Mall Christmas Light Switch On

13 November Broad Street Mall Another evening of fun to mark the switching on of the Christmas Lights, with special guests. This is a free event.

Special Shopping Evening

18 November Reading City Centre This annual event offers a special evening of shopping for the elderly and those with disabilities. Retailers offer discounts, refreshments, and in-store entertainment for its guests. Organised by Reading Borough Council in partnership with Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce.

Reading Male Voice Choir Gala Concert

20 November Great Hall, University of Reading

In their 34th season, the choir perform this Gala concert for MacMillan Cancer Relief with special guests Shena McSween and the Lanelli Male Voice Choir.

Civic Carol Concert 27 November The Hexagon This annual carol concert celebrates its 26th year. Carols will be led by The Salvation Army Band and Songsters, accompanied by special guests. Over the years, the service as raised over £120,000 for local charities.

December 2004 Event Date Location Facilities Civic Carol Service 16 December Reading Minster,

St Mary’s Butts This traditional service of lessons and carols retells the story of Christmas. Entry is free.

Annual Pantomime December The Hexagon Queen’s Walk

The annual pantomime this year is Mother Goose, featuring Bonnie Langford and Mark Speight (from CBeebies Smart).

February 2005 Event Date Location Facilities Charity Pancake Race February Broad Street Annual charity pancake race in aid of the Reading Sports Aid Fund. Teams of

four are needed.

March 2005 Event Date Location Facilities Reading Half Marathon 6 March Reading The half marathon will be in its 23rd year for 2005 and is now one of the largest

road races in the country with in excess of 9,000 expected to take part next year. The course for 2005 will start at South Reading Leisure Centre and finish at the Madejski Stadium.

RESCUE March Reading An annual event on behalf of Rivers and Environmental Spaces Clean Up Event in which volunteers clean up our waste.

April 2005 Event Date Location Facilities CAMRA Real Ale Festival

29 April – 2 May Kings Meadow The Campaign for Real Ale celebrates its 10th annual Beer And Cider Festival featuring 350 beers, 80 ciders and perries and 100 foreign beers. Entertainment includes various bands on the Friday and Saturday evening plus fun for kids on Saturday and Sunday afternoons.

May 2005 Event Date Location Facilities Reading Children’s Festival

21 May – 5 June Venues across Reading Two weeks of fun activities and entertainment for children of all ages.

Reading Carnival Dance 28 May Rivermead Leisure Complex

This annual dance complements the carnival and includes a search for the Carnival King and Queen Competition. Other events include a Valentine’s Dance on 12 February, and two carnival evenings on 16 April and 14 May.

Reading Community Carnival

30 May Prospect Park The 27th Reading Community Carnival proceeds through the streets of West Reading starting and ending in Prospect Park.

June 2005 Event Date Location Facilities Tilehurst Eisteddfod March - June Tilehurst The Festival of Arts has been running for over 48 years. Each year it includes

dancing, arts & crafts, music, original verse & short story composition and drama. Anyone of any age can enter as an individual or part of a group.

Tilehurst Village Show June Tilehurst Recreation Ground

This event is run by the Tilehurst Residents and Community Association, the Tilehurst Youth and Community Centre and Churches Together in Tilehurst. In 2004, about 3,000 people turned up to enjoy the entertainments and sideshows.

Reading Amateur Regatta 11-12 June Thameside Promenade The second largest regatta in the country is held in Reading along the Thames Promenade next to Caversham Bridge. This is a popular annual event which attracts rowing enthusiasts and spectators alike.

Caversham Charity Folk Festival

June Thameside Promenade, Caversham Bridge is the main location, along with events at various locations around Caversham

This is a weekend festival of folk (and other music) and dance. Admission to the festival is free although a charge is made for camping, some concerts and merchandise. The organisers and artists receive no payment and all money raised through sales of programmes, raffle tickets and donations goes to Reading area local charities.

Reading WaterFest June Thameside Promenade, Caversham

In 2004 the WaterFest combined with Caversham Charity Folk Festival to create the Thameside Festival. Events included live music and dance, craft stalls, children's events and river-based activities.

Reading Hospitals Fete June Battle Hospital The annual fete is a major fundraiser for the hospital trust and is run mainly by hospital staff.

Charity Fun Day 25 June Reading Lions Club Prospect Park

This is an annual event to raise money for charity.

July 2005 Event Date Location Facilities WOMAD (World of Music, Arts and Dance)

29-31 July The Rivermead Richfield Avenue Caversham Reading

Since 1982, WOMAD has presented more than 140 events in 22 different countries and islands. The UK festival takes place each year in Reading. The 2005 event will feature over 70 artists on 7 stages, with a full programme of workshops for adults and children.

Real Ale and Jazz Festival

14-16 July Christchurch Meadows This is an annual event which provides the opportunity to indulge in Jazz and Blues and sample an elite collection of over 30 British Ales together with wine, soft drinks and great barbecue food.

Shakespeare in the Ruins 18-30 July Abbey Ruins This will be the tenth annual Abbey Ruins production of Romeo and Juliet returning after a year off to allow for the Forbury Gardens and Abbey Ruins improvements.

August 2005 Event Date Location Facilities Reading Festival 27-29 August Richfield Avenue

Reading This annual music event attended by over 50,000 people has been staged in Reading since 1971. In 2005, it will feature a variety of bands and artists from around the globe on 5 stages, as well as a comedy stage.



APPENDIX 9

Requirement Reports



APPENDIX 9A

Demand for Representation in Reading: Retail



APPENDIX 9B

Demand for Representation in Reading: Catering / Leisure



APPENDIX 9C

Demand for Representation in Reading: Hotels

Date post:	16-Jan-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times