Retail Statement - Stadium for Cornwall
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Retail Statement
On behalf of:
In respect of:
“Outline mixed use proposal for retail (Use Class A1) with
associated petrol filling station and car parking (providing
space for mobile library), food and drink (Use Classes A3,
A4 and A5) / day nursery (Use Class D1) and residential
(Use Class C3) alongside the provision of a community
and sports facility (Use Classes D1 and D2), public open
space (including formal playing pitch provision), and
other associated infrastructure (inclusive of linkage to
consented Langarth/Stadium sites). [Means of access to
be determined only]”
Date:
August 2014
Reference:
GH/MO/R0001
Cardiff Sophia House, 28 Cathedral Road, Cardiff CF11 9LJ Tel: 029 20660265
Executive Summary This application proposal will deliver the Western District Centre, residential units, community facilities and will enable the Stadium for Cornwall to be built. The application proposals meet the identified retail need and provide residents with a choice of retail offer. It meets this need at a site which is a natural extension to the approved Langarth mixed-use scheme and one which provides strong links to the Stadium for Cornwall and the wider development of the surrounding area, thereby meeting the requirements of the sequential test. The application proposal will principally compete with similar developments both within and outside of Truro. Whilst the city centre will experience some trade diversion, the over trading of existing shops and the annual growth in retail expenditure means that the impact will not be significantly adverse and the turnover of the city centre will still increase even with the proposals. Crucially, the application proposals will deliver economic, social and environmental benefits to the local community. The enabling of the construction of the Stadium of Cornwall will also deliver a once- in-a-lifetime opportunity for Cornish professional sport and community groups. The proposals represent a high quality comprehensive development generating hundreds of jobs and drawing people to the area. Crucially, the proposals do this without significant adverse impact on Truro City centre. As such, the proposals meet a number of long held objectives of the Council and have significant community support. The planning balance is clearly in favour of approving the proposals.
Contents
1.0 Introduction 3
2.0 The Proposal 4
3.0 Planning Policy Context 11
4.0 The Retail Context 15
5.0 The Sequential Test 20
6.0 The Impact of the Proposal 34
7.0 Summary and Conclusions 51
Appendices
A Retail Impact Tables 56
Table 1 Population Estimates
Table 2A Convenience Goods Per Capita Expenditure Estimate
Table 2B Comparison Goods Per Capita Expenditure Estimate
Table 3A Total Convenience Goods Expenditure
Table 3B Total Comparison Goods Expenditure
Table 4A Turnover of Foodstore Element of Proposal
Table 4B Turnover of Non-Food Element of Proposal
Table 5A Turnover of Existing Convenience Goods Stores and Centres 2014
Table 5B Turnover of Existing Convenience Goods Stores and Centres 2019
Table 5C Turnover of Existing Comparison Goods Stores and Centres 2014
Table 5D Turnover of Existing Comparison Goods Stores and Centres 2019
Table 6 Solus Convenience Goods Trade Diversion to Proposal
Table 7 Convenience Goods Turnover in 2019 with Solus Impact
Table 8 Solus Convenience Goods Impact Summary
Table 9 Cumulative Convenience Goods Trade Diversion to Proposal
Table 10 Cumulative Convenience Goods Turnover 2019 and Impact
Table 11 Solus Comparison Goods Trade Diversion to Proposal
Table 12 Comparison Goods Turnover in 2019 with Solus Impact
Table 13 Solus Convenience Goods Impact Summary
Table 14 Cumulative Comparison Goods Trade Diversion to Proposal
Table 15 Cumulative Comparison Goods Turnover 2019 and Impact
Table 16 Total Solus and Cumulative Impact on Truro City Centre
West Langarth, Truro 21.0 Introduction
1.1 This retail statement has been prepared on behalf of Inox Group and Henry Boot
Developments Limited in support of an outline planning application at West Langarth for:
“Outline mixed use proposal for retail (Use Class A1) with associated petrol filling
station and car parking (providing space for mobile library), food and drink (Use
Classes A3, A4 and A5) / day nursery (Use Class D1) and residential (Use Class C3)
alongside the provision of a community and sports facility (Use Classes D1 and D2),
public open space (including formal playing pitch provision), and other associated
infrastructure (inclusive of linkage to consented Langarth/Stadium sites). [Means of
access to be determined only]”
1.2 Section 2 of this assessment sets out details of the site and the application proposals. Section
3 sets out the planning policy context. Section 4 sets out the retail context for the proposals.
Section 5 considers the proposal against the sequential test and Section 6 assesses the
application proposals against the policies relating to retail impact. Section 7 provides a
summary and conclusions.
West Langarth, Truro 32.0 The Proposal
2.1 The application is submitted in outline with all matters except access reserved for future
consideration. The proposal comprises the following elements:
• 1 no. Class A1 Foodstore (5,574 sq m gross);
• 1 no. Petrol Filling Station (12 pumps);
• Class A1 Comparison Goods Units (4,645 sq m gross);
• Class A3, A4, A5, D1 Use (929 sq m gross);
• Associated car parking with an area suitable to accommodate the mobile library;
• Up to 130 Residential Units (Use Class C3);
• 1 no. Community/Sports Building (Use Class D1/D2) (500 sq.m gross); and
• 3 no. sports pitches and areas of public open spaces.
2.2 Whilst expressions of interest have been lodged, at this stage, there are no confirmed
operators for any of the proposed A1/A3/A4/A5/D1 units. As such, the application is made in
outline in order to agree the principle of development. Details of the exact nature, design
and location of the units will be considered at the reserved matters stage.
2.3 As set out in detail in the Design and Access Statement which accompanies the planning
application, the proposal creates direct physical link with the adjacent Langarth scheme and
beyond to the approved Stadium for Cornwall and the existing park and ride facility. The
commercial element of the application proposal has been designed to act a as ‘dumb-bell’ to
the approved stadium and the local centre approved as part of the Langarth scheme. The
provision of strong vehicular/public transport links and a ‘green’ route for pedestrians and
cyclists will draw people east to west within the site. This linkage reflects that this
application proposal should be read as one with the approved Langarth and stadium
schemes.
2.4 The linkage between the existing approved stadium and Langarth schemes means that the
proposals will benefit from linked trips between the different attractions. In addition, the
proposals will encourage linked trips to the city centre, particularly those people who are
drawn to the stadium for matches who might otherwise not visit Truro.
2.5 In light of the above, it is necessary when considering the proposals to also consider not only
the elements specifically applied for as part of this application the approved Langarth
scheme and the Stadium for Cornwall proposal, which is enabled by the application.
West Langarth, Truro 4Deliverability of the Proposal
2.6 As outlined above, at this stage, there are no operators contractually tied to the application
proposal. We contend that this does not weaken the case in support of the application, not
least because the applicants have confirmed interest from two supermarket operators are
interested occupying a store in this part of Threemilestone/Truro. Given that there are four
current opportunities for supermarkets in close proximity to one another, it is inevitable that
the supermarket retailers will wait to see which scheme is approved before committing.
Equally, whilst Asda are a named operator on the Willow Green application, this will almost
certainly be a subject to planning contract, meaning that if planning permission is not
secured, Asda will be able to ‘jump-ship’ to the successful site.
2.7 In terms of the non-food floorspace and A3/A4/A5/D1 units, the applicant has identified a
number of operators with live requirements for floorspace in Truro, who have confirmed
that subject to the granting of planning permission, they would take space at the
development. These operators are those typically found at similar sites to that proposed
rather than in city centre locations. Moreover, where operators who occupy city centre
locations have expressed potential interest, they see the application site as complementary
to the city centre offer, rather than instead of it.
2.8 On the basis of an outline planning application and in the absence of a named operator, the
ability of the applicant to deliver the proposals could be a concern for the LPA. Clearly, in a
competitive ‘either-or scenario’ such as that present in Threemilestone, the LPA need
confidence that the approved scheme can and will be delivered. This need for certainty of
delivery is why Inox Group entered into a joint venture with Henry Boot Developments
Limited (HBDL); a leading force in the UK property development market, and are vastly
experienced in delivering schemes like this.
2.9 HBDL have delivered mixed-use schemes throughout the UK. They are not reliant on external
funding to deliver schemes meaning that they are not as exposed as other developers to the
difficulties in securing finance to deliver projects. In addition, their track record of delivering
development schemes since 1886 means that they have exceptionally good links with
retailers and commercial occupiers. As such, we contend that HBDL’s involvement in this
project means that if planning permission is granted, occupiers will be confirmed and the
scheme will be delivered without delay.
2.10 In light of the absence of any named operators, in order to assess the impact of the retail
elements of the proposal a number of assumptions have been made. These are set out
West Langarth, Truro 5below:
The Proposed Food Store
2.11 The proposed foodstore will meet the need identified in the Cornwall Retail Study and will
fulfil the long held aspiration of Cornwall Council for the provision of a new district centre to
the west of Truro, serving existing residents and the planned residential growth of the city
around Threemilestone.
2.12 The following assumptions have been applied when assessing the impact of the proposed
foodtstore:
2.13 Net Floorspace – As the food store operators all have different net to gross ratios, we have
adopted a high net to gross ratio in order to ensure that the proposed store meets the needs
of all potential occupiers. As such, we have adopted the net to gross ratio of 65%. This gives
a net floorspace figure of 3,623 sq.m. (38,998 sq.ft.).
2.14 Floorspace Split – Each of the supermarket operators has a different
convenience/comparison goods split. As such, in the absence of a named operator, we have
opted for a 70/30 convenience/comparison floorspace split. This results in a convenience
goods floorspace of 2,536 sq.m. (27,297 sq.ft) and a comparison goods floorspace of 1,087
sq.m. (11,700 sq.ft).
2.15 Sales Density - As there is no operator currently associated with the proposal, we have
adopted an average of the convenience goods benchmark density of the four main foodstore
operators according to Verdict 2014 (expressed at 2007 Prices). This gives a convenience
goods sales density of £9,308 per sq.m.
2.16 For comparison goods, in the same way as we have for convenience goods, we have adopted
an average of the comparison goods benchmark density of the four main foodstore
operators according to Verdict 2014 (expressed at 2007 Prices). This gives a comparison
goods sales density of £9,340, per sq.m.
2.17 The table below sets out the respective benchmark sales densities of the ‘big four’
supermarket operators (Source: Verdict 2014):
West Langarth, Truro 6Food Non-Food
2007 Price Base (£ per sq.m) (£ per sq.m)
Tesco 8,072 12,431
Sainsbury’s 10,009 6,244
Asda 9,949 8,344
Morrison’s 9,202 10,342
Average 9,308 9,340
2.7 Turnover - Based on the above assumptions the proposal is assessed on the following basis:
Net Floorspace Benchmark Sales Density Turnover (£M)
(sq.m.) (£ per sq.m.)
Convenience Goods 2,536 9,308 23.61
Comparison Goods 1,087 9,340 10.15
TOTAL 3,623 - 33.76
The Non-food Retail Units
2.18 The proposed non-food retail units will meet the need for additional floorspace identified in
the Cornwall Retail Study. The proposed units will serve Truro and the surrounding area,
reducing the overtrading currently experienced by existing comparison goods stores in the
city. Recent planning consents outside of Truro will claw back trade from the city and, to a
lesser extent, divert it from Truro. As such, the application proposals will also claw back
expenditure which would otherwise be lost to the recently approved schemes elsewhere.
2.19 The following assumptions have been applied when assessing the impact of the proposed
foodstore:
West Langarth, Truro 72.20 Net Floorspace – As there is no end occupier for the non-food units at present, we have had
to assume the net to gross floorspace ratio. As such, we have used a conservative 80% ratio,
giving a total net floorspace for the three non-food retail units of 3,716 sq.m. (39,999 sq.ft.).
2.21 Floorspace Split – In the absence of named operators, we have assumed that the proposed
floorspace will be restricted to the sale of comparison goods. We have also assumed that
the floorspace will not be restricted to the sale of bulky-goods. We have also assumed that
the minimum floorspace of any unit would be 929 sq.m (10,000 sq.ft).
2.22 Sales Density – The location and nature of the proposed development means that the
proposed comparison goods units are most likely to be occupied by typical out-of-centre
retailers. This view is supported by the commercial agent’s findings on retailer interest for
the site. However, as there are no named operators for the proposed development and at
this time, we are not suggesting any restrictive conditions on the operation of the units, we
have tested an impact scenario whereby the development could be occupied by retailers
who also operate town centre stores.
2.23 The tables below sets out the benchmark sales densities of the types of retailers who
generally occupy out-of-centre proposals according to Verdict 2014 (expressed at 2007
Prices). This gives an average comparison goods sales density of £2,697 per sq.m:
Retail Type £ per sq.m
Stationery 1,377
Carpet Retailers 806
Clothing/General Household 2,305
Electrical 6,304
Furniture 3,118
Homeware Retailers 1,632
Miscellaneous 2,927
Sports, Camping and Leisure Goods 5,811
Toy Retailers 1,983
DIY Retailers - Main Multiples 1,521
DIY Retailers - Other Traders (10 or less outlets) 1,278
Garden Centres 3,297
OVERALL AVERAGE 2,697
2.24 However, for robustness and to assess the potential impact of the proposed comparison
goods units being occupied by retailers who are also found on the high street, we have taken
into account the higher potential turnover as set out in the table below derived from Verdict
West Langarth, Truro 82014 (2007 Prices):
Retail Type £ per sq.m
Book sellers and Stationers 2,826
Clothing Retailers 4,172
Department Stores 4,630
Other Department Stores 2,620
Electrical Retailers 9,491
Mobile Phone Retailers 16,130
Footwear Retailers 7,735
Furniture Retailers (Main) 2,254
Furniture Retailers (Other) 2,759
Health and Beauty 10,549
Homeware 2,398
Jewellers 13,427
Mixed-Goods Retailers 5,793
Music and Video Games Retailers 3,463
Sports, Camping and Leisure Goods 4,612
Toy Retailers 1,983
OVERALL AVERAGE 5,928
2.25 Given the nature of the development proposed, there is no prospect of the units being
occupied by jewellers or mobile phone retailers. As such, it is legitimate for these retailers,
who have a higher benchmark sales density due to their smaller footprints, to be excluded
from the average benchmark sales density used to assess the proposals. On this basis, the
average town centre retailer benchmark sales density is £4,352 per sq.m.
2.26 Based on the above, we have assumed that the turnover of the proposed comparison goods
units is an average of the typical out-of-town retailers benchmark (£2,697) and the typical
town centre retailer (excluding jewellers and mobile phone retailers) (£4,352 per sq.m.),
which gives an average of £3,525 per sq.m. This figure is considered higher than the actual
turnover is likely to be, but tests the ‘worst case’ impact scenario, demonstrating the
robustness of the assessment.
West Langarth, Truro 92.27 Turnover - Based on the above assumptions the non-food retail units are assessed on the
following basis:
Net Floorspace Benchmark Sales Density Turnover (£M)
(sq.m.) (£ per sq.m.)
Comparison Goods 3,716 3,525 13.10
2.28 As set out above, the use of a combined typical ‘out-of-centre’ and ‘town centre’ sales
densities means that the above turnover figure is highly likely to be an over-estimate of the
turnover of proposed comparison goods units. As such, in assessing the resultant trade
diversion and ‘impact’ we consider the assessment to be extremely robust.
Total Turnover of the Proposed Development
2.29 Based on the above assumptions, the turnover of the proposals will be as follows:
Net Sales Sales Density Turnover
(Sq.m) (£ per Sq.m) (£M)
Foodstore Convenience 2,536 9,308 23.61
Foodstore Comparison 1,087 9,340 10.15
Comparison Goods Units 3,716 3,525 13.10
Total 7,339 - 48.86
2.30 Use of benchmark sales densities and the ‘composite’ out-of-town/town centre benchmark
used to calculate the turnover of the comparison goods units, means that the turnover set
out below is likely to represent an overestimate of the actual turnover generated by the
store. This is due to a combination of the competitive retail environment in which the
development will be entering and, for the comparison goods element, a robust assumption
about the nature of the retailers who might occupy the development. As such, in assessing
the trade diversion associated with the above turnover, it should be considered a worst-case
scenario.
West Langarth, Truro 103.0 Planning Policy Context
3.1 This section sets out the planning policy context of the proposed development.
National Planning Policy
3.2 National planning policy is set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”)
published in March 2012.
3.3 The NPPF states that the Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to
create jobs and prosperity, building on the country’s inherent strengths, and to meeting the
twin challenges of global competition and of a low carbon future.
3.4 The NPPF goes on to state that the Government is committed to ensuring that the planning
system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. It highlights that
planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth.
It concludes that, significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic
growth through the planning system.
3.5 In the context of the above statements, the NPPF states that where the development plan is
absent, silent or relevant policies are out‑of‑date, planning permission should be granted
unless:
• any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the
benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or
• specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.
3.6 Crucially, the NPPF states that local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than
problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for
sustainable development where possible. It goes on to state that local planning authorities
should work proactively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic,
social and environmental conditions of the area.
3.7 When assessing applications for retail, leisure and office development outside of town
centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan, local planning authorities
should require an impact assessment if the development is over a proportionate, locally set
floorspace threshold (if there is no locally set threshold, the default threshold is 2,500 sq
m).This should include assessment of:
West Langarth, Truro 11• the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private
investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and
• the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local
consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to five years from
the time the application is made. For major schemes where the full impact will not
be realised in five years, the impact should also be assessed up to ten years from
the time the application is made.
3.8 The NPPF states that local planning authorities should apply a sequential test to planning
applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in
accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. It states that LPA’s should require applications for
main town centre uses to be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations and
only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered.
3.9 The NPPF states that when considering proposals not within a town centre, preference
should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre. The NPPF
highlights that the requirement for flexibility of format and scale is on local planning
authorities as well as applicants.
Development Plan Policy
3.10 Further to the revocation of the Regional Strategy for the South West and the Cornwall
Structure Plan, the extant development plan for the site comprises the saved policies of the
Carrick District Local Plan (adopted April 1998). However, it is important to note that these
Policies are now over 15 years old and, therefore, in accordance with the advice at paragraph
215 of the NPPF, the NPPF is plainly a material consideration.
Local Plan
3.11 Policy 7A identifies that retail developments within Truro will be consolidated within or
adjoining the central shopping areas identified on the Proposals Map. Proposals for
significant development outside of these areas will be required to show that the needs of the
area cannot be adequately provided for within or adjoining the Central Shopping Area having
regard for the need for flexibility in respect of the format, design and scale of development
(including the amount of car parking) and that it would have no significant adverse impact
upon the long term viability and vitality of the centre as a whole. Within Truro, no further
retail uses will be allowed to front onto the Inner Circuit Road or Morlaix Avenue in the
interest of road safety and accessibility.
West Langarth, Truro 123.12 Policy 7G states that proposals for supermarkets and superstores located outside of the town
centres (including Truro) will only be permitted where the needs of the area cannot be
accommodated within or adjoining the central shopping areas identified in Policy 7A and
where a series of criteria are complied with (no conflict with environmental or built
environment policies; no significant adverse impact upon the vitality and viability of the
centre as a whole when considered on its own or together with other relevant proposals in
the locality; adequate parking; no loss of industrial premises; acceptable access and no
adverse impact on surrounding highway network; satisfactory landscaping; scale and design
compatible with surrounding land uses; no issues with the provision of essential services).
Where any future changes to the retail character of such developments would threaten the
vitality and viability of a town centre shopping area, the district planning authority will seek
an obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to limit the
range of goods sold and to restrict future sub-divisions.
Emerging Local Plan
3.13 The policies detailed in the emerging Cornwall Local Plan are not yet part of the development
plan in advance of formal adoption. Discussions with a member of the local authority’s
Planning Policy team confirmed that following a further round of consultation on the
submission version, it is expected that the Plan will be submitted towards the end of 2014.
Therefore, at this stage the relevant retail policy (Policy 4) may only be afforded very limited
weight in the decision making process.
Neighbourhood Plan for Truro and Kenwyn
3.14 Whilst there has been Panel discussion on the emerging Neighbourhood Plan, it has yet to be
subject of a formal referendum and therefore carries minimal weight in planning decisions.
Land North of the A390 Development Brief
3.15 It is the opinion of Christopher Lockhart-Mummery QC, whose opinion accompanies
the planning application that the Land North of the A390 Development Brief “is not, and
cannot be, a planning policy document.”. This view is supported by James Findlay QC on
behalf of the LPA:
“The Brief should not be treated like a development plan document but it can
justifiably be had regard to”.
West Langarth, Truro 133.16 James Findlay QC has also set out his view on the purpose of the Development Brief, stating:
“What the DB has done is gather the relevant principles, goals and objectives and
has undertaken consideration of these against the specific circumstances of the
location. The DB sets out at least one view as to what might constitute good
planning of the area and to that extent is entitled to weight”.
3.17 James Findlay’s view supports our own that the brief was no more than a response to
schemes put to the council at the time of drafting the document in 2012. It is not
underpinned by any technical survey work and does not even appear directly related to the
advice on the provision of a district centre contained in the Cornwall Retail Study (“CRS”).
3.18 The boundary adopted by the Brief is contiguous with the boundaries of those schemes and,
therefore, we contend, that had West Langarth been put to the Council at that time it is
highly likely that the area of the Brief would have included it. Thus, in our view the
boundaries of the brief have little credence.
West Langarth, Truro 144.0 The Retail Context
4.1 The Cornwall Retail Study produced by GVA (“the CRS”) on behalf of Cornwall Council and
published in 2010 sets the context for retail development within the County.
4.2 The CRS examines the current shopping patterns in Cornwall and sets out recommendations
for accommodating further retail provision. To inform its recommendations, the CRS
examines the availability of expenditure within Cornwall and the current performance of
existing stores. We set out below conclusions drawn from the CRS in the context of the
subject proposal.
Convenience Goods
4.3 The household shopping survey undertaken to inform the CRS demonstrated that Zone 10
(Truro) retains the vast majority of it’s convenience goods expenditure (84%). For Zones 9, 11
and 12 which abut Truro, the expenditure accounted for in Truro was less at 21%, 69% and
74%, but remained high, reflective of the retail hierarchy in this part of Cornwall.
4.4 The CRS examined the need for further convenience goods floorspace in Truro. It examined
the extent of additional floorspace required to meet needs based on four population
scenarios ranging from high growth based on the National Housing and Planning Advice Unit,
through to a zero new residential development across Cornwall. The need for additional
convenience goods floorspace (sq.m.) for each growth scenario for the years 2009-2031 are
set out in the extract from the Study below:
West Langarth, Truro 154.5 The extract above shows that assuming a constant marketshare, there would sufficient
available expenditure to support the convenience goods element of the application proposal
by 2021 under two of the four population scenarios tested.
Comparison Goods
4.6 The household shopping survey undertaken in support of the CRS demonstrates that Truro
acts a regional centre for comparison goods shopping. The household survey results show
that Truro accounts for 20% of the comparison goods expenditure from the CRS Study Area,
which encompasses the whole of Cornwall and western Devon. Applying a primary
catchment to the household survey, encompassing zones 1-17 and 22, which excludes the
most easterly zones which fall in Devon, Truro’s market share of comparison goods
expenditure increases to 41% of total available expenditure. The second largest market-
share is accounted for by St Austell (11%), closely followed by Penzance (10%). As such, it is
clear that Truro is the dominant comparison goods retail centre in Cornwall.
4.7 Based on the CRS, the turnover of existing comparison goods stores in Truro from Zones 1-17
and Zone 22 equates to £581.63M per annum at 2014, which by 2019, will increase to
£673.92M per annum. In assessing the current planning applications for retail floorspace in
Truro, GVA have assumed that 80% of this expenditure is accounted for by the city centre,
the remainder comprising out-of-centre retail stores and centres. As such, the city centre
turnover is assumed to be £539.14M at 2019.
4.8 GVA examine the need for further floorspace in Truro in the CRS. They examine the ‘need’
for additional floorspase based on four population scenarios, ranging from high growth
based on the National Housing and Planning Advice Unit, through to a zero new residential
development across Cornwall. The need for additional comparison goods floorspace (sq.m.)
for each growth scenario for the years 2009-2031 are set out in the extract from the Study
below:
West Langarth, Truro 164.9 The above demonstrates that for all scenarios, there is a need for considerable additional
comparison goods floorspace. We contend that the most robust population scenario is the
trend based growth which, according to GVA, results in a need for an additional 34,144 sq.m
of comparison goods floorspace by 2021.
4.10 Whilst there has been comparison goods floorspace approved as part of a number of
planning permissions across Cornwall since the CRS was prepared, the vast majority of these
are outside of Truro. As such, whilst GVA highlight in their latest advice to the LPA that the
need for additional comparison goods floorspace in Truro has been reduced by schemes such
as the Trevithick Manor and Treloggan Road sites in Newquay clawing back expenditure from
Truro, this has had the effect of reducing the need for additional floorspace in Truro rather
than removing the need altogether.
Overtrading of Existing Stores
4.11 The table below is derived from the Study and sets out the floorspace composition of Truro
city centre in 2008 and 2009:
West Langarth, Truro 174.12 Based on the above and the average benchmark sales densities for typical town centre
operators derived from Verdict (2014), it is possible to calculate a broad benchmark sales
density of the comparison and convenience goods floorspace in Truro city centre. The table
below summarises our estimates of these:
Floorspace (based on Benchmark Sales Benchmark
2009 derived from Density (£ per sq.m.) Turnover (£M)
Study) (2007 Prices)
Convenience Goods 9,792 £1,750 £17.1
Comparison Goods 47,464 £5,928 £281.37
Total 57,256 N/A £298.5
4.13 Whilst the above is very crude as it is based on dated floorspace figures and our estimate of a
realistic convenience goods benchmark sales density, it provides a useful barometer to
assess the current performance of the city centre and the likely impact of the proposed
development on it.
West Langarth, Truro 184.14 As set out above, the market share in the CRS indicates that at 2014, the turnover of Truro
City Centre is £474.25M. As can be seen from the above table, very crudely the comparison
goods turnover of the city centre equates to approximately 133% the benchmark turnover
estimate. Whilst this is a very crude estimate, it is clear that even with sensitivity applied to
the level of floorspace present in the city centre or the benchmark sales density assumed,
the city centre is performing well above ‘benchmark’ and can be said to be ‘over-trading’.
West Langarth, Truro 195.0 The Sequential Test
5.1 The NPPF requires the assessment of proposals against the sequential test to site selection.
5.2 The NPPF requires applicants for all retail proposals outside of an existing centre to
demonstrate that there are no sequentially preferable sites that are available, suitable and
viable that could accommodate the application proposal. Suitable sites or buildings within
existing centres should be considered first, then edge of centre locations and finally out of
centre sites. In applying the sequential test, the decision taker has to have regard to
accessibility and connectivity to the relevant town/city centre.
5.3 Before considering the proposals against the sequential test, it is important to consider the
implications of the application proposals being directed to an alternative site. As set out in
the Enabling Development Statement which accompanies the planning application, profit
from the proposed development will fund the development of the approved stadium. As
such, in applying the sequential test, any requirement for the application to be
accommodated on an alternative site would, by virtue of the need to purchase it, reduce the
profit from the proposed development. This is because any site which was identified as
being sequentially preferable to the application site would attract a premium value
compared to the application site. In such circumstances, the ability of the application
proposal to enable the construction of the approved stadium would be severely
compromised.
5.4 In light of the above, we contend that the enabling development benefit of the proposal
should be a factor in the consideration of the application of the sequential test. This is best
assessed against the viability criteria in the test, as the economic case in support of the
proposed development needs not only to support the proposed development, but also the
construction of the stadium.
5.5 Before considering the proposals against the sequential test, it is important to assess the
relative merits of the application site and the need it is meeting. It is also crucial to be clear
on the requirements of alternative sites to be able to accommodate the application
proposals.
The Application Site
5.6 Prior to considering whether there are sequentially preferable sites to accommodate the
application proposals, it is important to consider the relative ‘sequential’ merits of the
application site.
West Langarth, Truro 205.7 The application proposal is located to act as the ‘western district centre’, the need for which
is identified in the GVA Cornwall Retail Study and is carried through into the Land North of
the A390 Truro/Threemilestone Development Brief (“the Brief”), although as set out earlier
in this assessment, the weight afforded to that document is limited.
5.8 Whilst the application site falls outside, but adjacent to the site boundary of the Brief, the
proposals are fully integrated with the adjacent Langarth approved scheme. The application
proposal is in effect an extension of the Brief area, increasing the level of residential
development provided to meet the need beyond that identified in the Brief, but also making
provision for public open space to facilitate the delivery of the Langarth approved scheme
and the stadium proposal. As such, we contend that the proposal should be viewed as
delivering the vision of the Brief. In this sense, we contend that the retail element of the
application proposals meet the identified need and are in line with the spirit of the Brief, if
not the specified boundary.
5.9 The Brief should not be treated as a development plan document, but rather an indication of
what the LPA, at the time of preparing it in early 2012, considered to be ‘good planning of
the area’. As set out earlier, the Brief directly reflected the planning applications submitted
at that moment in time. As such, had the West Langarth proposal been submitted at that
time, it is highly likely that it too would have been included within the boundary.
5.10 Since the Brief was prepared there have been a number of material changes in circumstances
including the approval of the Langarth and stadium applications, and, crucially, the shortfall
in funding for the delivery of stadium, which forms an integral part of the Brief. As such, we
believe that in considering this application, the boundary of the Brief should be considered
as being expanded to take account of the need for further development beyond that
envisaged at the time of its preparation.
5.11 In terms of the application of the sequential test, the Brief does not specify the location of
the anticipated district centre. As such, it can be said that any site within the Brief boundary
is meeting the identified need for the western district centre. It is reasonable, therefore, to
conclude that in applying the sequential approach within the area, all sites should be
considered as being ‘equal’. Applying this principle to the assertion that the application
proposal represents an evolution of the brief to reflect a material change in circumstances
since it was prepared, means that the application site fulfils the requirements of the Western
district centre and, therefore, satisfies the sequential approach.
West Langarth, Truro 215.12 Our contention that the application site is meeting the need for the Western district centre is
supported by an assessment of the application proposals against the criteria that GVA set out
in the Cornwall Retail Study for the assessment of suitable sites to meet this need. GVA’s
criteria are set out below:
“In order to ensure that any new centre is located where it can provide easily
accessible facilities for the resident population, we consider that the decision on
should be informed by geographical and accessibility factors. Given its importance, it
is likely that convenience retail provision will form the basis for any new provision,
supplemented by other day-to-day shopping and service facilities. We set out below
(not in any order of importance) a basket of factors which we feel may be
appropriate for the Council to take into account when considering the scale and
location of a new defined centre:
(i). Geographical distribution of retail floorspace. This can identify which areas are
best/worst served by retail provision.
(ii). Dominant shopping facilities, by area. Using shopping survey data, the analysis
can identify which facilities are attractive to the residents and can establish the
distances which local residents currently travel for convenience and comparison
shopping.
(iii). Walk-in catchments. It is vital that new residential development in
Truro/Threemilestone has easy and convenient access to retail facilities, especially
convenience retail provision. Walking distances of 500 metres to 1km can be
modelled to show areas which have good/poor accessibility on foot.
(iv). Drive-time catchments. Given the dominance of car-borne journeys, particularly
for bulk/main-food shopping trips, it will be important to model 5 minute drive time
catchments from existing stores and centres.
(v). Public transport accessibility. The walk-in and drivetime catchments should also
be accompanied by an analysis of public transport routes which can establish the
proximity of residential areas to public transport routes which serve retail provision.
The outputs from the above can then be mapped to show potential suitable
locations for a new centre. Where such areas are identified, then the Council can
consider other factors which cannot be mapped but may nevertheless be important
factors. Such factors are likely to be individual to local area and the
West Langarth, Truro 22areas/developments concerned, although may include: impact on existing local
businesses, accessibility, contribution to community vitality, contribution to local
economy, visibility to passing trade and deliverability.”
5.13 In assessing the application proposals against GVA’s criteria, we conclude the following:
• The application is located such that will serve the existing and proposed
community in Threemilestone in the same way that the alternative sites will;
• In terms of distance from the city centre, we contend as an expansion of
Langarth, the site is equal to the alternative sites; and
• The CRS shows that there is a currently leakage of convenience goods
expenditure from Truro to shops and centres further afield. This is largely to do
with the limited choice of convenience goods provision and the over-trading of
existing stores making them unattractive shopping destinations. This qualitative
deficiency is particularly relevant to Threemilestone. Whilst comparison goods
expenditure is largely retained by Truro and the city draws expenditure from a
wide catchment, there remains a need for further floorspace, which we
contend, cannot be accommodated within the city centre;
5.14 The application proposal is embedded within the approved Langarth residential scheme and
the wider Threemilstone Development Brief area. The application has been designed to
maximise linkage between the retail units and the surrounding residential areas, with a
particular emphasis on creating a ‘boulevard’ style link and a ‘green’ pedestrian/cycle to the
heart of the Langarth and beyond to the approved stadium proposal. As such, whilst it is to
the west of Threemilestone, the attraction of the mix of uses and the physical linkages mean
that the application site is delivering the vision set out in the development brief.
5.15 The application proposal is located within easy driving distance of a large proportion of the
residents of Truro, but also, by virtue of its location directly adjacent to the A390, to people
living to the west of Truro who are currently underserved by convenience and comparison
goods floorspace. Of the ‘alternative sites’, the application site being situated to the west of
the growth area means that it arguably best serves this element of the population.
5.16 The application proposal incorporates significant improvements to public transport provision
which will serve the retail development but also the wider residential and leisure provision at
the site. As such, we contend that the site is very well catered for by public transport links.
West Langarth, Truro 235.17 In reality, it is evident that there is very little, if any, difference between the alternative sites
when assessed against the above criteria. However, GVA also set out a number of other
factors which might influence the choice of the location of the district centre. In considering
these, the application proposal offers something above and beyond the alternative district
centre proposals.
5.18 Firstly, the application is a mixed-use proposal, anchored by a supermarket, but also
comprising non-food retail units, a public house/restaurant, a petrol filling station and a
community sports facility. As such, the proposals make a significant contribution to
community vitality and the local economy. In addition, as set out in the accompanying
Enabling Development Statement, the application proposals will fund the delivery of the
approved stadium proposal at the heart of the Brief site. As such, we assert that the wider
benefit for the local community and economy resulting from this application is far greater
than any of the alternative proposals.
5.19 In light of the above, the application proposal fulfils the western district centre role outlined
in the brief. We assert that the proposals reflect the evolution of the growth of
Threemilestone since the brief was prepared and that the difference between the alternative
sites is so little that the brief area is not a particularly important consideration. Crucially, the
brief also did not identify a specific location for the foodstore.
5.20 In light of the lack of weight afforded to the brief, the location of the foodstore should have
more regard to the wider locational issues that GVA suggest should be taken into account
when assessing the location of the district centre. Assessing the proposal against these
criteria, we contend that the proposal comes out better than the alternative sites,
particularly when the enabling development argument for the stadium, which is at the heart
of the vision for the area, is taken into account.
5.21 In summary, we conclude that as the western district centre, the application meets the
aspirations of the LPA and satisfies the requirements of the sequential test. Notwithstanding
this view, for completeness, we have undertaken an assessment of the application proposals
against the sequential approach.
The Search Area
5.22 In applying the sequential approach, it is important to consider the appropriateness of the
area of search for alternative sites. The NPPF is silent on this matter, however, it is evident
that the requirement for the site to be ‘suitable’ to accommodate the application proposals
means that it must be suitable to meet the identified need.
West Langarth, Truro 245.23 In this case, the proposed development fulfils the stated objective of the LPA to provide a
district centre to meet the retail need identified in the Land North of the A390
Truro/Threemilestone Development Brief. This states that there is a need for the provision
of “new retail floorspace to meet the needs of existing and future residents in a form and of a
size consistent with the findings of the Study of Retail provision in Cornwall carried out for the
Council by consultants GVA Grimley in 2010 and to include a single medium sized new
Foodstore.” The Brief goes on to highlight that the 2010 GVA retail study indicates the need
for a store “probably not less than 2,500 sq.m. net but principally on the basis of geography,
walking etc to serve fully the convenience needs of development on the whole of the area
covered by the Brief and reduce need to travel to other stores.”
5.24 The CRS confirms that there are “likely to be opportunities for improved quality of provision
both within the city centre and possibly to serve new large residential communities which are
created by the extension of the Truro/Threemilestone urban area.” It goes on to confirm that
“The current successful trading performance, and potential overtrading of the main
supermarkets in Truro, also contributes to the need for qualitative improvements in provision
in the city.”
5.25 In light of the above, it is clear that there is an acceptance by the LPA and their retail
advisors, GVA, that the identified retail need can only be met by a site located in Truro, and
more specifically in the Threemilestone area. As such, in considering the sequential
approach, our search has been restricted to this area. To do otherwise would result in
unsuitable sites being considered.
5.26 Having considered the search area, alternative sites are assessed against three criteria:
availability, suitability and viability. These are considered in more detail below:
Availability
5.27 In relation to the availability of alternative sites, the NPPF requires the consideration of any
edge or town centre sites which might be ‘available’. It does not seek to suggest that sites
should be available during the remainder of the plan period or over a period of any specified
number of years. Given the ethos of the NPPF, which is to “look for solutions rather than
problems” and to facilitate and not frustrate economic growth, we contend that it is entirely
reasonable to suggest that in the absence of any specific requirement to predict future
availability, any alternative sites must be available to meet the identified need now.
West Langarth, Truro 25Suitability
5.28 Suitability, relates to whether the proposals can reasonably and successfully be located at a
particular site. In considering the Dundee case, the Supreme Court ruled that ‘suitable’
means ‘suitable for the development proposed by the applicant’. Moreover, the principle
that an applicant should alter or reduce the proposal so as to fit onto an alternative site has
been explicitly rejected. These principles were explored in the recent Rushden Lakes call-in
decision, where the Inspector stated:
“The policy concerning the sequential approach as set out in the NPPF, and (to the
extent that it is still relevant) the non-policy PG that accompanied PPS4, must be
applied in a manner which complies with the legally binding case law on the
meaning of the sequential approach.”
5.29 The Rushden Lakes call-in decision provides a very clear statement on the balance between
suitability and flexibility. It States:
“if a site is not suitable for the commercial requirements of the developer in question
then it is not a suitable site for the purposes of the sequential approach; and [b] that
in terms of the size of the alternative site, provided that the Applicant has
demonstrated flexibility with regards to format and scale, the question is whether
the alternative site is suitable for the proposed development not whether the
proposed development could be altered or reduced so that it can be made to for the
alternative site.”
5.30 The Rushden decision also provides clear guidance on the principle of flexibility and, in
particular, disaggregation of proposals when considering the suitability of alternative sites.
The Inspector stated (para 8.47):
“A related submission concerns the differences between national policy as now
stated in the NPPF and as previously stated in PPS4. The last sentence of NPPF states
that: “Applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on
issues such as format and scale.” This contrast strikingly with what was said
previously in PPS4 in policy EC15.1 at (d) (iv) and 15.2 which contained an explicit
requirement for disaggregation. There is no longer any such requirement stated in
the NPPF. It is no answer to this to refer to the words “such as” in the last sentence
of NPPF. These words cannot be read so as to imply that a major, and extremely
controversial, part of previously stated national policy lives on by implication in the
NPPF. Had the Government intended to retain disaggregation as a requirement it
West Langarth, Truro 26would and should have explicitly stated this in the NPPF. If it had been intended to
carry on with the requirement then all that would have been required is the addition
of the word “disaggregation” at the end of NPPF.”
5.31 The Rushden decision is clear, “There is no requirement to disaggregate” (para 8.51). In
relation to what constitutes ‘flexibility’, the Rushden decision (para 8.49) highlights the
absence of any clarification within the NPPF, but suggest guidance be drawn from the
Guidance which accompanied PPS4:
“The NPPF requires developers to demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format
and scale. No indication as to what degree of flexibility is required is contained in the
NPPF. Such a requirement was previously contained in PPS4 and so any relevant PG
advice continues to be material. PPS4 PG is of assistance: flexibility in a business
model, use of multi level stores, flexible car parking requirements or arrangements,
innovative servicing solutions and a willingness to depart from standard formats.”
Viability
5.32 Finally, in assessing sites ability to accommodate the application proposals, they should not
present any obvious economic obstacles. As set out above, the application proposal will
fund the construction of the approved stadium on the adjacent site. As such, in this instance,
as it forms the premise of the application proposal, we contend that in assessing the financial
viability of an alternative site, the need for the scheme to result in a profit which would fund
the stadium should be a consideration.
Assessment parameters
5.33 For the purposes of the sequential test, sites have been which will be able to accommodate
the below floorspace as proposed:
West Langarth, Truro 27Site Area 17.64 hectares – 4.65 hectares to
accommodate 11,648 sq.m. (gross) of
A1/A3/A4/A5/D1/D2 floorspace parking and
servicing.
Parking Provision Up to 650 spaces
Operational Requirements Located within the Threemilestone area in
order to meet the identified qualitative and
quantitative need of existing and future
residents of the western part of the city.
5.34 In line with the requirements of the NPPF, the applicant has adopted a flexible approach to
above requirements. In considering the scale of development, the applicant has
demonstrated flexibility by virtue of the fact that the applicant could have provided far
greater retail floorspace than the site than is proposed. This is demonstrated by the fact that
a large part of the site is taken up by public open space provision. In addition, whilst the
application proposal does not currently propose any mezzanine floorspace, in assessing
alternative sites, this option has been considered in order to reduce the footprint on the
proposed development, maximising flexibility.
5.35 In relation to demonstrating flexibility through a reduction in the level of commercial
development proposed, it is important to have regard to the enabling case being presented
by the application proposal. As outlined in the Enabling Development Statement, which
accompanies the application, profit from the proposed commercial development will be used
to fund the development of the approved stadium on the adjacent. As such, reducing the
size of the development proposed would reduce the profit generated from the scheme,
which in turn would mean that there would be a shortfall in the funding required to develop
the stadium. Accordingly, we contend that in this instance, there is good reason for the
overall floorspace of the proposed development not being reduced in order that it might be
accommodated on an alternative site.
5.36 In addition to examining the potential to reduce the overall floorspace of the proposed
development, the applicant has also considered reducing the car parking requirement for the
site. The applicant has also examined whether the introduction of different servicing
arrangements to those proposed would enable the proposed development to be
West Langarth, Truro 28accommodated on alternative sites.
Conclusions Drawn from Other Applications
5.37 Prior to assessing the potential of other sites to accommodate the proposals, it is useful to
consider the conclusions reached on sequentially preferable sites in respect of the three
current planning applications in Threemilestone and, prior to them, the Taste of
Cornwall/Waitrose application.
5.38 Whilst the conclusions reached on these applications are specific to the respective proposals,
which differ from this application, their nature is identical; all being supermarket anchored
schemes. Moreover, similar to the application proposal, the three current planning
applications are all centred around Threemilestone. The only difference between the
applications is the inclusion of additional non-food units. However, on the basis of the above
assessment of the requirements of a site to be ‘suitable’, and the clear statement that
proposals are no longer required to be disaggregated, we contend that comparison with the
previously reached conclusions on the sequential test are valid, not least because even
adopting a flexible approach, the size of the proposed development is considerably larger
than any of the other proposals assessed.
5.39 In assessing the other retail applications in Truro, the Council’s retail consultants, GVA, and
the Council have made a series of conclusions on the sequential test, which are relevant to
this application. Crucially, the following sites were not considered suitable, available or viable
alternatives to the Taste of Cornwall/Waitrose application:
• Pydar Street;
• Moorfield car park/former Sommerfield unit;
• Pannier Market;
• Old Bridge Street Car Park;
• Fairmantle Street Car Park;
• Halfords;
• High Cross Car Park;
• Garras Wharf; and
• TA Hall
West Langarth, Truro 29You can also read
