hollisvincent report - denso and eaton sites birmingham - final report 1st march 2012

7/31/2019 HollisVincent Report - Denso and Eaton Sites Birmingham - Final Report 1st March 2012

1/68


2/68


3/68

Denso and Eaton Sites, Birmingham - Audit of the Retail Policy Aspects of the ApplicantsSupport Material: Application References: 2011/06776/PA and 2011/08182/PA

HV040 | March 2012FINAL REPORT

CONTENTS

1 INSTRUCTIONS AND OUTLINE OF REPORT 1 Instructions ................................................................................................................................. 1 The Application Proposals .......................................................................................................... 2 Scope of Instructions .................................................................................................................. 3 Outline of Report ......................................................................................................................... 4

2 THE REQUIREMENTS OF NATIONAL POLICY FOR TOWN CENTRES AND SUSTAINABLEECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 5 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 5 PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth.................................................................... 5 Development Management Policies ........................................................................................... 5

PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development (February 2005) ................................................... 6

Conclusions in Relation to National Policy Requirements ......................................................... 8 Recent and Emerging Government Policy ................................................................................. 9 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development ............................................................... 11 Draft National Planning Policy Framework ............................................................................... 11 Conclusion in Relation to Emerging National Policy ................................................................ 12

3 APPRAISAL OF THE APPLICATIONS AGAINST THE RETAIL POLICY ASPECTS OF THECURRENT AND EMERGING DEVELOPMENT PLAN 14 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 14 West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Phase 1 Revision (January 2008) ......................... 15 Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (October 2005) .......................................................... 16 Conclusions in Relation to the Retail Policy Aspects of the Development Plan ...................... 19 The Emerging Core Strategy .................................................................................................... 20 The Emerging Shopping and Local Centres SPD .................................................................... 20

4 QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE NEED 22 The Relationship Between Need, Impact and the Sequential Approach ................................. 22 Methodology for Assessing Need ............................................................................................. 23 Birmingham Retail Needs Assessment .................................................................................... 24 hollissvincent Assessment of Quantitative Retail Need ........................................................... 26 Qualitative Retail Need ............................................................................................................. 28 Overall Conclusions in Relation to Retail Need ....................................................................... 30

5 THE SEQUENTIAL TEST 31

Requirements of PPS4 ............................................................................................................. 31 The Sequential Location Categories of the Application Sites .................................................. 32 Our Appraisal ............................................................................................................................ 33 Conclusions in Relation to Sequential Test .............................................................................. 38 The Eaton Application .............................................................................................................. 38

6 THE IMPACT TESTS 40 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 40 EC16.1.a Impact on Committed and Planned Investment ....................................................... 40 EC16.1.b Impact on Town Centre Vitality and Viability and EC16.1.d Impact on In-centre Tradeand Turnover ........................................................................................................................... 43

EC16.1.c Impact on Allocated Sites Outside Town Centres Being Developed in Accordance withthe Development Plan ............................................................................................................. 53

EC16.1.e If Located In, or on the Edge of a Town Centre, Whether the Proposal is of anAppropriate Scale .................................................................................................................... 54


4/68



EC16.1.f Any Locally Important Impacts .................................................................................. 54 Conclusions in Relation to Policy EC16.1 Impacts .................................................................. 55

7 CONCLUSIONS 57 The Policy EC17 Framework .................................................................................................... 57 EC17.1.a The Sequential Test (Policy EC15) .......................................................................... 58 EC17.1.b The Policy EC16 Impact Tests ................................................................................. 59 EC17.2 Balancing Exercise ...................................................................................................... 60

APPENDICES (SEPARATELY BOUND)Appendix 1 Methodology for Assessing Quantitative Retail Need and Cumulative ImpactAppendix 2 Capacity and Impact Spreadsheets in the Convenience and Comparison Sectors


5/68




6/68



1

1 INSTRUCTIONS AND OUTLINE OF REPORT

Instructions1.1 In January 2012, Birmingham City Council instructed hollissvincent to undertake an audit

of the retail policy aspects of two separate applications, as follows:

an application submitted by RPS, in October 2011, on behalf of Shaftmoor Properties

Limited Partnership (SPLP), for the mixed-use redevelopment of the former Denso site

at Shaftmoor Lane, Birmingham (ref 2011/06776/PA); and

an application submitted by Marrons, in November 2011, on behalf of A & J Mucklow

(Halesowen) Limited and Helical Retail Limited, for the mixed-use redevelopment of

land at Olton Boulevard/Reddings Lane/Battery Way, hereafter referred to as the

Eaton site in Tyseley, although this application site covers a much wider area

including the site known as Signal Point, which would provide for, amongst other

things, the relocation of Eaton Electrics (ref 2011/08182/PA).

1.2 In undertaking our audit of both applications, we have reviewed the following material:

the planning application forms and accompanying site plans associated with both

applications;

the RPS Retail Statement of October 2011 and the Marrons PPS4 Retail Assessment of

November 2011;

the RPS Planning Statement of October 2011 and the Marrons Planning Policy

Statement of November 2011;

the Marrons Economic Assessment of November 2011; additional correspondence from RPS relating to the issue of cumulative impact, dated

5 th January 2012; and

the Birmingham Retail Needs Assessment (BRNA), of October 2009, prepared by

Roger Tym and Partners, on behalf of the City Council.


7/68



2

The Application Proposals

The Denso Site

1.3 The full planning application submitted by RPS, on behalf of SPLP, comprises two

components, as follows:

A food superstore, to be operated by Wm Morrison, with a gross floorspace of 6,547

sq.m and a net sales are of 3,530 sq.m, of which 75 per cent, or 2,647 sq.m, will be

used for the sale of convenience goods.

An Extra Care retirement village comprising 278 units, together with support facilities

including recreation rooms, workshops and activities areas.

1.4 Thus, the focus of our report in respect of the RPS submission is the first component,

which seeks the redevelopment of the northern part of the former Denso site for a food

superstore. The proposed Wm Morrison store is located within 300 metres of Olton

Boulevard Neighbourhood Centre, and can be considered, therefore, to be in an edge of

centre location, for the purposes of the definitions set out in Annex B of PPS4.

The Eaton Site

1.5 The outline application submitted by Marrons proposes a mix of uses, including a food

superstore to be operated by ASDA, with a gross floorspace of up to 6,658 sq.m and a net

sales area of 3,716 sq.m, of which 57 per cent, or 2,133 sq.m, will be used for the sale of

convenience goods. The application also proposes 6,870 sq.m gross (5,152 sq.m net) of

additional comparison units of varying size, a six pump petrol filling station, up to 27,880

sq.m of B1/B2/B8 development, residential development (of approximately 70 units) andpublic open space, together with on-site and off-site highway improvements. Marrons

seek, therefore, to promote the application as a new neighbourhood centre for the

Tyseley area, but we note at the outset that such a proposal has not been promoted

through the Core Strategy process.

1.6 The Eaton site is located approximately 500 metres to the south of Tyseley

Neighbourhood Centre, and approximately 1 kilometre to the northwest of Olton

Boulevard Neighbourhood Centre and the proposed Wm Morrison at the Denso Site.


8/68



3

Thus, the Eaton application site is considered to be in an out of centre location for the

purposes of the definitions set out in Annex B of PPS4.

Scope of Instructions

1.7 Both applications involve the redevelopment of previously developed land and are likely

to promote substantial regeneration and employment benefits. Thus, although the focus

of our instructions relates to the retail policy aspects of the applications, we do provide

some commentary in relation to employment and regeneration benefits in the final

section of our report under the PPS4 Policy EC17.2 balancing exercise. However, it is

outside the scope of our instructions to comment on the implications of a loss of

employment land, which applies particularly to the Denso application for which no B1, B2

or B8 uses are proposed.

1.8 Moreover, both applications would yield public sector benefits, such as new highways

infrastructure in respect of the Eaton application, and a proportion of affordable units in

the retirement village component of the Denso application. It is important to note,

however, that neither of the applications is being promoted as enabling development,

which is development that would be unacceptable in planning terms, but for the fact that

it would bring public benefits sufficient to justify it being carried out, and which could not

otherwise be achieved.

1.9 Enabling development is not a statutory term, but was confirmed as a legitimate planning

tool in 1988, when the Court of Appeal, in R v Westminster City Council ex parte

Monahan, upheld the validity of a planning permission authorising office development,

even though contrary to the development plan, on the basis that it would provide funds,

unobtainable by other means, to improve the Royal Opera House.

1.10 Thus, the retail components of both applications are being promoted as a basis for cross

funding, rather than enabling development, with both applicants asserting that the retail

components are policy compliant. We are not instructed, therefore, to comment on the

quantum of retail development required to secure the cross funding, and note that no

viability evidence is presented in either case.


9/68



4

1.11 As a final point of introduction in relation to the scope of our instructions we should state

that the Council has recognised the different methodologies employed in the applicants

support material (although both draw on the patterns of retail expenditure established by

the Birmingham Retail Needs Assessment). As a consequence, we have been instructed

to undertake our own assessment of cumulative retail impact, taking account of

expenditure capacity in the catchment area of the two proposals in the next five years, as

required by Policy EC16.1d of PPS4. Thus, a key aspect of our instructions was to address

the issue of whether there is scope for two new food superstores in this area having

regard to the sequential and impact tests set out in Polices EC15 and EC16 of PPS4.

Outline of Report

1.12 The remainder of our report is structured as follows:

Section 2 provides a brief resume of the requirements of current and emerging

national policy for town centres and sustainable economic development;

Section 3 provides our appraisal of both applications in relation to the retail policy

aspects of the current and emerging development plan;

Section 4 deals with the quantitative and qualitative need for further food superstore

provision in the southeast Birmingham area, over and above existing commitments,

recognising that need is no longer a development management test for the purposes

of PPS4, but recognising, also, that need informs the application of the sequential

approach, scale and the likelihood or otherwise of adverse impacts on town centres;

Section 5 provides our appraisal of both applications in relation to the sequential test,

set out in Policy EC15 of PPS4; Section 6 provides our appraisal of both applications against the impact tests set out

in Policy EC16.1 of PPS4; and

Section 7 provides our overall conclusions in relation to retail policy issues, set within

the context of Policy EC17 of PPS4.


10/68



5

2 THE REQUIREMENTS OF NATIONAL POLICY FOR TOWN

CENTRES AND SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Introduction

2.1 Current national policy, insofar as it relates to town centres and the delivery of

sustainable economic growth and development is set, in the main, in PPS4 and PPS1. We

provide a brief overview, also, of emerging national policy, as set out in HM Treasurys

Plan for Growth, Mr Clarks written ministerial statements of 23 March 2011 and 15 June

2011 and in the Draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth

2.2 The Governments overarching objective is sustainable economic growth, so that one of

its main objectives for planning is to promote the vitality and viability of town centres. To

do this, the Government wants:

new economic growth and development of main town centre uses to be focused in

existing centres , with the aim of offering a wide range of services to communities

(our emphasis);

competition between retailers and enhanced consumer choice through the provision

of innovative and efficient shopping, leisure, tourism and local services in town

centres (our emphasis); and

conservation of the historic, archaeological and architectural heritage of town

centres.

Development Management Policies

2.3 Policy EC10.1 advises that LPAs should adopt a positive and constructive approach

towards planning applications for economic development and that planning applications

that secure sustainable economic growth should be treated favourably.

2.4 All planning applications for economic development should be assessed against the five

impact considerations set out in Policy EC10.2 of PPS4. These relate to climate change,


11/68



6

accessibility, design, impact on economic and physical regeneration (including impact on

social inclusion objectives) and impact on local employment. In forming a conclusion in

relation to the framework set by Policy EC17 of PPS4, we have given weight to the likely

positive and negative impacts of the application proposals on economic and social

inclusion objectives and on local employment, as identified in tests d. and e. of Policy

EC10.2.

2.5 Policy EC14.3 sets out the requirements for supporting evidence for planning applications

for main town centre uses, and advises that a sequential assessment under EC15 is

required for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in

accordance with an up to date development plan. Thus, given the edge of centre

location of the Denso site and the out-of-centre location of the Eaton application site

and the fact neither site is identified for retail purposes in the development plan, the

applicants must demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the sequential

approach.

2.6 Policy EC14.4 requires that an assessment addressing the impacts in Policy EC16.1 is

undertaken for retail and leisure development over 2,500 sq.m gross floorspace (or any

locally set floorspace threshold) which is not in an existing centre and not in accordance

with an up to date development plan. The Denso site is located 210 metres from the

boundary of the Olton Boulevard Neighbourhood Centre Primary Shopping Area (PSA),

and is thus in an edge of centre site, as acknowledged by RPS in its letter to the Council of

5 th January 2012. In contrast, the ASDA site is located approximately 500 metres from the

nearest defined centre of Tyseley, and is therefore considered to be an out of centre site.

As a consequence, we consider that it is necessary to assess both applications against thetests set out in Policy EC16.1, as discussed in Section 6.

PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development (February 2005)

2.7 PPS1 sets out the Governments overarching planning policies on the delivery of

sustainable development through the planning system. There are various aspects of PPS1

which are relevant to the consideration of the application proposals.


12/68



7

2.8 First, we wish to emphasise that two of the Governments four aims for sustainable

development relate to social progress and to the maintenance of high and stable levels

of economic growth and employment . Hence the needs to secure outcomes that

promote economic and social objectives as well as environmental and natural resource

objectives.

2.9 Thus, in promoting social cohesion and inclusion, there is recognition, in paragraphs 14 to

16 of PPS1, that:

community cohesion means meeting the needs of all people promoting personal

well-being, social cohesion and inclusion and creating equal opportunity for all

citizens,

regeneration of the built environment alone cannot deal with poverty, inequality and

social exclusion; and that

development plans should promote development that creates socially inclusive

communities and address accessibility for all members of the community to jobs,

shops and other community facilities.

2.10 Paragraph 23 of PPS1 goes on to state that in promoting a strong and productive

economy that brings jobs and prosperity to all, planning authorities, amongst other

things, should:

recognise that economic development can deliver environmental and social benefits;

recognise the wider sub-regional, regional or national benefits of economic

development, alongside any adverse local impacts;

ensure that suitable locations are available for industrial, commercial, retail, publicsector and leisure developments, so that the economy can prosper;

provide for improved productivity, choice and competition;

recognise that all local economies are subject to change; and

identify opportunities for future investment to deliver economic objectives.

2.11 Secondly, we note the provisions of paragraph 27 of PPS1, which requires planning

authorities, amongst other things, to:


13/68



8

promote urban and rural regeneration to improve the wellbeing of communities ;

provide improved access for all to jobs, shops and community facilities by ensuring

that new development is located where everyone can access facilities or services by

foot, bicycle or public transport;

focus developments that attract a large number of people, especially retail, leisure

and office development, in existing centres to promote their vitality and viability,

social inclusion and more sustainable patterns of development ; and

promote the more efficient use of land through higher density, mixed use

development and use of suitably located previously developed land and buildings .

2.12 Thirdly, we note the provisions of paragraph 29 of PPS1, which states that:

In some circumstances, a planning authority may decide in reaching a

decision to give different weight to social, environmental, resource or

economic considerations. Where this is the case, the reasons for doing so

should be explicit and the consequences considered

2.13 We draw attention to these aspects of PPS1 because of the weight which we give to the

positive employment and regeneration impacts of both proposals and their potential role

in promoting social inclusion.

Conclusions in Relation to National Policy Requirements

2.14 Our overall conclusion in relation to the current national policy context is that the

Government intends to give more weight to the social, economic and environmental

impacts of development proposals and move away from more narrowly defined land use

policy tests. We note, also, that PPS4 no longer contains a need test in its development

management policies, so that the absence of need, on its own, can no longer form a

ground for refusal of an application for a main town centre use.

2.15 Nevertheless, Policy EC17.1 is prescriptive in stating that applications should be refused

where the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the requirements of the

sequential approach, or there is clear evidence that the proposal is likely to lead to

significant adverse impacts in terms of any one of the impacts set out in policies EC10.2


14/68



9

and EC16.1, taking account of the likely cumulative effect of recent permissions,

developments under construction and completed developments. (our emphasis).

2.16 Where there is no clear evidence of significant adverse impacts under Policies EC10.2 andEC16.1, Policy EC17.2 advises that applications should be determined by taking account

of:

the positive and negative impacts of the proposal in terms of Policies EC10.2 and 16.1,

and any other material considerations; and

the likely cumulative effect of recent permissions, developments under construction

and completed developments.

Recent and Emerging Government Policy

2.17 We turn, now, to a brief resume of recent and emerging Government policy, as set out in

HM Treasurys Plan for Growth, the Ministerial Statements of 23 rd March 2011 and 15 th

June 2011 and the Draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

HM Treasury: The Plan for Growth

2.18 HM Treasurys Plan for Growth was published in March 2011 to coincide with the budget.

Paragraph 2.9 of the Plan for Growth states that this statement of Government policy is

capable of becoming a material consideration in local planning decisions with immediate

effect , and local authorities should press ahead, and put in place development plans that

are pro-growth (our emphasis).

2.19 Thus, the Plan for Growth already constitutes Government policy, and Action 2 in the

Planning section of the document states that the Government will introduce a powerful

new presumption in favour of sustainable development, so that the default answer to

development is yes. However, paragraph 2.11 of the Plan for Growth introduces an

important caveat in relation to the default position, in stating that the answer should

be yes, except where this would compromise the key sustainable principles set out in

National Planning Policy (our emphasis ). A key aspect of sustainable development

principles contained within PPS4 is to promote the vitality and viability of town and other


15/68



10

centres, so that harm to this objective may be a ground for not taking the default

position.

Ministerial Statement of 23 March 2011

2.20 Greg Clarks Written Ministerial Statement of 23rd March 2011 emphasises that:

The Governments top priority in reforming the planning system is to promote

sustainable economic growth and jobs. Governments clear expectation is that

the answer to development and growth should wherever possible be yes, except

where this would compromise the key sustainable development principles set out

in national policy

2.21 He goes on to state that when deciding whether to grant permission, local authorities

should, amongst other things:

consider the range of likely economic, environmental and social benefits of

proposals; including long term or indirect benefits such as increased consumer

choice, more viable communities and more robust local economies (which may,

where relevant, include matters such as job creation and business productivity.)

2.22 He is careful to explain, however, that:

In determining planning applications, local planning authorities are obliged to

have regard to all relevant considerations. They should ensure that they give

appropriate weight to the need to support economic recovery, that applications

that secure sustainable growth are treated favourably (consistent with PPS4), and

that they can give clear reasons for their decisions.

2.23 We consider, therefore, that the Ministerial Statement adds little to the presumption in

favour of applications that secure sustainable economic growth that is already

established by Policy EC10.1 of PPS4. Moreover, we note Mr Clarks reference for the

need for applications to be consistent with PPS4.


16/68



11

Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

2.24 On 15 th June 2011, the Government published draft wording for its commitment to

introduce a presumption in favour of sustainable development. However, this draft

wording has been superseded by the draft wording contained in paragraph 14 of the draft

NPPF, so that little weight needs to be given to the 15 th June 2011 wording, albeit that it

is similar to the more recent draft.

Draft National Planning Policy Framework

2.25 Paragraph 14 of the Draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) of July 2011 puts

forward the presumption in favour of sustainable development in these terms:

At the heart of the planning system is a presumption in favour of sustainable

development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan

making and decision taking. Local Planning Authorities should plan positively for new

development, and approve all individual proposals wherever possible.

2.26 Paragraph 14 goes on to urge local authorities to: prepare plans on the basis that

objectively assessed development needs should be met; approve proposals that accord

with statutory plans; and grant permission where the plan is absent, silent, indeterminate

or where relevant policies are out of date. Paragraph 14 then concludes with the

statement that:

All of these policies should apply unless the adverse impacts of allowing

development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when

assessed against the policies in this framework taken as a whole.

2.27 However, although paragraph 9 of the draft NPPF cross refers to the long established

definition of sustainable development provided by the Brundtland Commission, it is not

fully clear how to translate this definition into the consideration of individual

development proposals in the retail sector. We consider, however, that healthy town

centres are of key importance to the sustainability agenda and central to the aim of

planning for vibrant and healthy communities of the future.


17/68



12

2.28 Thus, although Paragraph 53 of the Draft NPPF states that the primary objective of

development management is to foster the delivery of sustainable development, not to

hinder or prevent development, we note that paragraph 76 of the Draft NPPF requires

positive planning policies that promote competitive town centre environments. Indeed,

paragraph 76 states that planning authorities should recognise town centres as the

heart of their communities and pursue policies to support the viability and vitality of town

centres.

2.29 Moreover, paragraph 77 of the Draft NPPF requires the application of the sequential

approach to planning applications for retail and leisure uses that are not in an existing

centre, and are not in accordance with an up to date Local Plan. Paragraph 78, in turn,

requires that in applying the sequential approach, local planning authorities should

ensure that potential sites are assessed for their availability, suitability and viability, and

for their ability to meet the full extent of assessed quantitative and qualitative need.

2.30 The impact tests for retail and leisure proposals are proposed to be simplified, as set out

in paragraph 80 of the draft NPPF to include:

the impact of a proposal on existing, committed and planned public and privateinvestment in a centre; and

the impact of a proposal on town centre vitality and viability, up to ten years from the

time the application is made.

Conclusion in Relation to Emerging National Policy

2.31 The Government is clearly determined to prioritise growth and jobs. However, we

consider that the recent Ministerial Statements and the emerging NPPF do not materially

alter the presumption in favour of applications that secure sustainable economic growth

that is already contained in Policy EC10.1 of PPS4.

2.32 We note that the revised advice from the Planning Inspectorate of 8th September 2011

states that the draft NPPF is subject to potential amendment. It is capable of being a

material consideration, although the weight to be given to it will be a matter for the

decision maker in each particular case. As a consequence, we consider that more weight


18/68



13

should be given to the policy tests set out in PPS4, together with the guidance on

sustainable development that is given in PPS1.


19/68



14

3 APPRAISAL OF THE APPLICATIONS AGAINST THE RETAIL

POLICY ASPECTS OF THE CURRENT AND EMERGING

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Introduction

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

if regard is to be had to the Development Plan for the purpose of any

determination to be made under the planning acts, the determination must be

made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate

otherwise.

3.2 The first test, and the statutory starting point is whether the application is in accordance

with the plan, which is a phrase that has been the subject of debate in the High Court in

the context of Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In his judgment

of 31 July 2000 (R v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Milne), Mr Justice

Sullivan concluded as follows:

I regard as untenable the proposition that if there is a breach of any one

Policy in a development plan a proposed development cannot be said to be

in accordance with the plan

For the purposes of Section 54A, it is enough that the proposal accords

with the development plan considered as a whole. It does not have to

accord with each and every policy therein.

3.3 This Rochdale judgment is applicable to the interpretation of S38(6) of the 2004 Act and

the Council must reach a decision, therefore, as to whether the application is in

accordance with the development plan when it is considered as a whole.

3.4 The Development Plan for Birmingham comprises the West Midlands Regional Spatial

Strategy (Phase 1 Revision, January 2008) and the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan

(UDP, October 2005). We consider that the emerging Core Strategy is not at a sufficiently


20/68



15

advanced stage to be attributed significant weight, having only reached the stage of

Consultation Draft (consultation ending in March 2011).

West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Phase 1 Revision (January 2008)

3.5 The Spatial Strategy for the region is set out in Chapter 3 of the RSS and its major focus is

to seek to reverse the dispersal of population and economic activity from the Major

Urban Areas (MUAs) of Birmingham/Solihull, the Black Country, Coventry and North

Staffordshire. Thus, the MUAs are to be the focus of investment, and the creation of a

balanced network of vital and vibrant town and city centres as the strategic focus for

major retail, leisure and office developments is seen as a vital component in meeting this

aim.

3.6 Policy UR1 seeks to assist in implementing the urban renaissance of the MUAs by,

amongst other things, rejuvenating the urban centres to act as a focus for regeneration.

3.7 Policy UR3 seeks to enhance the role of city, town and district centres so that they play a

leading role in urban renaissance programmes and as drivers of economic growth. For

the reasons explained in Section 6 of this report, we consider that there will be some

degree of adverse cumulative impact, taking account of existing commitments, on Acocks

Green District Centre. As a consequence, we consider that both applications cause some

degree of conflict with Policy UR3 of the RSS.

3.8 However, for the reasons set out in Section 7 of our report, we consider that there will be

a substantial net employment gain as a result of both application proposals, with a

significant degree of take-up of the net job gain by local residents (subject to suitable

conditions and/or 106 agreements). As a consequence, we consider that both applicationproposals would assist in meeting some of the objectives of Policy PA1 of the RSS, which

seeks prosperity for all.

3.9 The RSS does not seek to provide a strategy for the distribution of convenience goods

floorspace, and it is acknowledged that the allocation of such needs should be

determined on a local basis through the preparation of local development framework

documents. As a consequence, the RSS is of limited assistance to the decision maker in

respect of the Denso application, which has a limited comparison goods component.


21/68



16

3.10 In contrast, the Eaton application includes comparison goods retail floorspace amounting

to 9,730 sq.m gross (6,870 sq.m gross in non-food units and 2,860 sq.m gross in ASDA).

However, this is just below the 10,000 sq.m gross threshold incorporated in Policies PA11

and PA13 of the RSS. Policy PA11 states that the network of 25 strategic centres should

be the focus of major retail developments of more than 10,000 sq.m gross, but excluding

floorspace devoted to convenience goods.

3.11 Policy PA13 sets a presumption against out of centre retail development of more than

10,000 sq.m gross during the lifetime of the RSS. Although it is not absolutely clear as to

whether convenience goods floorspace is excluded within this threshold, as is the case

under Policy PA11, we assume that it must do, given that the RSS is clear that

convenience retailing is a local matter and not for the RSS to consider.

3.12 Thus, given that the total non-food comparison goods retail floorspace in the Eaton

application amounts to 9,730 sq.m gross (2,860 sq.m in ASDA and 6,870 sq.m of non-food

units), we consider that this application does not conflict with Policy PA13 of the RSS.

3.13 Nevertheless, for reasons explained in Section 5 in relation to the sequential test, the City

Council will wish to ensure that the principle of disaggregation has been fully explored, soas to assess whether any part of the non- food unit floorspace can be accommodated on

sites and in vacant premises in sequentially preferable locations. This is particularly so

since the current total quantum of retail floorspace proposed in this out-of-centre

location amounts to 13,528 sq.m gross. Indeed, unless there is compelling viability

evidence to the contrary, there would seem to be no justification in terms of quantitative

and qualitative need for the quantum of retail floorspace associated with the non-food

units, as discussed in Section 4.

Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (October 2005)

3.14 The revised Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (UDP) was adopted in October 2005,

with the intention of guiding development in the city region up to October 2008.

However, all but three of the UDP policies have since been saved, pending completion of

the Core Strategy DPD.


22/68



17

Retail Policies

3.15 Chapter 2 of the adopted UDP requires that Birmingham City Centres role as the regional

shopping centre should be maintained and enhanced through the promotion of quality

and specialist retailing.

3.16 Chapter 7 of the UDP sets out the policies in relation to town centres and retailing. The

general policy statement for the chapter is set out at paragraph 7.13, and states that

existing centres will continue to be the main focus for new retail development. This

town centres first principle is reflected subsequently in paragraph 7.27 of the UDP,

which requires that:

wherever possible, proposals for new retail development, including large

foodstores and retail warehouses, should be accommodated in centres

3.17 In the convenience goods sector, the UDP recognises that significant growth is unlikely,

but paragraph 7.16D acknowledges that access to supermarkets varies across the city, so

that the Councils priority is to provide for improved food shopping, where local access to

food shops is poor.

3.18 The UDP seeks to accommodate as much retail development as possible within existing

centres, but paragraphs 7.27 and 7.28 set out criteria for the evaluation of proposals in

edge and out of centre locations. Thus, paragraph 7.27 allows for edge and out of centre

development, provided that:

a need for the proposal has been clearly demonstrated; and

the principles of the sequential approach have been followed;

3.19 Paragraph 7.28 goes on to state that where these circumstances apply, the following tests

must be met:

there is no major impact on the vitality and viability and viability of an existing centre

as a whole;

investment in existing centres will not be deterred;

there would be no loss of industrial land;


23/68



18

there would be no major loss of non-retail employment land; and that

the site is widely accessible by public transport.

3.20 Most of these criteria, with the exception of need and loss of employment land, reflectthe more recent tests set out in Policies EC10, EC15 and EC16 of PPS4, so that our

assessment of the applications against the retail policy aspects of the development plan

reflect the subsequent sections of our report in which we conclude that:

a) There is a quantitative and qualitative need that is sufficient to support the food

superstore components of both applications. However, there is insufficient

comparison goods expenditure capacity within the primary catchment area to fully

support the quantum of non-food floorspace which is proposed as part of the

application for the Eaton site.

b) There are no sites in sequentially preferable locations which are available, suitable

and viable in relation to the food superstore components of both applications.

However, part of the non-food floorspace at the Eaton site could be accommodated

by vacant premises within Acocks Green District Centre and within the various

neighbourhood centres. Thus, there would need to be some degree reduction in

the quantum of non-food units proposed in the Eaton application for it to fully

accord with the sequential test.

c) There would be an adverse cumulative impact on Acocks Green District Centre,

under a two store scenario and together with existing commitments, but there is no

clear evidence that this cumulative impact would have significant adverse effects

within the terms of the tests set out in Policy EC16 of PPS4.

3.21 As a consequence, we consider that the Eaton application may cause some degree of

conflict with the shopping policies of the Birmingham UDP, but it would take a relatively

small amendment to make the scheme compliant in terms of the retail aspects of the

UDP. The Denso application is in accord with the retail policy aspects of the UDP.


24/68



19

Economy Policies

3.22 We are not instructed in relation to policies relating to the supply of industrial land. We

note merely that the policy statement in paragraph 4.13 of the UDP sets two broad

objectives, as follows:

d) To ensure that the land use policies and proposals maximise opportunities for

economic revitalisation and urban renewal.

e) To ensure that the benefits of economic revitalisation are spread as widely as

possible amongst the Citys residents and especially disadvantaged sections of the

community.

3.23 We note, further, that paragraph 4.18 of the UDP concludes that the quality rather than

the quantity of industrial land is the most pressing issue and that the quality of the Citys

portfolio of industrial sites has deteriorated, aggravated in part by the loss to other uses,

particularly to retailing, and hence the need for the principles set out in paragraph 4.19 of

the UDP governing the release of industrial land.

Conclusions in Relation to the Retail Policy Aspects of the DevelopmentPlan

3.24 For the reasons explained in Section 5, we consider that the applicant for the Denso site

has correctly applied the sequential approach as set out in Policy EC15 of PPS4.

Furthermore, we accept that there are no sites in sequentially preferable locations which

meet the availability, suitability and viability components of the test in relation to the

food superstore component of the Eaton application. However, we consider that some of

the floorspace proposed in the non-food units at the Eaton site can be, and should be,

accommodated in some of the larger vacant units which exist in Acocks Green District

Centre and in the various nearby neighbourhood centres. Therefore, there is a case for

suggesting that there should be a reduction in floorspace in the non-food units at the

Eaton site if it is to fully accord with the sequential aspects of the UDP retail policies.

3.25 Whilst there is some adverse cumulative impact on Acocks Green District Centre,

following implementation of all the commitments and both application proposals, this

centre is amongst the healthiest of Birminghams District Centres. Moreover, for reasons


25/68



20

explained in Section 6, we have found no clear evidence that the cumulative impacts on

Acocks Green will be significantly adverse. As a consequence, we consider that both

applications accord with those development plan policies that relate to trade impact.

The Emerging Core Strategy

3.26 Consultation on the Birmingham Core Strategy Preferred Options document took place

between December 2010 and March 2011. The retail and town centre policies in the

consultation document have been informed by the Birmingham Retail Needs Assessment

(BRNA), prepared by Roger Tym and Partners in October 2009, and we note that:

Policy SP17 identifies the network and hierarchy of centres, with Acocks Greenidentified as one of 16 District Centres, alongside Small Heath, the Swan Shopping

Centre and Kings Heath, and with Tyseley, Springfield, Hall Green, Olton Boulevard

and Sparkhill identified as a Neighbourhood Centres;

Policy SP18 identifies the scale of comparison goods floorspace envisaged in the

centres at different levels of the hierarchy, with district centres, such as Acocks Green,

being given a maximum of 5,000 sq.m gross in the period up to 2021; and that

Policy SP19 identifies a number of gap areas where convenience retailing is deficient

including Birmingham City Centre South, where proposals aimed at meeting a local

deficiency which are of appropriate scale will be supported.

3.27 The emerging Core Strategy identifies the Denso site as being in a Core Employment Area

for which Policy SP12 envisages retention in employment use, so that these areas will be

the focus for economic regeneration, a term which excludes retailing. The Signal Point

part of the application by A & J Mucklow and Helical Retail is also defined as a CoreEmployment Area. However, the designation of the Denso site has a Core Employment

Area has been subject to objections and the implications for the Core Employment Areas

are outside the scope of our instructions.

The Emerging Shopping and Local Centres SPD

3.28 The City Council has recently published a draft Shopping and Local Centres SPD for

consultation. This SPD identifies boundaries and primary shopping areas for all the


26/68



21

centres contained in the emerging Core Strategy hierarchy. It also contains policies for

the control of non-retail uses in these centres.


27/68



22

4 QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE NEED

The Relationship Between Need, Impact and the Sequential Approach4.1 The assessment of expenditure capacity, or need, is no longer a development

management test in PPS4, and the absence of sufficient need, on its own, can no longer

form a ground for refusal of an application for a town centre use development.

4.2 However, the PPS4 Practice Guidance makes it clear that an assessment of need informs

the consideration of the sequential approach and impact, both of which are

requirements, under Policy EC14 of PPS4, for applications for main town centre uses that

are not in an existing centre and not in accordance with an up-to-date development plan.

Thus, in the remainder of this introductory section, we draw attention to the linkages

made in the Practice Guidance between need, impact and the sequential approach.

Need and the Sequential Approach

4.3 In a recent Report to the Secretary of State in respect of a call-in Inquiry concerning a

Tesco proposal at the West One Retail Park in Eccles (ref: APP/U4230/V/10/2131671), the

Inspector concluded that:

in assessing the availability, suitability and viability of potential sequential sites,

regard should be had to the nature of the need, the urgency and timescales of the

need, and whether sites are suitable to accommodate the need. It is therefore

appropriate to address in considering the sequential approach the need which the

proposed development aims to meet. (IR paragraph 422)

4.4 The Inspectors conclusions were endorsed by the Secretary of State in paragraph 12 of

his decision letter of 19 th May 2011. This is hardly surprising, because paragraph 1.6 of

the Practice Guidance makes it clear that need remains an important consideration

when developing robust town centre strategies, and to the understanding and application

of the sequential approach. Moreover, need is mentioned on more than a dozen

occasions in Part 6 of the Practice Guidance, which deals with sequential site

assessments.


28/68



23

4.5 Of particular importance is paragraph 6.37 of the Practice Guidance, which confirms that

need is relevant to each of the availability, suitability and viability components of the

sequential test incorporated in Policy EC15 of PPS4, with availability having regard to the

urgency of the need, with suitability having regard to the need which the proposal is

intended to meet, and with viability also depending on the nature of the need, and the

timescale over which it is to be met. We note, also, that the scale and form of

development needed forms the first item on the sequential approach checklist set out

under paragraph 6.52 of the Practice Guidance.

Need and Impact

4.6 In assessing the impact of a proposal on in-centre trade and turnover, test d. of Policy

EC16.1 of PPS4 requires an assessment of current and future consumer expenditure

capacity in the catchment area up to five years from the time the application is made;

that is up to 2016. Moreover, as is the case with its advice on the sequential approach,

need is referred to on several occasions in Part 7 of the Practice Guidance, which

concerns the assessment of impact.

4.7 We note, in particular, paragraph 7.19, which states that Many of the factors relevant to

need assessments will also have a bearing on the effects of new proposals on

committed/planned investment. Similarly, we note that the advice given in the box

under paragraph 7.21 in relation to how to assess effects on planned investment includes

a third bullet point which asks whether there is sufficient need for both, and a fourth

bullet point which asks whether they are competing for the same market opportunity.

4.8 Finally, we note the provisions on paragraph 7.35 of the Practice Guidance, which statesthat An indicator of the appropriateness of a proposals scale is whether there is a

demonstrable need based upon current/forecast expenditure and current market shares.

Methodology for Assessing Need

4.9 Section 3 and Appendix B of the Practice Guidance, which accompanies PPS4, provides

advice on the assessment of quantitative and qualitative need. We note, however, that

the Practice Guidance states that it does not seek to prescribe a single methodology


29/68



24

and that alternative approaches may be equally acceptable, provided they are

compliant with national policy objectives and clearly justified, transparently presented

and robustly evidenced (paragraph 1.22, our emphasis).

4.10 We accept, also, the advice given in paragraph B3 to the effect that forecasts of retail

need should not be regarded as prescriptive and that they inevitably involve

judgments and ultimately policy choices.

4.11 The full methodology we have employed in assessing quantitative retail need in the

convenience and comparison goods sectors is set out in Appendix 1 of our report, and the

associated spreadsheets are contained within Appendix 2. We turn, first however, to the

findings of the Birmingham Retail Needs Assessment (BRNA) undertaken by Roger Tym

and Partners (RTP) in 2009, since this forms an input into the evidence base for the

emerging Core Strategy. We then turn to our own up to date assessment of need for the

purposes of appraising these applications.

Birmingham Retail Needs Assessment

4.12 The BRNA is an independent study and forms part of the evidence base which is

informing the preparation of the Councils Core Strategy DPD. This study also informs the

assessment of impact undertaken by both applicants, in that both RPS and Marrons draw

upon the patterns of retail expenditure revealed by the NEMS survey of households.

4.13 In assessing capacity, the BRNA has a forward time horizon to 2026. For the purposes of

this report, however, we focus on the period up to 2016, given the PPS4 Policy EC16.1.d

requirement to assess expenditure capacity up to five years from the time the application

is made.

4.14 The BRNA found that there was a negative residual convenience goods need from 2008 to

2016 across the whole of the Birmingham catchment, amounting to minus 42,000 sq.m

gross under a static retention scenario (Table 5.7 of the BRNA). The large negative is as a

result of the low forecast rate of expenditure growth in the convenience sector, and the

substantial claims on residual expenditure made by extant permissions at the time of the

BRNA (which included the redevelopment of the Swan Shopping Centre, the


30/68



25

redevelopment of Fox and Goose District Centre and a major food superstore at Attwood

Green).

4.15 Nevertheless, despite the absence of quantitative need for convenience floorspace acrossthe catchment area as a whole, the BRNA identifies several areas of localised deficiencies

in convenience goods provision, or gap areas. Appendix 4 of the RPS Retail Statement

illustrates the proximity of the Wm Morrison application site (and, given their proximity

to one another, the ASDA application site also) to one of the gap areas identified in the

BRNA.

4.16 We note, also, that the PPS4 Practice Guidance recognises that overtrading can also be an

indicator of a quantitative need and lack of consumer choice. However, we consider that

this indicator should only be given significant weight where there is clear evidence that

such overtrading is causing customer discomfort, and where the overtrading is backed up

by evidence such as overcrowding and congestion in stores.

4.17 In this context, we note that a number of stores located within the primary catchment

area of the application proposals (Zones 25 and 26) are displaying signs of overtrading. In

particular, we note that the results of the NEMS household survey, as summarised inSpreadsheets 2 and 3 of Appendix 2 and summarised in Table A1.1 of Appendix 1, reveal

that the ASDA at Small Heath is overtrading by approximately 48.5m in 2011, and the J

Sainsbury at Acocks Green is overtrading by approximately 21.5m in 2011.

4.18 Whilst these figures most likely over-estimate the actual level of overtrading which is

occurring, we acknowledge, from our own visits, that both stores are displaying signs of

over-trading in the form of queues at checkouts, busy aisles and full car parks. Thus, on

this basis, we give some weight to the issue of overtrading in undertaking our subsequent

assessment of quantitative and qualitative need.

4.19 In the comparison goods sector, Table 5.6 of the BRNA reveals that under the

recommended significant increase in retention scenario, there is a requirement for an

additional 17,000 sq.m gross of comparison goods floorspace throughout the overall

catchment area (OCA) in the period 2008 to 2016. Figures 7.1 and 7.2 of the BRNA

distribute the overall need to 2026 throughout the administrative area of Birmingham,


31/68



26

allocating between 6,000 sq.m gross and 9,000 sq.m gross to the remaining centres in

aggregate (i.e. those that are not identified as strategic or district centres).

4.20 In addition to the comparison element of both superstores, Marrons is seeking anadditional 6,870 sq.m gross of comparison retail floorspace at the Eaton Electrics site.

This represents a large proportion of the total comparison floorspace need identified by

the BRNA for the remaining centres to 2026, which suggest that careful consideration

should be given to the potential impact that this level of comparison floorspace could

have on existing in-centre facilities.

hollissvincent Assessment of Quantitative Retail Need4.21 Neither applicant has undertaken their own assessment of quantitative retail need,

relying, instead, on the results of the quantitative need assessment which informed the

BRNA. Whilst we have no criticism of this approach, we have undertaken our own

assessment of quantitative need in the convenience and comparison sectors so as to

incorporate updated forecasts of expenditure and population growth, any recent

commitments since the time of the BRNA, and to enable us to assess capacity on a more

localised basis, within the Primary Catchment Area (PCA) of the application proposals

(Zones 25 and 26 of the BRNA) and in the Overall Catchment Area (Zones 16, 21, 22, 24,

25, 26, 28 and 29 of the BRNA).

4.22 The full methodology we have employed in assessing quantitative retail need is set out in

Appendix 1 of our report, and the associated spreadsheets are contained within Appendix

2.

4.23 We should state, at the outset, that a substantial proportion of the quantitative needwhich arises in the convenience goods sector is as a result of a substantial level of

aggregate overtrading, both in the PCA of the application proposals (approximately

111m), and in the OCA of the application proposals (approximately 166m). Thus, two

thirds of the aggregate level of overtrading arises within the PCA, in the Wm Morrison

and ASDA stores in Small Heath, in the Tesco store in Sheldon and in the J Sainsbury store

in Acocks Green. Such a level of aggregate overtrading confirms our subsequent

observations in relation to gap areas and qualitative need.


32/68



27

4.24 Given the large scale of additional comparison floorspace that is proposed as part of the

application at the Eaton site, we have undertaken an assessment of quantitative need in

both the convenience and comparison sectors. The results of our assessment are set out

in Spreadsheets 4a, 4b, 4c and 4d of Appendix 2 for the convenience sector, and in

Spreadsheets 24a, 24b, 24c and 24d of Appendix 2 for the comparison sector.

Convenience Goods

4.25 Table 4.1 summarises the results of our assessment of capacity in the convenience sector

under a static retention scenario and under an uplift in retention scenario. The retention

uplift is based on our subsequent impact work, and represents the retention uplift thatwould occur following the implementation of the commitments and both application

proposals. In addition to providing an assessment of capacity based on the overall

catchment area (that is Zones 16, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28 and 29 of the BRNA), we have also

assessed capacity within the Primary Catchment Area (PCA), that is Zones 25 and 26.

Table 4.1 Summary of hollissvincent Assessment of Capacity in the Convenience Sector

Overall Catchment Area Primary Catchment Area

Static Retention Retention Uplift Static Retention Retention Uplift

2011-2016 74.3m 110.9m 76.8m 88.7mSource: Spreadsheets 4a, 4b, 4c and 4d of Appendix 2

4.26 The proposed Wm Morrison and ASDA stores have a combined convenience turnover

derived from the OCA in 2016 of 39.1m, so that even under the static retention scenario,

there is more than sufficient capacity within the OCA to accommodate the convenience

turnover requirements of both foodstores by 2016.

4.27 Similarly, there is sufficient capacity within the PCA under a static retention scenario to

support the convenience turnover requirements of both application proposals that is

drawn from residents of the PCA; that is 27.4m in 2016.

Comparison Goods

4.28 Table 4.2 summarises the results of our assessment of capacity in the comparison goods

sector. Again, we have undertaken this exercise for the OCA and the PCA, and under a

static retention and uplift in retention scenario.


33/68



28

Table 4.2 Summary of hollissvincent Assessment of Capacity in the Comparison Sector

Overall Catchment Area Primary Catchment Area

Static Retention Retention Uplift Static Retention Retention Uplift

2011-2016 - 19.2m 78.9m - 37.6m 15.4mSource: Spreadsheets 24a, 24b, 24c and 24d of Appendix 2

4.29 Thus, within the OCA under a static retention scenario, there is insufficient residual

capacity to support the comparison goods turnover requirements of either of the

applications; indeed, the residual is a negative 19.2m. However, under the uplift in

retention scenario, there is more than sufficient capacity within the OCA to support the

comparison goods turnover requirements of both applications (which amounts to 35.6m

in 2016).

4.30 Within the PCA, there is insufficient capacity to support, fully, the comparison goods

turnover that is expected to be drawn to both application proposals from residents of the

PCA, under either of the retention scenarios.

4.31 Under the uplift scenario, however, there would be sufficient residual expenditure within

the PCA (15.4m) to support the comparison goods turnover drawn from residents of the

PCA to both of the foodstores on their own (12.8m, excluding the non-food units).

However, there is not sufficient capacity to support, fully, the total comparison goods

turnover at the two application sites (including the non-food units) drawn from residents

of the PCA of 25.0m (derived from Spreadsheet 25b in Appendix 2).

4.32 As we have previously emphasised, an absence of sufficient capacity is no longer

determinative. However, whilst the shortfall in comparison goods expenditure capacity

in the PCA is not significant (a shortfall of approximately 10m when the turnover

requirements of both schemes are considered cumulatively), the existence of a shortfall

indicates that some adverse impacts on existing comparison facilities in the PCA are likely

should both schemes be implemented as proposed.

Qualitative Retail Need

4.33 We acknowledge that food superstore provision within a 5 minute drivetime catchment

of both application sites is limited, and this is reflected in the overtrading that is occurring

in existing stores, such as the ASDA at Small Heath and the J Sainsbury at Acocks Green.


34/68



29

Moreover, we have already noted that both application sites are located adjacent to the

Birmingham City Centre South gap area, as identified in the BRNA and in the emerging

Core Strategy, and it is in such areas that the Council has identified a qualitative need for

improved convenience provision. However, we are doubtful as to whether there is a

qualitative need for two new superstores in such close proximity.

4.34 We note that Marrons has sought to make a case for the Eaton application based on the

need it has identified for a new local centre in the Tyseley area. This is based on the

observation, at paragraph 3.4 of its Retail Statement, that Tyseley is bereft of local

shopping facilities and poorly served in terms of access to a local shopping centre . We

consider, however, that the proper course of action for promoting a new local centre

would have been for Marrons to make representations on the Core Strategy and the Local

Centres SPD, setting out their case for a new local centre at the Eaton site.

4.35 Moreover, the emerging Masterplan for the public consultations of 11 th and 12 th of

November displays some retail park characteristics, so that we give little weight to

Marrons argument for qualitative need based on the requirement for a new local centre

in Tyseley.

4.36 Nevertheless, existing comparison facilities in the Tyseley area are limited to a large

number of furniture retailers located in Tyseley District Centre itself, and a concentration

of comparison BME retailing in Small Heath District Centre. A more diverse range of

comparison uses would enable facilities within this area (Zone 25) to re-capture some of

the comparison expenditure which is currently leaking to destinations beyond the

catchment such as Sears/Solihull Gate Retail Park. Indeed, Spreadsheet 23a of Appendix

2 reveals that 20.2m of comparison expenditure currently leaks from residents of the

PCA to this out of centre retail park.

4.37 Whilst we acknowledge that edge and out of centre facilities with the PCA should not be

competing with the higher order centres such as Birmingham City Centre, we note that

Zone 25, in which both application proposals are located, currently has a localised

comparison goods retention rate of just 7.2 per cent (Spreadsheet 22 of Appendix 2), so

that we consider there is some scope for the improvement of this retention through the

provision of better quality, purpose built retail units.


35/68



30

Overall Conclusions in Relation to Retail Need

4.38 Our overall conclusions in relation to quantitative need are as follows:

there is more than sufficient expenditure capacity to support the convenience goodsturnovers of both application proposals;

there is sufficient expenditure capacity in the primary catchment area to support the

comparison goods turnovers of both of the food superstores; but

there is insufficient expenditure capacity to support, fully, the total comparison

turnover of both application proposals when account is taken of the additional non-

food units proposed in the Eaton application.

4.39 Thus, although need is no longer a development management test for the purposes of

PPS4, our findings suggest that there is a case for the Council to seek to negotiate a

reduction in the amount of floorspace associated with the non-food units at the Eaton

site, particularly given the out of centre retail park feel of the emerging masterplan. Such

a reduction would reduce the risk of unacceptable impacts on nearby centres.

4.40 So far as qualitative need is concerned, we note the levels of overtrading that currently

exist in foodstores located within the PCA of the application proposals, and we note that

part of the catchment falls within a gap area in the emerging Core Strategy. Thus, there

is a clear qualitative need for one further food superstore within the Tyseley area, but we

are doubtful as to whether there is a qualitative need for two new superstores in such

close proximity.

4.41 So far as qualitative need in the comparison goods sector is concerned, we accept that a

more diverse range of comparison uses would enable facilities within this area to re-capture some of the comparison expenditure which is currently leaking to destinations

beyond the catchment, in particular out of centre facilities such as Sears/Solihull Gate

Retail Park, thereby reducing the need for residents to travel beyond the PCA. We have

some concern, however, regarding the quantum of floorspace associated with the non-

food units at the out of centre Eaton site.


36/68


37/68



32

d) ensure that in considering sites in or on the edge of existing centres, developers and

operators have demonstrated flexibility in terms of:

scale: reducing the floorspace of their development; format: more innovative site layouts and store configurations such as multi-

storey developments with smaller footprints;

car parking provision: reduced or re-configured car parking areas; and

the scope for disaggregating specific parts of a retail or leisure development.

5.4 In respect of the latter, the policy advises that LPAs should not seek arbitrary sub-

division of proposals and, in considering whether flexibility has been demonstrated, LPAsshould take into account any genuine difficulties which the applicant can demonstrate

are likely to occur in operating the proposed business model from a sequentially

preferable site

5.5 Thus, in applying the sequential approach in the context of development management,

the onus is firmly on the applicant to demonstrate to the LPA that all in-centre options

have been thoroughly investigated, having applied the necessary flexibility.

The Sequential Location Categories of the Application Sites

5.6 The Eaton site is clearly in an out-of-centre location for the purposes of PPS4, being

located approximately 500 metres from Tyseley Neighbourhood Centre. In contrast, we

consider that the Denso application site is in an edge-of-centre location for the purposes

of PPS4, being located just over 200 metres from Olton Boulevard Neighbourhood Centre.

Thus, although we note that RPSs Retail Statement suggests that the Denso site is in an

out of centre location, this stance was changed in RPSs letter to the Council of 5 th January

2012, in which the site is described as being edge of centre.

5.7 The consequence of the differing location categories means that the applicant for the

Eaton site has to consider the Denso site, but in the context of a quantitative need for

two new superstores within the primary catchment areas of the application proposals.


38/68



33

Our Appraisal

5.8 We should state, at the outset, that Acocks Green District Centre is the most appropriate

centre for the purposes of the sequential approach, given the scale of the retail

development which is proposed in both applications. However, the Birmingham Retail

Needs Assessment of October 2009 forms a useful starting point, given the conclusion

reached in paragraph 1.142 of Volume 3, that:

our own observations of Acocks Green indicate that there is little physical

capacity for further development within or around the town centrerather we

consider that the seven vacant units in Acocks Green represent the most

appropriate development/reoccupation opportunities within the town centre,

either individually or in conglomeration

5.9 Thus, with this preliminary point in mind, we turn to our appraisal of the support material

of the respective applicants.

RPS on Behalf of SPLP

5.10 RPS has undertaken the sequential approach, applying a limited degree of flexibility onthe ground that there is a critical mass or size of foodstore that must be achieved if it is

to compete with and offer a realistic alternative to the other main foodstores (paragraph

3.11 of its Retail Statement). Thus, having regard to site suitability, RPS disregard any site

that could not accommodate a foodstore of a similar scale to that being proposed by the

current application. We give some weight to this argument, given the gap area which

exists within the catchment area of the Denso application, and given the overtrading

which exists at existing large food superstores located at the periphery of the catchment.

5.11 We have some sympathy with RPSs approach, but note the PPS4 requirement for

flexibility, so that sites that would meet the available, suitable and viable tests in relation

to a medium sized supermarket should not be discounted. On this basis, the two sites

which have the most potential for accommodating a medium sized foodstore are:

the existing J Sainsbury site and adjacent public house in Acocks Green; and

the Acocks Green bus depot, Summer Road.


39/68



34

5.12 The existing J Sainsbury site is owned by Wm Morrison and the adjacent public house in

Acocks Green is under the ownership of J Sainsbury. RPS states that Wm Morrison

intends to sell its interest in the J Sainsbury site to J Sainsbury, if a permission for its

proposed store on the Denso site is granted. This would allow J Sainsbury to extend its

Acocks Green store, utilising the land currently occupied by the vacant public house.

5.13 Although the expanded Sainsbury site, including the public house, is unlikely to be

available to Morrisons, we note the provisions of paragraph 6.41 of Practice Guidance,

which states that:

When promoting a proposal on a less sequentially preferable site, it will not

be appropriate for a developer or retailer to dismiss a more central location

on the basis that it is not available to the developer / retailer in question.

5.14 Nevertheless, the expanded site is unlikely to deliver a significant expansion of sales area

at the Sainsbury store, although it will allow for a reconfiguration of the car parking. The

existing convenience goods sales area in the Sainsbury store is 1,230 sq.m, and although

no planning application for redevelopment has yet been submitted, we do not anticipate

an expansion in sales area to more than around 1,500 sq.m. In contrast, the foodsuperstore proposed at the Denso site has a total sales area of 3,530 sq.m, of which 2,647

sq.m will be used for the sale of convenience goods.

5.15 Thus, we consider that it would require a degree of flexibility that goes beyond what is

expected by Policy EC15.1 of PPS4 for the Sainsbury site in Acocks Green to be considered

suitable and viable for the application store at the Denso site.

5.16 The Acocks Green bus depot is located in an accessible edge of centre location,

approximately 200 metres from the boundary of Olton Boulevard Neighbourhood Centre.

The site is in active use as a bus depot and relocation of the existing bus facilities would

be expensive, so there is no evidence to suggest that the site will be available within a

reasonable period of time. Moreover, the site (1.4ha) is approximately half of the size of

the application store proposal (2.7ha), and would require a degree of flexibility that goes

beyond the requirements of PPS4. As a consequence, the bus depot site also fails the

suitable and viable components of the sequential test.


40/68



35

5.17 Thus, there is no site within the catchment area of the Denso application proposal which

meets each of the availability, suitability and viability criteria set out in Policy EC15 of

PPS4. We consider, therefore, that the applicant for the Denso site has satisfied the

requirements of the sequential test, having applied an appropriate level of flexibility, with

regard to the need which the application is intended to meet.

Marrons on Behalf of A & J Mucklow and Helical Retail

5.18 In defining an area of search for sequential sites, the applicant for the redevelopment of

the Eaton site asserts that, given the nature of the proposal as a new local centre for the

Tyseley area, the location of the proposed development on a site outside of Tyseley would not enable the development to in PPS4 terms satisfactorily meet the need the

proposal is intended to serve (paragraph 6.11 of Marrons PPS4 Retail Statement).

5.19 However, as stated in Section 4, we consider that any attempt to promote a new local

centre should have been through the Core Strategy process. Moreover, the emerging

masterplan gives the impression of an out of centre retail park, rather than a genuine

new local centre. As a consequence, we give little weight to Marrons local centre

argument.

5.20 On this basis, we consider that a robust approach would be to consider sequentially

p

hollisvincent report - denso and eaton sites birmingham - final report 1st march 2012

Documents