london borough of barking and dagenham neighbourhood ...€¦ · atkins was appointed in january...

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Neighbourhood

Health Check

Final Report January 2006

JOB NUMBER: 5035490 DOCUMENT REF: Document6

0 Draft Final Report DC MT/MB RS PMW Sep 05

1 Final Report DC MT/MB RS PMW Jan 06

Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date

Revision Purpose Description

LBBD Neighbourhood Centre Health Check Assessment

ii Atkins Retail Study Jan 06


CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VII

Introduction vii Evaluation of Existing Local Centres viii Demand Assessment x Accommodating Growth and Change at Individual Centres x Policy Approach xi Site Specific Designations xiii Boundary Changes xiv Other Policy Recommendations xiv Implementation xvi

1. INTRODUCTION 1-1

2. METHODOLOGY 2-1

Scope of Assessment 2-1 Assessment Components 2-1 Conclusions and Recommendations 2-4

3. POLICY AND STRATEGY REVIEW 3-1

Introduction 3-1 National Planning Policy 3-1 Regional Planning Policy 3-3 Local Planning Policies 3-5 Other Best Practice 3-7

4. SUMMARY OF HEALTH CHECK FINDINGS 4-1

Diversity of Centre Uses 4-1 Retailer Representation 4-12 Retailer Perceptions 4-13 Proportion of Vacant Street Level Property 4-14 Accessibility 4-16 Pedestrian Flows 4-17 Social Inclusion 4-18 Environmental Quality 4-21 Rental Levels & Commercial Yields 4-30 Customer Views and Behaviour 4-31

iii Atkins Retail Study Jan 06


5. DEMAND ASSESSMENT 5-1

Methodology 5-1 Assessment of Potential Demand 5-1 Stage 1: Identification of Expenditure Categories 5-1 Stage 2: Identification of Market Shares & Centre Catchments 5-2 Stage 3: Expenditure Growth Forecasts 5-4 Stage 4: Socio-economic Profiling 5-4 Stage 5: Application of Floorspace Sales Densities 5-8 Summary of Floorspace Requirements 5-9

6. CONCLUSIONS 6-1

Summary of Findings 6-1 Establishing an Effective Network of Centres 6-4 Opportunities for re-orientation of the Existing Network 6-5 New Centres 6-9

7. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 7-1

Policy Approach 7-1 Hierarchical Approach 7-1 Site Specific Designations 7-5 Boundary Changes 7-5 Other Policy Recommendations 7-6 Implementation 7-8

List of Tables Table 4.1 – Summary Groupings 4-2 Table 4.2 – Summary by Retail Types 4-4 Table 4.3 – Summary of Floorspace by Category for Individual Sites 4-6 Table 4.4 - Summary of Number of Units by Category for Individual Sites 4-7 Table 4.5 – Summary by Use Class 4-9 Table 4.6 – Summary of Community Facilities 4-10 Table 4.7 – Retailer Representation 4-12 Table 4.8 – Vacant Ground Floor Units 4-15 Table 4.9 – Summary of Accessibility 4-16 Table 4.10 – Car Ownership Levels 4-19 Table 4.11 – Quality of Public Realm 4-23 Table 4.12 – Quality of the Public Realm 4-28 Table 4.13 – Comparison of Rental Values (Net Floorspace) 4-31 Table 5.1 – Difference in Potential Weekly Local Centre Expenditure to Reflect Household Socio-economic Profile 5-7 Table 5.2 – Indicative Sales Densities 5-9 Table 5.3 – Gross Floorspace Forecasts (sq.m) 5-10

iv Atkins Retail Study Jan 06


Table 5.4 – Convenience Floorspace Requirements by Sub Area 5-11 Table 6.1 – Summary of Change Role by Cluster 6-6 Table 7.1 – Proposed Centre Hierarchy 7-4 Table 7.2 – Other Policy Recommendations 7-6

List of Figures Figure 2.1 – Study Approach and Report Structure Figure 4.1 – Retail Floorspace by Type Figure 4.2 – Mix of Retail Floorspace by Centre Figure 4.3 – Retail Floorspace by Use Class Figure 4.4 – Access to Fresh Food Figure 4.5 – Access to Post Offices Figure 4.6 – Access to Supermarkets / Foodstores Figure 4.7 – Access to Pharmacies Figure 5.1 – Difference in Household Expenditure by Household Economic Activity Figure 5.2 - Difference in Household Expenditure by Socio-economic Group Figure 5.3 - Difference in Household Expenditure by Tenure Figure 6.1 - Opportunities for Change

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Pro-formas and Questionnaires

Appendix B – SWOT Analysis

Appendix C – Demand Assessment Tables

Appendix D – Description of Centre Change Options

Appendix E – Proportion of Non A1 Use Classes by Centre

Appendix F – Recommended Boundary Changes

Appendix G – GOAD Report for Chadwell Heath

v Atkins Retail Study Jan 06


vi Atkins Retail Study Jan 06


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

Atkins was appointed in January 2005 to undertake a heathcheck assessment of local shopping facilities in the Borough. The healthcheck assessment was undertaken in accordance with PPS 6, Planning for Town Centres (2005). The study comprised an on site health check assessment, a retailer survey and a demand assessment. The project methodology is outlined in Table 2.1. The detail of the assessment included 39 neighbourhood centres and local parades identified within the adopted Barking and Dagenham UDP (1996), Chadwell Heath District Centre, and Roseallen Parade, Green Lane. Health check assessments of Barking Town Centre and Dagenham Heathway District Centre the other retail centres within the Borough have been assessed and reported separately1.

1 Barking & London Riverside Retail and Leisure Capacity Study (London Development Agency December, 2004).

vii Atkins Retail Study Jan 06


EVALUATION OF EXISTING LOCAL CENTRES

The current network of local centres within the Borough supports a diverse range of retail and non retail activities. The healthiest centres tend to have the greatest proportions of convenience floorspace, typically around 25-30%. The comparison sector whilst well represented within centres tends to be focussed towards the lower end of the market with a significant number of discount and second hand retailers.

The service sector is strong within the Borough with a significant proportion of floorspace occupied by hot food takeaways and hairdressers. There was a perception from retailer’s that takeaways are over represented within the Borough. The healthcheck supports this assertion in respect of a number of weaker centres in the Borough, particularly as there is little differentiation in the food/service offered. The lack of diversity of retailer types within such centres is a weakness which could present a long term problem if the dominance of takeaway’s crowds out other potential convenience and comparison operators as levels of expenditure grow in the Borough.

viii Atkins Retail Study Jan 06


Analysing local centres by use class indicates that 50% of floorspace is occupied by A1 occupiers. Other A-class activities comprise 30% of floorspace, 13% of floorspace is vacant whilst the remaining ground floor floorspace comprises of non-A class activities. The retailer survey indicated that the main concerns of retailers operating within local centres were parking difficulties, cleanliness and street maintenance issues, overrepresentation of takeaway food outlets and anti-social behaviour.

Vacancy Levels

Retail vacancy levels within the Borough are 13% of total floorspace this is higher than the 58% normally represented by the frictional level of vacancy necessary for the rental market to operate. 25 of the 41 centres have more than 10% of floorspace vacant whilst 8 centres have more than a 25% of their floorspace unoccupied. The levels of vacancy present a significant problem within several centres although the reasons for the vacancy and the opportunities to improve occupancy differ between centres and need to be considered in conjunction with other issues.

Accessibility

The study considered the accessibility of local centres to households in the Borough to identify access to fresh food (fruit & vegetables), food stores, Post Offices and pharmacies. Small pockets of the Borough are located further than 10 minutes walk from this range of facilities. The location of the areas deficient in provision varies depending on the type of facility;

Environmental Quality

Environmental quality is a key factor in determining the attractiveness s of the centre to consumers and potential retailer’s. The study found wide variation in the attractiveness of public realm between different centres. However there were common themes which emerged which are relevant to most centres within the Borough, these are a general lack of bins and seating within centres, an absence of street greenery, a lack of provision of public spaces where people would wish to spend time. Several centres had buildings which were in a poor level of repair and there is a general problem in the upkeep of shop fronts and fascia boards.

In relation to access there was an absence of formal cycle parking at almost all centres, however more positively, there appeared to be adequate crossing facilities and provision of tactile paving. Although retailer’s reported parking to be a significant problem, the appraisals generally identified the arrangements to be adequate at the time of survey with few opportunities to accommodate additional parking.

ix Atkins Retail Study Jan 06


Rental Levels

Reported rental levels within local centres are lower than for the main town and district centres within the Borough. Convenience occupiers appear to pay significantly higher rents compared with comparison or service sector occupiers. It is not clear whether this is a reflection of their higher turnover (and ability to pay), or is simply a factor reflecting competition for the smaller no. of large units within the centres, the location of premises within the centre or the condition of premises;

DEMAND ASSESSMENT

The demand assessment identified that up to 20% of convenience and related expenditure in the Borough has the potential to be met by neighbourhood centres within the Borough. The average household spend within Local centres within the Borough is estimated to be £51.74 per week, however overall local centre expenditure levels originating from individual wards can differ +/- 9% from the Borough average reflecting differences in their social profile (tenure, socio-economic mix, levels of household economic activity);

Expenditure in the categories of retail expenditure supported by neighbourhood centres is expected to increase by 48% from £269.8m to £399.7m between 2003 and 2016, this is a reflection of the additional households expected to be accommodated within the Borough and a small increase in levels of expenditure among all households (compound growth rate of 0.9% per annum);

Taking account of existing vacant floorspace which it is assumed can be taken up it is expected that the level of floorspace provision required to support this level of growth would be in the order of 117,500 sq.m (gross) an increase of 38,200 sq.m on existing levels of provision (+38%). It is considered appropriate that at least 18,600 sq.m (relating to convenience and associated services) should be located within new or existing centres with the remaining comparison and service floorspace accommodated if physical constraints allow;

The bulk of net additional floorspace should be located close to those areas likely to experience growth. Some 48% of net additional floorspace (9,000 sq.m) is required to support growth in the Barking area (Gascoigne and Abbey wards), 42% in Riverside (7,800 sq.m) and 10% (1,900 sq.m) in the remainder of the Borough;

ACCOMMODATING GROWTH AND CHANGE AT INDIVIDUAL CENTRES

The potential to accommodate growth will be closely linked to opportunities within existing centres to utilise vacant floorspace and to bring forward opportunity sites. To reconfigure existing provision to meet future needs it will be necessary to renew or rationalise stock at particular locations. The potential change options are:

x Atkins Retail Study Jan 06


No change: Which were identified where expenditure levels within the catchment are stable or growing, where there are no clear opportunities to bring forward additional retail floorspace, where the balance between different retail activities is satisfactory and where the centre appears to be trading well, and where there is little scope for improving the quality or accessibility of the centre.

Enhancement: Eight centres within the Borough were identified as having potential for enhancement. Within the enhancement category three forms of potential intervention have been identified.

• Development of vacant land;

• Utilisation of airspace above single storey premises; and

• Improvements to the public realm.

Consolidation: This option refers to centres which merit intervention beyond public realm improvements to improve their operational effectiveness and to secure their long term future. Within the consolidation category, three forms of consolidation have been identified.

• Small scale consolidation/rationalisation.

• Large scale centre reconfiguration.

• Diversification

The report has also considered the potential to develop new retail centres to serve existing and growth areas of the Borough.

POLICY APPROACH

The proposed retail policy approach was developed by considering the findings of the supply and demand assessment, and reviewing the impact and effectiveness of the current retail policies of the adopted UDP (1996).

The Borough must aim to meet the needs of its residents by promoting and safeguarding an appropriate portfolio of large and small shopping centres, reflecting market considerations, social needs and the issues arising from the centre healthchecks

Proposed Approach to the Centre Hierarchy

In accordance with PPS 6, it is recommended that the Borough continues a hierarchical approach to retail planning policy. It is proposed to replace the existing hierarchy of centres in the Borough with Town Centres, District Centres and Neighbourhood Centres. The proposed centre hierarchy is outlined in Table 7.1.

xi Atkins Retail Study Jan 06


Ranking centres according to the proposed centre hierarchy is dependent on a number of characteristics including the extent and range of retail provision. The findings of the assessment were used to place each centre in the appropriate level of the proposed centre hierarchy.

Only Barking town centre meets the London Plan town centre size threshold. The London Plan does not include any guidance regarding floorspace indicators for District or Neighbourhood centres. The three largest centres, Chadwell Heath (29112 sq.m), Green Lanes (10,574 sq,m) and Dagenham Heathway (8,315 sq,m) were the most significant in terms of gross floorspace relative to the other centres. It is proposed that Chadwell Heath and Dagenham Heathway should remain District Centres under the proposed centre hierarchy and that Green Lanes should be put forward for consideration as a District centre.

Of the remaining 39 centres in the Borough (including Dagenham Heathway), none were large enough in terms of their total gross floorspace to be considered as a District Centre. The other centres are relatively similar in terms of their other functions, such as accessibility and environmental quality, it was not considered appropriate to distinguish between them in the proposed centre hierarchy. To reflect this, it is proposed that the remaining 39 centres should be designated as Neighbourhood Centres to enable consistency with the London Plan and to avoid a 2 tier approach to policy protection.

At the 4 centres where a “retail retreat” is envisaged. It is proposed that existing units in use are retained and are protected in a similar manner to individual ‘corner shops’ but due to the scale of retail activity the site is not classified as a Neighbourhood Centre.

Table 7.1 – Proposed Centre Hierarchy

Centre type and Centre Name Site ID District centre Chadwell heath (Prime and Secondary areas) 1 & 41 Dagenham Heathway N/A* To be considered as a district centre Green lanes (inc. Rowallen parade) 40 New district centre London riverside N/A Neighbourhood centre The merry fiddlers 2 Broad street 12 Whalebone lane south 20 Oxlow lane/hunters hall road 7 The round house 6

xii Atkins Retail Study Jan 06


Gale street, Becontree 5 Robin hood 17 Faircross parade 11 Goresbrook road / chequers parade 8 Royal parade/ church street 9 Martins corner 4 Andrews corner 3 Westbury 31 Farr avenue 10 Eastbury 16 Five elms 38 Marks gate shops 18 Dagenham east (north) 14 Princess parade, new road 24 Eastbrook 34 Dagenham east (south) 13 Lodge avenue 39 Rush green 15 Reede road 30 Gascoigne 32 Matapan 21 The triangle 26 Movers lane 36 Althorne way 22 Neighbourhood centre Talworth parade 19 Stansgate road 23 Fanshawe avenue 27 Edgefield court 28 Gibbards cottages, Upney lane 29 Retail retreat (no designation) The bull 35 Julia gardens 37 Chelmer crescent 25

Great Cullings 33

SITE SPECIFIC DESIGNATIONS

Opportunities for enhancement, consolidation and diversification were identified at a number of centres across the Borough. It is proposed that site specific allocations are overlaid on top of the retail designation to promote the regeneration of these centres. The Council should describe the mix of uses envisaged at each site.

xiii Atkins Retail Study Jan 06


Site specific designations will only be given to centres identified within the ‘enhancement’ category where an opportunity for the development of a vacant land parcel has been identified. At these centres, only the vacant parcel of land with the potential to be developed will be designated.

At centres classified within the ‘consolidation’ or ‘diversification’ category, it is proposed that the entire centre area is designated.

BOUNDARY CHANGES

The Council’s adopted Proposals Map (1996) shows the current boundaries of District Centres, Local Centres and Local Parades within the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. An element of the Healthcheck was to ascertain whether the current centre boundaries used by the Council remain robust, and to identify any proposed changes required to reflect the findings of the assessment. A schedule of proposed boundary changes is attached as Appendix F.

To protect individual outlying shops which do not form part of centres it is proposed that Policy S7 is retained.

OTHER POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

A review of existing policies contained in Chapter 3 that are relevant to this study has been undertaken. The proposed policy recommendations are outlined in Table 7.2.

Table 7.2 – Other Policy Recommendations

Existing Policy Proposed Changes to Policy

Amend Policy to reflect findings of the healthcheck Policy S5 Chadwell Heath assessment. See paragraph 7.27 for proposed

changes to policy.

Replace with new Neighbourhood Centre Policy to Policy S6 Local Centres and reflect proposed changes to the centre hierarchy. Parades See paragraph 7.30 for proposed changes to

policy.

Policy S7 Shopping Parades / No Changes to Policy Proposed Individual Shops

Policy S8 Food and Drink Policy amended to reflect changes to Use Class Uses Order (2005)

Policy S9 Laundrettes No Changes to Policy Proposed

It is proposed that this Policy is updated to Policy S10 Post Offices safeguard the provision of Pharmacies and Local

xiv Atkins Retail Study Jan 06


Foodstores in the Borough, which also provide a valuable service to the local community. In the justification to the current policy approach, the UDP states that Post Offices should be within 400m – 750m to where people live, although this may not always be possible’. Access to Post Offices was identified in Figure 4.5. Figure 4.5 demonstrates that around 80% of the Borough’s population is currently within 800m of a Post Office, which represents a 10 minute average walking distance. It is therefore proposed that the Policy is amended to a 800m distance, which provides a more accurate reflection of the existing post office coverage within the Borough.

Policy S11 Environmental Improvements and Landscaping Works

Policy S12 Rear Servicing

Policy S13 Extensions to Retail Premises

This policy should be extended to include a further opportunities, such as shop front enhancements.

No Changes to Policy Proposed


Policy S14 Shop Fronts

Policy S15 Access for People with Disabilities



Policy S16 On Street Trading

Policy S17 Market Stalls

Policy S18 Car Boot Sales

Policy S19 Markets





Policy S5 Chadwell Heath

It is recommended that the existing Tertiary and Secondary Shopping Areas remain unchanged. Proposed boundary changes for this centre are outlined in Appendix F.

It is proposed that the existing Secondary Shopping Area should be renamed ‘Primary shopping area within Chadwell Heath’, and the Tertiary Shopping Area within Chadwell Heath should be renamed ‘Secondary shopping Area within Chadwell Heath’. These proposed changes aim to clarify the position of retail provision within Chadwell Heath, whilst recognising that a higher level of retail provision does exist within the Borough (at Barking).

It is proposed that the existing 30% and 60% thresholds for non retail use at Primary and Secondary Shopping Centres are retained, as they reflect the existing balance of uses at the centre based on the findings of the healthcheck assessment.

xv Atkins Retail Study Jan 06


Policy S6 Local Centres and Parades

Policy S6 should be replaced with a new Neighbourhood Centre policy to reflect proposed changes made to the centre hierarchy.

The existing policy states that non retail units in Local Centres and Local Parades should be restricted to a maximum of 30% of the measured frontage. To ascertain whether this Policy is currently working in the Borough, the average proportion of units in non A1 Class Use was identified in the centres proposed as Neighbourhood Centres in Table 7.1. Currently 38% of units across the Borough are in non A1 Class Use, meaning that the current policy approach has not been effective in controlling the proportion of non A1 Class Use within Neighbourhood Centres. A number of centres greatly exceed this balance, with 9 having more than half (50%) of all units in non A1 Class Use.

To ensure that centres have an appropriate balance between uses, and to safeguard Convenience A1 Class Use in the Borough’s Neighbourhood Centres, it is proposed that the maximum level of non A1 Class Use in the Borough is changed to 35%. This proposed maximum level of non A1 Class Use is considered a more robust proportion of uses based on the findings of the healthcheck assessment,

IMPLEMENTATION

In order to implement the policy approach it will be necessary for the Council to take a more proactive approach to managing change within Neighbourhood Centres than in the past. The potential for the enhancement and consolidation centres represents an opportunity to deliver other benefits to the community. At appropriate locations mixed use development has the potential to act as a catalyst to the regeneration of surrounding housing areas.

An implementation strategy is required to set out how the approach identified within site specific allocations should be achieved. It is anticipated that the regeneration of Broad Street Neighbourhood Centre will serve as a model which can be used to regenerate other centres in the Borough. At this centre a Supplementary Planning Document is being used to set out the approach to regeneration. This approach is likely to be appropriate at other centres where significant intervention is proposed to reconfigure the layout and mixed of uses within centres.

At other centres where improvements are confined to public realm improvements or refurbishment/upgrading of existing premises it is possible that proposals can be achieved without the need to prepare a Supplementary Planning Document.

xvi Atkins Retail Study Jan 06


1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 In November 2004 Atkins was commissioned by the London Borough of Barking & Dagenham to undertake health check assessments for 39 Neighbourhood Centres and Local Parades and Chadwell Heath District Centre. In addition the work also included the preparation of a Neighbourhood Renewal Assessment and Supplementary Planning Document for Broad Street Neighbourhood Centre and the adjoining housing area.

1.2 The purpose of the health check assessments are two fold:

• To provide an evidence base to inform the development of planning policies relating to Neighbourhood Centres, Local Parades and Chadwell Heath District Centre for inclusion within the LDF; and

• Identify an appropriate role for neighbourhood centres within the Borough and an approach to managing their future change and development.

1.3 This report summarises the findings of the centre health check assessments.

1-1 Atkins Retail Study Jan 06


2. METHODOLOGY

SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT

2.1 The methodology used to undertake the assessment is consistent with the guidance provided in PPS 6: Planning for Town Centres (2005). The level of assessment has been tailored to reflect the size and role of centres which are towards the lower end of the retail hierarchy.

2.2 The centres included within the assessment are those 39 neighbourhood centres and local parades identified within the adopted Barking and Dagenham UDP (1996) and Chadwell Heath District Centre. An additional centre (Roseallen Parade, Green Lane) was also assessed. Existing centres were defined by their existing centre boundaries as identified on the UDP proposals map and description within the UDP however retail uses adjoining the existing defined areas were also incorporated within the assessment.

2.3 Health check assessments of Barking Town Centre and Dagenham Heathway District Centre the other retail centres within the Borough have been assessed and reported separately2.

ASSESSMENT COMPONENTS

2.4 The health check assessment comprises of 3 main components which are described below. The study approach is summarised in Figure 2.1 below which also reflects the chapter structure of the remainder of this report.

2 Barking & London Riverside Retail and Leisure Capacity Study (London Development Agency December, 2004).



On site health check assessment

2.5 The on site health check assessment was used to collect key baseline information regarding retail premises within each centre and to provide a qualitative assessment of the centre environment and the performance of each centre.

2.6 A site survey pro-forma was devised to establish ensure a consistent basis of assessment, a copy of the pro-forma used is included within Appendix A.



2.7 The main information collected on site included:

• Premises information on retail type, occupancy and floorspace;

• Extent and type of upper floor uses;

• Representation of multiple retailers;

• Range of associated community facilities and services;

• Assessment criteria relating to the quality of the public realm including condition of premises, personal security, street maintenance etc;

• Information on centre accessibility by a range of travel modes;

• Accessibility within the centre including pedestrian flows; and

• Initial appraisal of opportunities for change.

2.8 The assessments were undertaken in June and July 2005 by a small team of town planners.

Retailer Survey

2.9 A telephone survey was undertaken with a sample of 45 retailers based within the centres assessed. The purpose of the survey was to obtain an indication of the performance of the centre as a whole and its trajectory, rental levels, retailer perceptions. Whilst not representative of retailers within the Borough the sample was stratified by type of retailer (services, convenience, comparison) and by location. A copy of the questionnaire is included within Appendix A. The findings of the assessment are reported within Chapter 4 and within the SWOT analysis as appropriate.

Demand Assessment

2.10 A demand assessment was undertaken to establish the likely level of demand for neighbourhood level retailing in 2005 and at the LDF end date of 2016.

2.11 The demand assessment included a review of the findings of the Barking and London Riverside Retail and Leisure Capacity Study undertaken in December 2004 by CBRE on behalf of the London Development Agency. The study area for that study included approximately 75% of the area of the Borough. However, the focus of the study centred on the growth areas in the Riverside area, Barking Town Centre and Dagenham Heathway District Centre. The capacity assessment is wide ranging and includes several strands of research including a household survey of those living within Barking and London Riverside catchment area. Where appropriate the raw



data outputs from this work have also been used to inform the assessment of demand for neighbourhood level retailing.

2.12 The approach used within the assessment focuses on allocating demand to the higher order centres and national multiples with the residual demand not accounted by these centres assumed to be met by local centres. In order to test these findings the demand assessment included within this study adopts a “bottom up” approach towards establishing the potential of District and Neighbourhood Centres to accommodate future growth.

2.13 To establish the potential level of expenditure which may be attracted to local centres we have used refined expenditure profiles to reflect local spending patterns in order to test the sensitivity of other assumptions within the CBRE work where there are implications for the provision of neighbourhood centre floorspace outside of the Riverside area. The findings of the demand assessment are described within Chapter 5.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

2.14 The last two chapters of the report bring together the various strands of the assessment and focus on establishing the potential scope for change within each centre considering the balance between the expected demand for retail floorspace, social needs and the findings of the health check assessment. Chapter 7 considers the future options for physical change at each centre whilst Chapter 8 proposes a revised centre hierarchy for centres and makes other policy recommendations to inform the preparation of the LDF.



3. POLICY AND STRATEGY REVIEW

INTRODUCTION

3.1 This review examines relevant planning policy and additional literature on retail which sets the context for the neighbourhood centre appraisals in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham.

3.2 Specifically, the review considers the national context (provided by PPS6 - Planning for Town Centres), the regional context (provided by the London Plan and other supplementary planning guidance), and the local context (from the UDP for Barking and Dagenham, 1996). The review also considers recent relevant literature on neighbourhood retail, and will describe the changing retail trends affecting district centres, local centres and parades.

NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY

PPS 6 – Planning for Town Centres

The Government’s Objectives

3.3 PPS 6 was published in 2005, and replaces PPG6 and subsequent policy statements. It identifies the Government’s key objective for town centres as promoting their vitality and viability. This is to be achieved by:

• Planning for the growth and development of existing centres; and

• Promoting and enhancing existing centres, by focussing development in such centres and encouraging a wide range of services in a good environment, accessible to all.

Networks and Hierarchies of Centres

3.4 In promoting and enhancing existing centres, PPS6 advises regional planning bodies and local planning authorities to consider the network of centres and their



relationship in the hierarchy, and to plan carefully how best to distribute any identified growth to achieve the objectives of their spatial strategies.

3.5 In defining their objectives, authorities should consider whether there is a need to rebalance the network of centres to ensure it is not overly dominated by the largest centres. This will ensure that there is a more even distribution of town centre uses, and people’s everyday needs are met at the local level.

3.6 Authorities should also recognise that networks and hierarchies are dynamic, and will change over time, but any significant change in role and function of centres should come through the development plan process.

Providing for local shopping and other services

3.7 According to PPS6 networks of local centres should be the focus for investment in local services (such as health centres and other community facilities) because they provide easily accessible shopping and meet people’s day-to-day needs.

3.8 Local planning authorities should seek to protect existing facilities in local centres, and remedy deficiencies where necessary, in order to reduce social exclusion. This may be best achieved by working with stakeholders, including the private sector and the community.

3.9 To improve access to local shopping and other services, local planning authorities are encouraged to work with local transport authorities in producing strategies for their area.

Health checks

3.10 According to PPS6, local authorities should regularly collect information, preferably in co-operation with the private sector, to monitor the health of their town centres. Relevant indicators include: the proportion of vacant street level property; pedestrian flows; accessibility; and the state of the town centre environmental quality.



REGIONAL PLANNING POLICY

The London Plan

Strategies for Town Centres and Neighbourhoods

3.11 Policy 2A.5 of The London Plan states that the Mayor will work with sub-regional partnerships to implement a polycentric strategy for London’s development. This will be achieved by promoting the strategic importance of London’s town centres in accommodating economic growth, meeting the needs of Londoners and improving the sustainability of London’s development.

3.12 The London Plan encourages communities and neighbourhood-based organisations to prepare frameworks or neighbourhood plans based on identifying local economic, social, physical and environmental needs. Policy 3D.1 encourages boroughs to include UDP policies to undertake regular town centre health checks.

Town centre classification

3.13 According to The London Plan Five broad types of town centre can be identified within London:

• International;

• Metropolitan;

• Major;

• District; and

• Neighbourhood and local.

3.14 This study is only concerned with centres that can be classified as either district, or neighbourhood and local. The London Plan has no specific guidance on any of the district or neighbourhood and local centres included in the health check.

3.15 The London Plan states that there are over 1,200 Neighbourhood and local centres in London, and they provide services for local communities and are of cumulative strategic significance. Neighbourhood shopping centres have a key role to play in addressing the problems of areas lacking accessible retail and other services.



Barking and Dagenham

3.16 The planning framework for Barking and Dagenham should reflect the vision for London Riverside (2002) and should plan for compact, mixed urban communities at South Dagenham and in Rainham. Planning for the wider London Riverside area should establish a full range of community facilities and a whole new urban area with a distinct character of its own, which will change the image of the area as a place to live.

3.17 New development should include high density, mixed-use development comprising leisure and other services, together with surrounding urban residential areas. There should be strong links with Barking town centre, which will be the nearest ‘major’ centre.

Supplementary Planning Guidance

3.18 The report “A City of Villages: Promoting a sustainable future for London’s suburbs” was undertaken in August 2002 by URBED with the TCPA for the GLA to help inform the London Plan, and aimed to provide a set of policies to improve the sustainability of London’s suburban areas.

3.19 One of the key policies set-out for London’s suburbs involves reinforcing the role of local centres. The report states that local shopping centres and transport hubs are both the heart of suburbia, and the key to its success, which is why they should be protected and enhanced.

3.20 The report sets out a number of ways in which this can be achieved:

• Location policy – New retailing and leisure should be encouraged to locate within local centres, and the scale of new development needs to be related to the size of the centre.

• Vitality and viability of local centres – Town centre health checks should be encouraged.

• Town centre management – There should be support for town centre partnerships involving the community and local businesses, which ensure a co-ordinated approach to management and promotion.

• Non-retail uses – Where necessary, alternative uses should be encouraged. Preferable alternative uses include community facilities, cafes and restaurants, but if demand for these if low, then residential or workspace use



should be considered. However, it is important to retain active frontages and ensure that takeaways do not dominate.

• Environmental improvements – Improvements to the public realm, lighting, street furniture and street trees should be promoted, and traffic impact should be reduced. The most effective means of ensuring high standards of management and maintenance is through the local management of centres.

• Access and parking – Parking provision should allow centres to compete with out-of-town uses but large expanses of surface parking should be avoided. The frequency and quality of public transport should be increased, including stations and real-time travel information.

• Sustainable development – Housing in local centres and particularly above retail uses should be encouraged.

3.21 The East London Sub-Regional Development Framework (SRDF) covers the East London sub-region, which includes the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, and provides guidance on the implementation of policies contained in the London Plan.

3.22 The SRDF states that District Centres will play a key role in accommodating changing requirements for convenience space. However, it is the Mayor’s view that most of the growth in comparison goods expenditure should be focussed on the metropolitan centres and some major centres, as these provide the greatest level of accessibility by public transport and widest choice of higher order comparison goods shopping.

3.23 For the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, the Framework suggests intensification and mixed-use regeneration of the town centre. For Barking Reach specifically, the framework suggests that the major centre will be Barking town centre, but a local centre should be included with mixed use development including leisure and other services.

LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES

The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham UDP 1996

3.24 The council’s existing local policy framework seeks to retain retail uses in local centres and parades because of their convenience and proximity to local residential areas. To control the balance of uses Policy S6 seeks to limit non-retail uses to a maximum of 30% of the measured frontage, whilst recognising that some non-retail



uses (such as banks and restaurants) provide an important service, particularly for the less mobile.

3.25 Local centres and parades are particularly important for people with restricted mobility and people who do their main shopping elsewhere, but use local centres and parades for their day to day requirements (Policy S6).

3.26 The Council will attempt to retain convenience goods stores close to residential areas, but where there is not enough consumer demand to make a shop viable, it may be acceptable to convert a ground floor to residential use (Policy S6).

3.27 The UDP contains policies relevant to specific aspects of secondary retail centres within the Borough, which aim to encourage:

• The retention of the existing network of sub-regional post offices (Policy S10);

• The retention of corner shops (Policy S7);

• Improvements to the physical environment of shopping centres (Policy S11);

• Retention of rear service roads for existing shops (Policy S12);

• Extensions to existing retail or non-retail premises, where they do not have any adverse effects on adjoining properties, do not interfere with off-street parking, and are well designed taking into account the design and materials of the existing building (Policy S13);

• Shop front designs that relate to the building they are part of, contributing to the character of their locality, and a window display that is of interest and amenity to the shopping parade (Policy S14);

• The provision of special parking spaces, ramps, dropped kerbs, suitable sanitary facilities and other aids for people with disabilities (Policy S15);

• The provision of on-street market stalls subject to the availability of appropriate sites and other criteria, such as the likely effects on established shopping facilities (Policy S19); and

• Applications for markets within strategic, district and local centres provided that proposals do not draw trade away and have a detrimental impact on the community, are accessible, and environmentally acceptable (Policy S19).



OTHER BEST PRACTICE

Changing Retail Trends

3.28 There are a number of changing retail trends currently affecting district centres, local centres and parades, which it will be necessary to acknowledge in the preparing of the LDF:

• There has been an increase in the numbers of large superstores and shopping malls, and a preference for car-based shopping, which has had a detrimental impact on small shops;

• The introduction of both smaller and larger format stores by supermarket chains, and the buying out of small competitors (such as chemists) and then replicating them in store, will further impact on small shops;

• Economies of scale offered by large companies make them more competitive relative to local shops;

• Shopping in large stores using the car has also been encouraged by the increased amounts of women working, less time to shop, increased car ownership, and increased ownership of freezers and microwave ovens;

• Changing lifestyle patterns have also led to an expansion in eating out and the takeaway food market. This has led to increased A3 representation, and accompanying uses (e.g. off licenses).

• Changing working patterns have led to a shift in demand beyond traditional 95pm opening hours and increased weekend, evening, late night and 24 hour convenience retaining.

• Closure of local shops impacts most on poor residents who have less opportunity to drive to alternative facilities, and may lead to social exclusion as a result of reduced access to services and facilities;

• Deprived areas have generally not been a target for retail investment, because of the lack of available spending power of the residents, and the stigma of the area. However, discount supermarkets often see these areas as a niche market;

• Many advantages of improved retail facilities in deprived urban areas are based on the ability to buy in bulk. However, many small households and



people on restricted incomes may not be able to afford these offers, particularly if they have poor food storage facilities;

• The continued decline in the number of post offices, bank and building society branch networks, and public houses on a local level, and a potential decline in the number of local pharmacies if more pharmacies become situated in supermarkets may also lead to social exclusion for those less mobile, or without access to a car;

• Retail decline, particularly in shopping parades, may lead to an increase in anti-social activity, and have a negative impact on the image of a locality;

• Increased demand for e-commerce may have a detrimental impact on certain forms of retaining, such as travel agents, bookshops and specialist goods;

• There has been a growth in other business services and walk up personal consumer services such as solicitors, estate agent’s, hairdressers, opticians and health practitioners.

• Specialist retail representation including ethnic goods, motor spares and retailers catering for special interests and hobbies has increased.

• The use of retail units for uses serving business consumers rather than the public, such as trade stores, building materials and furnishing.

Retailing, Sustainability and Neighbourhood Regeneration

3.29 The report, compiled by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (Carley, Kirk and McIntosh, 2001), was concerned with the vitality and sustainability of local neighbourhoods and shopping centres. Several key findings from the report relate to district and local centres:

• Combining retail provision with a range of community and health facilities is likely to produce more lively neighbourhood and district centres with ample footfall.

• Increasing the catchment area of secondary retail centres may produce economic and social advantages. This can either be achieved by physically reorganising facilities in order to attract passing non-residents, or develop a shopping centre marketing strategy, which builds on a particular market niche.



• Decline of secondary retail centres should be managed and countered by both top-down planning and local bottom-up retail development strategies, which encompass residents’ social and environmental aspirations.

3.30 The report concludes that a more strategic approach to retail revitalisation is needed. This should include analysing the balance between retail functions in both prosperous and deprived areas, and integrating the need for retail vitality within a broader context of sustainable development.

The Role and Vitality of Secondary Shopping – a New Direction

3.31 Research was undertaken by the NRPF (2004) in relation to shopping in secondary centres (including district and local centres), and several conclusions were drawn:

• The role and vitality of district and local centres depends on the relationship of the centre to its catchment area, and the demographic and socio-economic profile of that area.

• Prosperity of district and local centres will be influenced by the level of competition from supermarkets, and whether or not they contain an ‘anchor’ main food store.

• Survival of retailers and service businesses in secondary shopping areas is substantially dependant on specialisation.

3.32 A number of recommendations were also made concerning secondary shopping as a result of the research:

• Barriers to easy pedestrian movement should be removed, and linkages with existing generators of pedestrian flow should either be implemented or improved. Equally, new generators or attractors of pedestrian flow should be introduced where the increased flow can benefit the greatest number of secondary shops.

3.33 Accessibility for shoppers visiting specialist ‘destination retailers’ should be increased by creating more quick-stop on-street parking.



4. SUMMARY OF HEALTH CHECK FINDINGS

4.1 This chapter summarises the findings of the health check assessments undertaken for each of the 41 local shopping centres. It provides a summary of health check indicators including diversity of centre uses, vacancy levels, provision of community facilities, retailer perceptions, accessibility issues, social inclusion, pedestrian flows, environmental quality and safety.

DIVERSITY OF CENTRE USES

4.2 The diversity of uses within local neighbourhood centres has been considered as it has an affect on the attractiveness of one local centre relative to another. The scale and diversity of uses within a centre usually correlates with the length of time people spend in a given centre, the amount of spending, and the time of day that the centre is usually used.

Retailer mix no. type & amount of floorspace

4.3 In order to analyse the retail mix within each of the 41 local shopping centres, every unit within each of the centres was coded according to a retailer typology. The typology was developed to reflect representation of retail and service activities within the Barking context3.

4.4 For reasons of consistency, the retailer typology utilised the Experian Goad centre report within the CB Richard Ellis Retailer and Leisure Capacity Study for Barking and London Riverside (2004) as the initial basis of the typology. A copy of the Appendix is included in Appendix A. It disaggregates convenience retailing, comparison retailing and service provision into 42 smaller categories of retail provision. The typology also included categories for non retail provision, to gain an appreciation of the range and extent of other land uses within local shopping centres. A total of 42 retail codes were included as part of the retailer typology.

4.5 Table 4.1 shows the breakdown of activities represented within centres in terms of the number of units and the total floorspace. A more detailed summary table, by retail code is provided in Table 4.2. In total, there are some 1,014 units within the 41



centres, with a combined gross floorspace of 109,285 sq.m. The largest summary grouping, both in terms of the percentage of units (37.6%) and the percentage floorspace (31.3%) is the service sector. The non retail category is the second best represented, both in terms of the number of units and the % floorspace. This reflects the large proportion of vacant units (15.3%) within the Borough. Comparison units comprise 21% of units, and convenience 15.2% of local shopping centres.

Table 4.1 - Summary Groupings

No. % of Total % Summary Groupings Units Units Floorspace (sq.m) Floorspace Convenience 154 15.2 24903 22.8 Comparison 213 21.0 22085 20.2 Services 381 37.6 34197 31.3 Total Misc - Non Retail 266 26.2 28100 25.7 Total 1,014 100 109,285 100

Retail Type

4.6 Table 4.2 provides a more detailed breakdown of retail floorspace by type. Table 4.3 provides a similar disaggregation according to the number of units. The local shopping parades have a relatively high percentage of vacant units. Across the Borough vacant units represent both the greatest proportion of units (15.3%) and floorspace (13%). This property percentage is above what would ordinarily be considered necessary to allow the frictional level of vacancy market to function.

4.7 In total, convenience stores comprise 15.2% of all premises and almost 22.8% of floorspace within local shopping centres. However, provision of different retail types within the convenience retail category varies significantly. The most heavily represented stores are Confectionery, Tobacco and News (CTN) and Convenience stores, which comprise 6.3% of all premises and 9.2% of floorspace. Groceries and Frozen Food represent 4.2% of premises and 10.2% of floorspace. This is due to the presence of larger supermarket units within some of the larger centres. There are 21 off licences across the 41 local shopping parades, a sector that is considered to be particularly well represented.

4.8 Bakers (1.2% of premises), Butchers (0.8%), Greengrocers (0.5%) and Fishmongers (0.1%) are poorly represented, especially within areas of the Borough where levels of deprivation are highest. Residents living in the most deprived parts of the Borough generally shop in the cheapest shop available, which traditional bakers, butchers, fishmongers and greengrocers cannot compete with. Within the poorest parts of the Borough, the recent growth phenomenon of all in one budget convenience stores (such as Costcutter) appears to have changed traditional patterns of convenience



shopping. People living in these parts of the Borough now undertake a significant proportion of this type of shopping in budget convenience stores.

4.9 Comparison units comprise around 20% of both premises and gross floorspace within the Borough. Chemists are the best represented type of store within this category, comprising 3.3% of all premises and 2.7% of floorspace. DIY, hardware and household goods, (2.9 % premises) and Furniture, carpet and textile firms (2.4% of premises) are also well represented. A large proportion of comparison shopping provision within the Borough consists of second hand shops.

4.10 A significant issue across the majority of the 41 local centres is the over and under representation of certain retail types (Figure 4.2). Over 13% of units were identified as being in A5 use (Hot Food Takeaway), and 8.5% are hairdressers, beauty or health salons. Although it is recognised that such uses have a role within local shopping parades, their extent is not desirable in terms of their ability to help higher value firms to locate in the Borough. A high proportion of Hot Food Take Away outlets is also undesirable as it can contribute indirectly to high levels of litter.

4.11 Figure 4.2 demonstrates the relatively high representation of the service sector within the Borough relative to the proportion of comparison floorspace. This trend is especially strong amongst the centres situated in the most deprived parts of the Borough, where convenience stores may not be as viable as service sector activities such as take always, bookmakers and hairdressers. This over representation may have arisen due to difficulties that the Council have experienced in attracting suitable convenience retail provision to certain local centres.



Table 4.2 - Summary by Retail Types

Category Typology Coding

No. premises % Floorspace %

Convenience (A1) CTN & Convenience Store 1 64 6.3 10012 9.2 Groceries & Frozen Food 2 43 4.2 11147 10.2 Baker 3 12 1.2 819 0.7 Butcher 4 8 0.8 747 0.7 Greengrocers 5 5 0.5 348 0.3 Fishmongers 6 1 0.1 57 0.1 Off Licence 7 21 2.1 1773 1.6 Total Convenience N/A 154 15.2 24903 22.8 Comparison (A1) Footwear & Repairs 8 4 0.4 297 0.3

Category Typology Coding

No. premises % Floorspace %

Clothing 9 12 1.2 1622 1.5 Furniture, carpets & textiles 10 24 2.4 2744 2.5 Books, arts/crafts, stationers/copy, photo 11 7 0.7 515 0.5 Electrical, home ents, phones, video 12 20 2.0 1608 1.5 DIY, hardware & household goods 13 29 2.9 2805 2.6 Gifts, china, glass, leather goods 14 6 0.6 627 0.6 Cars, motorcycles, & accessories 15 22 2.2 2832 2.6 Chemists, toiletries & opticians 16 33 3.3 2920 2.7 Variety, department & catalogue 17 3 0.3 913 0.8 Florists & garden 18 16 1.6 988 0.9 Sports, toys, cycles & hobbies 19 4 0.4 535 0.5 Jewellers, clocks & repairs 20 3 0.3 227 0.2 Charity shops 21 6 0.6 622 0.6 Other Comparison 22 24 2.4 2830 2.6 Total Comparison N/A 213 21.0 22085 20.2 Service Restaurants & Cafes (A3 Use) (Sandwich Bar A1) 25 46 4.5 3905 3.6 Drinking Establishments (A4 Use) 26 10 1.0 4529 4.1 Hot Food Takeaway (A5 Use) 27 135 13.3 10181 9.3 Internet Café (A1) 28 3 0.3 193 0.2 Hairdressing, beauty & health 29 86 8.5 6287 5.8 Bookmakers (A2) 30 30 3.0 2878 2.6 Launderette (S/G) /Dry cleaners (A1) 31 26 2.6 1878 1.7 Travel Agents (A1) 32 5 0.5 427 0.4 Banks & Financial Services (A2) 33 19 1.9 2152 2.0 Money Transfer 34 0 0.0 0 0.0 Estate Agents (A2) 35 19 1.9 1573 1.4 Employment Agencies (A2) 36 2 0.2 194 0.2 Total Service N/A 381 37.6 34197 31.3



Typology No. Category Coding premises % Floorspace % Post Office (A1) 37 14 1.4 1388 1.3 Taxi Office (S/G) 38 6 0.6 462 0.4 Voluntary Sector Office/venue (B1) 39 3 0.3 1154 1.1 Other 40 88 8.7 10895 10.0 Vacant 41 155 15.3 14201 13.0 Derelict 42 0 0.0 0 0.0 Total Non Retail N/A 266 26.2 28100 25.7 Total N/A 1014 100 109285 100

Floorspace by Centre

4.12 Table 4.4 compares the balance of convenience, comparison, service and vacant premises across the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham’s local shopping centres. The prime shopping area in Chadwell Heath has both the greatest amount of floorspace (22,556m²) and units (144) of all the centres and represents 20% of the total. Excluding Chadwell Heath, all other centres are smaller in terms of their size, and have between 144 units (Green Lanes inc Rowallen Parade) and 3 units (The Bull). The average size of units across all 41 local centres is 95 sq.m. The smallest centres identified by the assessment in terms of floorspace and number of units included Edgefield Court, Gibbards Cottages, Great Cullings and The Bull.

4.13 The amount of floorspace in service sector use (31.3%) represents the largest sector across the 41 centres, with the amount of floorspace dedicated to convenience (22.8%) and comparison (20.2%) being roughly equal. The balance of uses amongst retail units that are currently in use varies considerably between local shopping centres. Centres with over half of their floorspace in convenience shopping use are The Merry Fiddlers (84.7%), Talworth Parade (51.9%). Four sites have no provision for convenience shopping (Great Cullings, Julia Gardens, The Bull and The Triangle).

4.14 Local shopping centres where over one third of floorspace are dedicated to comparison shopping include Edgefield Court (38.8%), Chadwell Heath – secondary area (35.3%), and Green Lanes including Rowallen Parade (35.3%). Sites with no provision for comparison shopping are Gibbards Cottages, Great Cullings, Chelmer Crescent, Julia Gardens and Movers Lane.

4.15 Almost all sites have some element of retail service provision. Six sites have over half of their floorspace dedicated to retail service provision (Broad Street, 51.3%), The Round House (55.3%), Robin Hood (50.6%), Princes Parade, New Road (50.6%), Dagenham East (south), 59.6% and Gibbards Cottages (63.1%). Only 2 sites, Julia Gardens and The Bull have no provision for this type of retail.



Table 4.3 - Summary of Floorspace by Category for Individual Sites Site Total % % % % %

Site Name ID (m²) Convenience Comparison Service Vacant Other Chadwell Heath - Prime area 1 22,556 23.8% 24.0% 26.4% 9.6% 16.2% Green Lanes inc Rowallen Parade 40 10,574 18.5% 35.3% 23.6% 15.3% 7.4% Chadwell Heath - secondary area 41 6,556 5.1% 35.3% 29.7% 11.8% 18.2% The Merry Fiddlers 2 6,131 84.7% 4.3% 9.1% 0.0% 2.0% Broad Street 12 4,956 12.8% 7.0% 51.3% 23.8% 5.0% Whalebone Lane South 20 4,192 29.9% 24.5% 27.5% 3.4% 14.8% Oxlow Lane/Hunters Hall Road 7 3,925 14.9% 17.3% 43.7% 16.8% 7.4% The Round House 6 3,846 18.6% 10.4% 55.3% 8.3% 7.5% Gale Street, Becontree 5 3,790 28.4% 14.5% 31.5% 21.5% 4.1% Robin Hood 17 3,274 16.4% 6.0% 50.6% 12.2% 14.8% Faircross Parade 11 3,073 29.7% 23.6% 39.2% 2.4% 5.1% Goresbrook Road/Chequers Parade 8 2,840 8.8% 25.3% 38.5% 19.2% 8.3% Royal Parade/Church Street 9 2,789 9.0% 22.4% 32.7% 22.9% 13.0% Martins Corner 4 2,760 26.4% 16.9% 29.7% 9.1% 17.9% Andrews Corner 3 2,734 14.4% 26.5% 43.2% 13.7% 2.2% Westbury 31 2,301 11.9% 8.1% 16.4% 10.5% 53.1% Farr Avenue 10 2,051 27.8% 3.9% 28.6% 28.9% 10.9% Eastbury 16 1,905 10.8% 23.6% 29.3% 34.0% 2.3% Five Elms 38 1,576 22.1% 7.7% 37.9% 14.7% 17.5% Marks Gate Shops 18 1,544 24.5% 18.3% 23.1% 8.8% 25.2% Dagenham East (North) 14 1,495 12.0% 25.8% 46.0% 0.0% 16.1% Princess Parade, New Road 24 1,407 4.6% 17.1% 50.6% 0.0% 27.7% Eastbrook 34 1,292 22.9% 10.6% 44.0% 22.5% 0.0% Dagenham East (South) 13 1,282 22.0% 9.4% 59.6% 9.0% 0.0% Lodge Avenue 39 1,118 17.1% 23.4% 35.8% 10.8% 12.9% Rush Green 15 1,012 40.1% 29.8% 30.0% 0.0% 0.0% Reede Road 30 920 32.6% 23.3% 31.2% 0.0% 12.9% Gascoigne 32 845 31.6% 15.9% 9.5% 25.8% 17.3% Matapan 21 834 17.3% 29.7% 24.5% 28.5% 0.0% The Triangle 26 783 0.0% 24.5% 34.0% 0.0% 41.5% Movers Lane 36 736 14.5% 0.0% 7.2% 11.0% 67.3% Althorne Way 22 710 12.3% 12.8% 0.0% 25.4% 49.6% Talworth Parade 19 636 51.9% 9.3% 29.4% 9.4% 0.0% Stansgate Road 23 630 12.7% 13.2% 23.7% 50.5% 0.0% The Bull 35 471 0.0% 30.6% 0.0% 0.0% 69.4% Julia Gardens 37 396 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Chelmer Crescent 25 367 40.3% 0.0% 18.8% 40.9% 0.0% Fanshawe Avenue 27 322 13.4% 12.7% 34.2% 39.8% 0.0% Edgefield Court 28 317 11.7% 38.8% 35.6% 13.9% 0.0% Great Cullings 33 284 0.0% 0.0% 49.6% 25.7% 24.6% Gibbards Cottages, Upney Lane 29 122 36.9% 0.0% 63.1% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 109,352 22.8% 20.2% 31.3% 13.0% 12.7%



4.16 Analysis of the health check findings reveals significant difference regarding the balance of activities between the strongest and weakest centres. The strongest centres are typically less reliant on service based units and contain a more balanced split of retail types. To illustrate this issue, Faircross Parade, a relatively prosperous centre consists of roughly 30% convenience floorspace, where as Broad Street, a declining centre, contains roughly 13%. Conversely, 51% of Broad Street’s floorspace is service orientated, compared to 39% of the floorspace at Faircross Parade. Faircross Parade also contains a significantly higher balance of comparison floorspace (24% at Faircross Parade compared to 7% at Broad Street), and has around 20% less vacant floorspace.

4.17 Table 4.4 provides further analysis of the local shopping centres within the Borough according to the number of units.

Table 4.4 - Summary of Number of Units by Category for Individual Sites Site % % % % %

Site Name ID Total Convenience Comparison Service Vacant Other Chadwell Heath - Prime area 1 144 6.9% 31.3% 39.6% 6.3% 16.0% Green Lanes inc Rowallen Parade 40 104 13.5% 34.6% 29.8% 12.5% 9.6% Chadwell Heath - secondary area 41 53 7.5% 26.4% 45.3% 7.5% 13.2% Broad Street 12 47 12.8% 12.8% 34.0% 31.9% 8.5% Robin Hood 17 42 16.7% 7.1% 50.0% 19.0% 7.1% Gale Street, Becontree 5 40 22.5% 15.0% 32.5% 25.0% 5.0% Martins Corner 4 38 23.7% 18.4% 31.6% 13.2% 13.2% Oxlow Lane/Hunters Hall Road 7 38 7.9% 18.4% 42.1% 23.7% 7.9% Goresbrook Road/Chequers Parade 8 33 12.1% 12.1% 39.4% 24.2% 12.1% Faircross Parade 11 33 24.2% 24.2% 45.5% 3.0% 3.0% Whalebone Lane South 20 33 12.1% 24.2% 45.5% 6.1% 12.1% Andrews Corner 3 32 18.8% 18.8% 46.9% 12.5% 3.1% The Round House 6 30 20.0% 16.7% 40.0% 13.3% 10.0% Royal Parade/Church Street 9 29 10.3% 20.7% 27.6% 24.1% 17.2% Eastbury 16 28 14.3% 25.0% 28.6% 28.6% 3.6% The Merry Fiddlers 2 23 26.1% 21.7% 43.5% 0.0% 8.7% Five Elms 38 23 17.4% 8.7% 39.1% 17.4% 17.4% Farr Avenue 10 19 21.1% 5.3% 31.6% 31.6% 10.5% Dagenham East (North) 14 19 15.8% 21.1% 47.4% 0.0% 15.8% Westbury 31 18 16.7% 11.1% 33.3% 5.6% 33.3% Eastbrook 34 17 23.5% 11.8% 41.2% 23.5% 0.0% Dagenham East (South) 13 16 25.0% 12.5% 50.0% 12.5% 0.0% Lodge Avenue 39 16 12.5% 25.0% 37.5% 12.5% 12.5% Marks Gate Shops 18 15 13.3% 13.3% 33.3% 13.3% 26.7% Reede Road 30 15 33.3% 20.0% 33.3% 0.0% 13.3% Matapan 21 14 14.3% 28.6% 28.6% 28.6% 0.0% Princess Parade, New Road 24 13 7.7% 15.4% 46.2% 0.0% 30.8% The Triangle 26 9 11.1% 22.2% 33.3% 0.0% 33.3% Talworth Parade 19 8 37.5% 12.5% 37.5% 12.5% 0.0% Althorne Way 22 8 12.5% 12.5% 0.0% 25.0% 50.0% Stansgate Road 23 8 12.5% 12.5% 25.0% 50.0% 0.0%



Site % % % % % Site Name ID Total Convenience Comparison Service Vacant Other Gascoigne 32 8 25.0% 12.5% 12.5% 25.0% 25.0% Rush Green 15 7 14.3% 28.6% 57.1% 0.0% 0.0% Fanshawe Avenue 27 7 14.3% 14.3% 28.6% 42.9% 0.0% Movers Lane 36 7 28.6% 0.0% 14.3% 14.3% 42.9% Edgefield Court 28 6 16.7% 33.3% 33.3% 16.7% 0.0% Julia Gardens 37 6 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Chelmer Crescent 25 5 40.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 0.0% Gibbards Cottages, Upney Lane 29 4 25.0% 0.0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0% Great Cullings 33 4 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% The Bull 35 3 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 66.7%

Total 1,022 15.0% 20.8% 37.3% 15.2% 11.7%

Analysis by use class

4.18 The balance of premises according to the Use Classes Order (2005) is important as the Council currently uses the use class of premises as a mechanism to control the percentage of non A class uses at local centres.

4.19 Each unit was arranged occurring to use class. The highest proportion of units (46.7%) was identified to be in the A1 Use Class (shops), which occupied approximately 50% of the total floorspace. The number of hot food take away outlets within the Borough is also brought to the fore, consisting of almost 13% of the total number of units.

4.20 Policy S6 states that non A1 retail uses will be restricted in local centres and local parades to a minimum of 30% of the measured frontage. To test the effectiveness of this policy in the Borough, analysis was undertaken to ascertain the proportion of units within local centres that are in non A1 class use (excluding vacant units). Across the Borough’s 41 local centres, an average of 39% of units were in categories other than A1 class use in July 2005. Only 21.9% of centres (9) currently conform to Policy S6, meaning that the policy does not appear to be effective. 9 centres have over 50% of units in non A class use. Princess Parade, New Road performs the least well in this respect, with almost 70% of its units in uses other than A class. This information is attached as Appendix E.



Table 4.5 - Summary by Use Class

Use Class No. of Units % of Units

Total Floorspace

(m²) %

Floorspace

A1 (Shops) 477 46.70% 54,747 50.1 Unknown 155 15.20% 14,201 13.0 A5 (Hot food Take Away) 130 12.70% 9,866 9.0 A2 (Financial and Professional Services) 77 7.50% 7,245 6.6 Sui Generis 61 6.00% 6,916 6.3 A4 (Drinking Establishments) 10 1.00% 4,529 4.1 A3 (Restaurants & Cafes) 51 5.00% 4,220 3.9 D1 (Non-Residential Institutions) 21 2.10% 2,789 2.6 C3 (Dwellinghouses) 14 1.40% 2,558 2.3 B1 (a) (Offices) 23 2.30% 2,045 1.9 B1 (c) (Light Industry) 3 0.30% 236 0.2 Total 1,022 100% 109,352 100

Community Facilities

4.21 Analysis has been undertaken with regards to the provision of community facilities within each local shopping centre. The range, proximity and extent of community facilities is important for a number of reasons. Community facilities can influence the prosperity and vitality of a local shopping centre and are generally associated with generating pedestrian, public transport and vehicle trips. The provision of community facilities can therefore bring benefits for local retailers in terms of their potential to generate passing trade. Co-location of community facilities can also contribute to more sustainable travel patterns as a mix of land uses can enable linked trips and reduce the need for additional journeys.

4.22 Recording the extent and diversity of community facility provision was also important to establish the contribution of community uses to centre health and vitality and to identify gaps in provision where centres do not benefit from community uses. The assessment identified the range of community facilities, and their distance from the centre of the local shopping centre. The following community facilities were examined:

• Health centres / Doctors Surgeries;

• Schools;

• Community Centres;

• Leisure / Sports Provision;



• Libraries;

• Employment Areas;

• Pubs;

• Petrol Stations (both with and without convenience stores); and

• Cash Points.

4.23 Each neighbourhood centre was graded and given a percentage composite score relating to the community facilities available. In order to do this, points were allocated for the presence of each type of facility, depending on whether those facilities were available within the centre (3 points), within 400 metres of the centre (2 points), or within 800 metres of the centre (1 point). The total score was then added together, and a final percentage score was awarded for each centre. The maximum possible score for each site was 30, which was subsequently converted into a percentage. The scores reflect the range and proximity of facilities but do not reflect their quality or whether they are fit for purpose.

Table 4.6 - Summary of Community Facilities Centre

ID Centre Name Type Health Centre* School* Leisure

Centre* %

Score 1 Chadwell Heath - Prime area District Centre Yes Yes Yes 60.0

Goresbrook Road/Chequers 8 Parade Local Centre Yes Yes Yes 53.3

Chadwell Heath - secondary 41 area Local Centre Yes Yes Yes 53.3 2 The Merry Fiddlers Local Centre Yes Yes Yes 50.0 7 Oxlow Lane/Hunters Hall Road Local Centre No Yes Yes 50.0 20 Whalebone Lane South Local Parade Yes Yes Yes 50.0 10 Farr Avenue Local Centre Yes Yes Yes 43.3 12 Broad Street Local Centre Yes Yes Yes 43.3 14 Dagenham East (South) Local Centre Yes Yes Yes 43.3 15 Rush Green Local Centre Yes Yes Yes 43.3 17 Robin Hood Local Centre Yes Yes Yes 43.3 32 Gascoigne Local Parade Yes Yes No 43.3 34 Eastbrook Local Parade No Yes Yes 43.3 4 Martins Corner Local Centre Yes Yes No 40.0 22 Althorne Way Local Parade Yes Yes Yes 40.0 31 Westbury Local Parade Yes Yes No 40.0

Green Lanes inc Rowallen 40 Parade Local Centre Yes Yes No 36.7 3 Andrews Corner Local Centre No Yes No 33.3



Centre Health Leisure % ID Centre Name Type Centre* School* Centre* Score 13 Dagenham East (South) Local Centre Yes Yes No 33.3 26 The Triangle Local Parade No Yes Yes 33.3 16 Eastbury Local Centre Yes Yes No 30.0 27 Fanshawe Avenue Local Parade No Yes Yes 30.0

Gibbards Cottages, Upney 29 Lane Local Parade Yes Yes Yes 30.0 36 Movers Lane Not Classified Yes Yes Yes 30.0 6 The Round House Local Centre Yes Yes Yes 26.7 18 Marks Gate Shops Local Centre No Yes No 26.7 30 Reede Road Local Parade Yes Yes Yes 26.7 39 Lodge Avenue Local Parade Yes Yes No 26.7 25 Chelmer Crescent Local Parade Yes Yes Yes 23.3 35 The Bull Local Parade No No No 23.3 38 Five Elms Local Parade No Yes Yes 23.3 9 Royal Parade/Church Street Local Centre No No Yes 20.0 11 Faircross Parade Local Centre No Yes No 20.0 19 Talworth Parade Local Centre Yes Yes Yes 20.0 21 Matapan Local Parade Yes Yes No 20.0 23 Stansgate Road Local Parade Yes No Yes 20.0 5 Gale Street, Becontree Local Centre Yes Yes No 16.7 24 Princess Parade, New Road Local Parade Yes Yes No 16.7 33 Great Cullings Local Parade Yes Yes Yes 16.7 28 Edgefield Court Local Parade Yes Yes No 13.3 37 Julia Gardens Local Parade No No Yes 6.7 Average 32.8

*located within 800 metres of neighbourhood centre

4.24 The table shows that the prime shopping area in Chadwell Heath obtained the highest composite percentage score for community facilities with 60%, and Julia Gardens the lowest with a score of 6.7%. The average composite score was 32.8%.

4.25 Out of the 41 centres in the study, 37 have a school, 30 a health centre / doctors surgery, and 26 leisure / sports provision located less than 800 metres away. There were no petrol stations without a convenience store, employment centres or libraries located within any of the neighbourhood centres.

4.26 Analysis has been undertaken to ascertain whether low patterns of community facilities correlate with high vacancy levels. A number of centres with low levels of community provision do have high levels of vacancy. No community provision was identified at Julia Gardens (ID 37), where 100% of units are currently vacant. Edgefield Court (ID 28), Great Cullings (ID 25) and Gale Street, Becontree (ID 5) also have low levels of vacancy and poor provision of community facilities. Conversely, a centres with lower vacancy levels were generally found to have higher provision of community facilities. For example, The Merry Fiddlers (ID 2), scores well in terms of its provision of community facilities, and currently has no vacant units.



4.27 This suggests that centres with higher levels of community provision are more attractive to firms wishing to locate in the Borough. These types of centre are likely to be more vibrant, and have greater potential to attract passing trade than centres with poor retail provision. In centres with high vacancy levels, improving levels of community provision has the potential to increase the vitality of an area, which may consequently help to encourage new businesses to the centre.

RETAILER REPRESENTATION

4.28 A total of 61 national multiple retailers were identified within the centres, consisting of 6% of the total number of retail units (Table 4.7). Larger local shopping parades are more likely to include a multiple chain. Rush Green has a multiple chain despite having a total of only 7 retail units, this is because the centre forms part of a larger centre which extends into the London Borough of Havering. Two sites, Royal Parade / Church Street and Farr Avenue have a relatively large number of units (29 and 19 respectively), but do not have any multiple chains, as one may expect for centres of this size.

Table 4.7 - Retailer Representation

Centre ID Centre Name Type Total No.

of Units No.

Multiples % Units

Multiples

1 Chadwell Heath - Prime area District Centre 144 12 8.3 5 Gale Street, Becontree Local Centre 40 6 15.0 7 Oxlow Lane/Hunters Hall Road Local Centre 38 6 15.8

40 Green Lanes inc Rowallen Parade Local Centre 104 5 4.8 3 Andrews Corner Local Centre 32 4 12.5 4 Martins Corner Local Centre 38 3 7.9

11 Faircross Parade Local Centre 33 3 9.1 13 Dagenham East (South) Local Centre 16 2 12.5 17 Robin Hood Local Centre 42 2 4.8 18 Marks Gate Shops Local Centre 15 2 13.3 38 Five Elms Local Parade 23 2 8.7 2 The Merry Fiddlers Local Centre 23 1 4.3 6 The Round House Local Centre 30 1 3.3

Goresbrook Road/Chequers 8 Parade Local Centre 33 1 3.0

12 Broad Street Local Centre 47 1 2.1 14 Dagenham East (South) Local Centre 19 1 5.3 15 Rush Green Local Centre 7 1 14.3 16 Eastbury Local Centre 28 1 3.6 20 Whalebone Lane South Local Parade 33 1 3.0 21 Matapan Local Parade 14 1 7.1 24 Princess Parade, New Road Local Parade 13 1 7.7 31 Westbury Local Parade 18 1 5.6 34 Eastbrook Local Parade 17 1 5.9 39 Lodge Avenue Local Parade 16 1 6.3 41 Chadwell Heath - secondary area Local Centre 53 1 1.9



Centre ID Centre Name Type Total No.

of Units No.

Multiples % Units

Multiples 9 Royal Parade/Church Street Local Centre 29 0 0.0

10 Farr Avenue Local Centre 19 0 0.0 19 Talworth Parade Local Centre 8 0 0.0 22 Althorne Way Local Parade 8 0 0.0 23 Stansgate Road Local Parade 8 0 0.0 25 Chelmer Crescent Local Parade 5 0 0.0 26 The Triangle Local Parade 9 0 0.0 27 Fanshawe Avenue Local Parade 7 0 0.0 28 Edgefield Court Local Parade 6 0 0.0 29 Gibbards Cottages, Upney Lane Local Parade 4 0 0.0 30 Reede Road Local Parade 15 0 0.0 32 Gascoigne Local Parade 8 0 0.0 33 Great Cullings Local Parade 4 0 0.0 35 The Bull Local Parade 3 0 0.0 36 Movers Lane Not Classified 7 0 0.0 37 Julia Gardens Local Parade 6 0 0.0

Total N/A 1022 61 6.0

RETAILER PERCEPTIONS

4.29 The retailer survey described in Chapter 2 covered a range of issues within each centre including rental cost levels, weaknesses, strengths and suggested improvements. Several similarities were found in the comments made by retailers in the centres:

• Parking problems were blamed for falling numbers of customers, mainly in terms of parking restrictions which make parking difficult for customers;

• Improving levels of cleanliness in public areas and removal of graffiti were among the improvements suggested;

• The growth in the number of fast-food takeaway shops and vacant retail units was thought to impact negatively on the image of centres; and

• Anti-social behaviour and a lack of security were common weaknesses identified, especially in centres with high vacancy levels where levels of surveillance and natural policing of streets tends to be low.

• Retailers in centres in peripheral areas with poor accessibility identified a lack of passing trade as a reason for poor performance.



PROPORTION OF VACANT STREET LEVEL PROPERTY

4.30 The high level of units that are currently vacant is demonstrated by the fact that around 85% of the 41 local shopping centres have at least one vacant retail unit. There is an average vacancy rate in terms of vacant units across the 41 local shopping centres of 15.2%. In terms of gross floorspace, the vacancy rate is slightly lower, at 13%. This suggests that it is generally the smaller units that are currently vacant. 49% of centres currently have vacancy levels above the frictional level. This demonstrates that around half of local centres are currently experiencing major problems in attracting businesses to the Borough.

4.31 The 6 retail units at Julia Gardens are all currently vacant, suggesting that this (former) local shopping parade is not perceived as a desirable location amongst businesses. This is probably due to the strong competition in this area of the Borough from the ASDA store. Stansgate Road (50% vacant units) is also a serious concern in terms of the percentage of vacant units. Only six sites have no vacant units (The Merry Fidlers, Dagenham East (north), Princes Parade, The Triangle, The Bull and Gibbards Cottages). With the exception of The Merry Fiddlers, these local shopping centres have less than 1,500 sq.m of gross retail floorspace.

4.32 Within the Borough, units occupied by charity shops and voluntary sector uses may also offer cause for concern, due to the image of the units, and the relatively low levels of passing trade that they attract to a centre. The over representation of A5 hot food takeaways (13.3%) in the Borough is also undesirable due to the poor image of such uses, and because of the time of day that they generally attract their peak levels of trade. Many takeaways within the Borough only open during the evening, which only serves to exacerbate the problem further.

4.33 The average size of all vacant units within the local centres is 87sq.m, some 8 sq.m smaller than the average unit size in the Borough’s local shopping centres of 95 sq.m. The fact that vacant units are generally smaller than average suggests that some units may be vacant because of their relatively small size compared to other units.



Table 4.8 - Vacant ground floor units

Site ID Site Name

Total No of Units

Vacant No of Units

Vacant Floorspace

Total Floorspace

% of units

vacant

% of floorspace

vacant 37 Julia Gardens 6 6 396 396 100.0% 100.0% 23 Stansgate Road 8 4 318 630 50.0% 50.5% 27 Fanshawe Avenue 7 3 128 322 42.9% 39.8% 25 Chelmer Crescent 5 2 150 367 40.0% 40.9% 12 Broad Street 47 15 1,181 4,956 31.9% 23.8% 10 Farr Avenue 19 6 592 2,051 31.6% 28.9% 16 Eastbury 28 8 647 1,905 28.6% 34.0% 21 Matapan 14 4 238 834 28.6% 28.5% 5 Gale Street, Becontree 40 10 814 3,790 25.0% 21.5% 32 Gascoigne 8 2 218 845 25.0% 25.8% 22 Althorne Way 8 2 180 710 25.0% 25.4% 33 Great Cullings 4 1 73 284 25.0% 25.7%

Goresbrook Road/Chequers 8 Parade 33 8 544 2,840 24.2% 19.2% 9 Royal Parade/Church Street 29 7 638 2,789 24.1% 22.9% 7 Oxlow Lane/Hunters Hall Road 38 9 658 3,925 23.7% 16.8% 34 Eastbrook 17 4 291 1,292 23.5% 22.5% 17 Robin Hood 42 8 399 3,274 19.0% 12.2% 38 Five Elms 23 4 231 1,576 17.4% 14.7% 28 Edgefield Court 6 1 44 317 16.7% 13.9% 36 Movers Lane 7 1 81 736 14.3% 11.0% 6 The Round House 30 4 319 3,846 13.3% 8.3% 18 Marks Gate Shops 15 2 136 1,544 13.3% 8.8% 4 Martins Corner 38 5 252 2,760 13.2% 9.1%

Green Lanes inc Rowallen 40 Parade 104 13 1,613 10,574 12.5% 15.3% 3 Andrews Corner 32 4 374 2,734 12.5% 13.7% 13 Dagenham East (South) 16 2 115 1,282 12.5% 9.0% 39 Lodge Avenue 16 2 121 1,118 12.5% 10.8% 19 Talworth Parade 8 1 60 636 12.5% 9.4% 41 Chadwell Heath - secondary area 53 4 771 6,556 7.5% 11.8% 1 Chadwell Heath - Prime area 144 9 2,159 22,556 6.3% 9.6% 20 Whalebone Lane South 33 2 143 4,192 6.1% 3.4% 31 Westbury 18 1 242 2,301 5.6% 10.5% 11 Faircross Parade 33 1 75 3,073 3.0% 2.4% 2 The Merry Fiddlers 23 0 0 6,131 0.0% 0.0% 14 Dagenham East (North) 19 0 0 1,495 0.0% 0.0% 24 Princess Parade, New Road 13 0 0 1,407 0.0% 0.0% 15 Rush Green 7 0 0 1,012 0.0% 0.0% 30 Reede Road 15 0 0 920 0.0% 0.0% 26 The Triangle 9 0 0 783 0.0% 0.0% 35 The Bull 3 0 0 471 0.0% 0.0% 29 Gibbards Cottages, Upney Lane 4 0 0 122 0.0% 0.0%

Total 1,022 155 14,201 109,352 15.2% 13.0%



ACCESSIBILITY

4.34 Accessibility was examined, both to the centre and within the centre, due to the importance it can play in determining the functioning and usage of neighbourhood centres.

4.35 Accessibility to the centre was based on the proximity and type of routes to the centre (car/train) and the density and morphology of the pedestrian network. Accessibility within the centre dealt with the location and adequacy of parking provision and bus stops, in addition to pedestrian flows (which was based on the location of anchor functions such as supermarkets, community facilities (Q8), and transport routes and nodes).

4.36 Each aspect of accessibility was assessed, using a scale of ranging from 1 (very poor) to 5 (very good), and additional comments were made identifying problems and opportunities. A total score was derived for each centre, and an average percentage score was calculated based on a weighting of two-thirds on access to the centre, and one-third on access within the centre.

4.37 The composite percentage scores for accessibility vary considerably across the centres, ranging from Dagenham East (south) (76.2%), to Great Cullings (34.6%). Overall, accessibility in terms of trains and tubes had the lowest average score taken across all the sites with 2.39 (out of a maximum of 5), and adequacy of car parking within the centre was rated highest, at 3.44.

Table 4.9 - Summary of Accessibility

Centre ID Centre Name Type % Score 13 Dagenham East (South) Local Centre 76.2 11 Faircross Parade Local Centre 73.3 39 Lodge Avenue Local Parade 71.1 26 The Triangle Local Parade 70.8 1 Chadwell Heath - Prime area District Centre 69.8 5 Gale Street, Becontree Local Centre 69.8 28 Edgefield Court Local Parade 68.9 27 Fanshawe Avenue Local Parade 68.6 31 Westbury Local Parade 66.3 29 Gibbards Cottages, Upney Lane Local Parade 64.4 16 Eastbury Local Centre 63.5 32 Gascoigne Local Parade 63.2 8 Goresbrook Road/Chequers Parade Local Centre 62.5 4 Martins Corner Local Centre 62.2 15 Rush Green Local Centre 61.6 36 Movers Lane Not Classified 61.3 2 The Merry Fiddlers Local Centre 59.4



Centre ID Centre Name Type % Score 14 Dagenham East (North) Local Centre 59.4 9 Royal Parade/Church Street Local Centre 59.0 24 Princess Parade, New Road Local Parade 58.1 41 Chadwell Heath - secondary area Local Centre 58.1 40 Green Lanes inc Rowallen Parade Local Centre 57.1 35 The Bull Local Parade 55.9 6 The Round House Local Centre 54.9 20 Whalebone Lane South Local Parade 54.0 21 Matapan Local Parade 54.0 18 Marks Gate Shops Local Centre 53.0 22 Althorne Way Local Parade 53.0 3 Andrews Corner Local Centre 52.7 12 Broad Street Local Centre 52.7 38 Five Elms Local Parade 52.7 7 Oxlow Lane/Hunters Hall Road Local Centre 51.7 17 Robin Hood Local Centre 51.7 34 Eastbrook Local Parade 51.7 30 Reede Road Local Parade 49.5 10 Farr Avenue Local Centre 48.6 25 Chelmer Crescent Local Parade 46.3 37 Julia Gardens Local Parade 44.1 19 Talworth Parade Local Centre 41.9 23 Stansgate Road Local Parade 40.9 33 Great Cullings Local Parade 34.6

Average 57.8

PEDESTRIAN FLOWS

4.38 Levels of pedestrian movement in and around a local shopping centre are important as they indicate the vitality and amount of trade taking place. They can be influenced by land use characteristics both within and surrounding a centre, including the balance of residential / employment land, and the presence of attractions or community facilities within close proximity to the local shopping centre.

4.39 An assessment was made regarding the pedestrian flows at each local shopping centre, based on a scaled system between 1 and 5, to give a ‘snap shot’ of pedestrian flows at each centre. The on site assessments were conducted at any time between 09.30 and 17:00 on weekdays, according to the site visit programme, and took into consideration the time at which they were conducted (for example, a site visit undertaken during lunchtime hours took this into consideration).

4.40 Pedestrian flows varied across the centres. The average rating was 2.66. The only centre to be given a rating of ‘very good’ was Faircross Parade, which was partly as a result of the location of a bank within the centre. The pedestrian flows in five centres were rated as ‘very poor’. These were Broad Street, Farr Avenue and



Chelmer Crescent, Julia Gardens and Great Cullings. Typically, these centres do not contain multiple chains or other ‘trip generators’.

SOCIAL INCLUSION

4.41 It is desirable to for local centres to be distributed evenly across the Borough, and not be determined solely by commercial considerations. All residents should have access to a range of community services and facilities that are within walking distance. The distribution of centres is also desirable on sustainability grounds, as it has a direct impact on the length of trips and the potential for non car journeys. The even distribution of local centres is especially important for those without access to a car living in areas that are deficient in access to essential products such as fresh fruit and vegetables.

Car ownership and modal split

4.42 Demand at local shopping centres is explained by a number of factors, including levels of car ownership and the extent of public transport links between residential and shopping areas.

4.43 Patterns of shopping within the Borough in terms of modal split were determined by CB Richard Ellis (2004). The importance of car ownership in terms of current shopping patterns is shown by the fact that around 63% of Barking and Dagenham residents usually use a car to undertake their main food shop, compared to roughly 18% that use a bus, and 13% that walk.

4.44 Overall within the Borough, the proportion of non car owners is similar to that of London as a whole (both 37%). Significant variations exits between wards in this regard, with those residing within Abbey (46.25%) and Gascoigne (54%) being particularly deprived in terms of access to a private vehicle.



Table 4.10 - Car Ownership Levels

Ward Car ownership % Longbridge 74.40 Whalebone 72.51 Eastbrook 71.94 River 68.03 Goresbrook 64.60 Chadwell Heath 64.28 Becontree 64.12 Mayesbrook 62.26 Alibon 62.23 Valence 61.25 Parsloes 60.92 Eastbury 60.03 Village 58.82 Thames 57.40 Abbey 53.75 Gascoigne 45.24 LB Barking and Dagenham Average 62.08 London Average 62.51 United Kingdom Average 73.16

Access to fresh fruit & vegetables

4.45 Poor access to healthy and affordable food affects social inclusion, especially amongst less mobile sections of the community. A lack of locally available healthy and affordable food is likely to mean that people may in effect become excluded from access to fresh food provision due to the need to make long and expensive journeys. This could result in poor diets and consequences for long term health.

4.46 Figure 4.4 illustrates access to fresh food across the Borough, drawing from the information collected from the on site health check appraisals. The pro-forma was used to record the extent of fresh food provision at each of the 41 local shopping centres within the Borough. Local shopping centres with one or more store selling less than 10 items of fresh fruit or vegetables were classified as a minor fresh food provider, and those selling less than 10 items a major provider.

4.47 Figure 4.4 shows 400m, 800m and 1200m catchment areas around major fresh fruit providers, and can be used to identify areas that are deficient in access. The catchment areas represent 5, 10 and 15 minute walking distances. The distances shown have been adjusted to be represent the distance on the ground reflecting street layout, and severance factors such as railway lines. For the purposes of this exercise, standard catchment areas have been used for each unit selling more than 10 items of fresh food and vegetables. It has therefore been assumed that a small



local store has been given the same attraction as a large supermarket, despite the fact that in reality a large store is likely to have a larger effective catchment area than a small local store.

4.48 Given the patterns of travel to local shopping areas established in paragraphs 4.29 - 4.30, areas deficient in access to a major fresh fruit provider are considered more significant if they co-inside with areas that have low car ownership levels (see Table 4.10). In this respect, the poor provision of fresh fruit and vegetables within the Gascoigne and Thames wards assume a greater significance due to the low levels of private car ownership that characterise these areas of the Borough.

Access to a Supermarket

4.49 Access to a supermarket is becoming increasingly important, as they provide wide wide range of day to day provisions. Figure 4.6 illustrates access to supermarkets within the Borough. It demonstrates that access to supermarkets is better around Dagenham Heathway District Centre, and towards the north of the Borough. The area surrounding Barking town centre appears to be deficient in supermarket coverage, but this may be attributed to the good range of provision within the town centre itself (Tesco, Iceland, Lidel and Sommerfield).

4.50 Access to a supermarket may be considered to be particularly deficient in the east of Parsloes ward, north-west of Albion, south and centre of Heath, centre of Goresbrook, east Gascoigne, west Eastbury and centre of Chadwell Heath wards. The introduction of a small food store in the retail centres of Stansgate Road, Althorne Way, Movers Lane, Eastbury and Talworth Parade may help to reduce deficient access to supermarkets within these areas of the Borough.

4.51 Again, deficiencies are most significant in areas of low car ownership where households are likely to find it harder to travel longer distances to get to a supermarket. This means that the deficiencies shown in Gascoigne may have a particular significance.

Access to a Post Office

4.52 The deficiency of post offices in local centres can also have a negative impact, particularly among less mobile sections of the population who cannot easily get to larger centres, and can therefore result in social exclusion.

4.53 Figure 4.5 is also based upon information collected from the on site health check appraisals, and shows that although the majority of the Borough is within 1,200 metres of a post office, there are certain areas which are more deficient in access than others.



4.54 Post offices are particularly under-represented in the south and east of Village ward, north-east of River, the north-west of Eastbrook, central and northern Thames, and northern Chadwell Heath wards. All these residential areas are greater than a 15 minute walk from their nearest post office. Royal Mail is currently rationalising its portfolio of post offices, meaning that it may be difficult to address the areas of the Borough that are currently poorly served by a Post Office.

Access to a Pharmacy

4.55 The existence of a local pharmacy may also be of significant importance, particularly among the less mobile sections of the community. Figure 4.7 demonstrates that most of the residential areas are within 1,200 metres of their nearest pharmacy. However, where people are reliant on a local pharmacy, this may be too far, and therefore it is necessary to identify residential areas where access to a pharmacy is not within 800 metres.

4.56 One such area is the south west of Heath ward, at the site of the Five Elms centre. The addition of a pharmacy to this centre would significantly reduce the deficiency in pharmacy coverage in this area. Other areas deficient in pharmacy coverage, where a new pharmacy may be needed include central Chadwell Heath ward (Talworth Parade), south-eastern Longbridge ward (near Edgefield Court and Gibbards Cottages) and western Eastbrook (Eastbrook).

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Quality of Public Realm

4.57 The environmental quality of a local shopping centre is important as it affects people’s perception of a centre, and consequently has an impact on the propensity of people to shop at one centre over another and length of time spent there as a result can influence trading performance. A visual assessment of the public realm was undertaken at each local shopping centre.

4.58 Eleven criteria were used to assess each of the local shopping parades in terms of their environmental quality. Each of the criteria was given a score between 1 (very poor) and 5 (excellent), with additional comments to justify the perception of each site. These rating scores were then converted into an average composite percentage score for each parade. The market stalls criteria score was excluded from the final score as only one centre (Chadwell Heath) has a market function.

4.59 Table 4.10 offers a summary of the overall environmental quality at each of the 41 local shopping centres, providing an indicative ranking of the Borough’s local shopping parades. Overall scores for the local shopping centres vary significantly,



ranging from the highest in Edgefield Court (80%), and lowest in Martins Corner (42%).



Table 4.11 - Quality of Public Realm Centre ID Centre Name Composite Score (%)

28 Edgefield Court 80 11 Faircross Parade 78 19 Talworth Parade 76 8 Goresbrook Road/Chequers Parade 72 22 Althorne Way 72 40 Green Lanes inc Rowallen Parade 72 1 Chadwell Heath - Prime area 71 2 The Merry Fiddlers 70 3 Andrews Corner 70 15 Rush Green 70 29 Gibbards Cottages, Upney Lane 70 38 Five Elms 70 5 Gale Street, Becontree 68 7 Oxlow Lane/Hunters Hall Road 68 13 Dagenham East (South) 68 20 Whalebone Lane South 68 33 Great Cullings 68 17 Robin Hood 66 18 Marks Gate Shops 66 6 The Round House 64 26 The Triangle 64 39 Lodge Avenue 64 21 Matapan 62 27 Fanshawe Avenue 62 14 Dagenham East (North) 60 16 Eastbury 60 35 The Bull 60 36 Movers Lane 60 9 Royal Parade/Church Street 58 23 Stansgate Road 58 24 Princess Parade, New Road 58 37 Julia Gardens 58 31 Westbury 56 34 Eastbrook 56 25 Chelmer Crescent 54 41 Chadwell Heath - secondary area 54 10 Farr Avenue 52 32 Gascoigne 52 12 Broad Street 48 30 Reede Road 46 4 Martins Corner 42 Average 63.2



Detailed Analysis of environmental quality

4.60 Eleven aspects of environmental quality were assessed at each of the 41 local shopping centres in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham on a scale of 1 (very poor) to 5 (excellent). Comments were also made on the pro-forma to substantiate the score. Table 4.11 provides detailed analysis of each of the environmental issues included as part of the visual environmental assessment, in addition to the overall composite environmental score for each shopping parade. Analysis of each environmental issue is given below:

The condition of carriageway and pedestrian surface

4.61 These criteria included the condition of roads and footpaths throughout the Borough, including the surface, street lighting, bollards, signs, traffic signs and signals. The quality of these elements in a centre can have an impact on which sections of the community use a centre, as poor design and layout can make access to, and access within a centre difficult for less mobile sections of the community. The condition of road and pavement surfaces also affects the aesthetic quality of a local centre.

4.62 The potential exists to make improvements to the quality of the carriageway and pedestrian surface across the Borough, as this aspect of the local centres is only ‘adequate’ based on this method of assessment (an average score of 3.4). The Robin Hood local centre (ID 17) obtained the lowest score in this respect (2), whilst Edgefield Court (ID 28) and Goresbrook Road / Chequers Parade (ID 8) obtained the best score.

Seats, planters, litter bins, public art

4.63 The provision and quality of seating, planters, rubbish bins and public art was assessed. These facilities can add to the attraction of local shopping centres, and extend the length of time people spend at a location. The assessment gave particular attention to the quality of paint work, broken and missing parts.

4.64 Out of the 11 assessed environmental criteria, this aspect performed worst (2.7). Many centres scored very poorly on this aspect, often due to the lack of seating provision and a general lack of planters or trees. No centres obtained a maximum score in this respect, and 4 centres were considered very poor (Gascoigne, Broad Street, Reede Corner, and Martin’s Corner). Some seating provision may have been removed at local shopping centres to minimise groups of teenagers congregating around benches, and reduce levels of anti-social behaviour that is associated with this activity.



Public facilities, telephones, bus stop/shelters

4.65 Public facilities such as public telephones and bus stops are an important function at larger local shopping centres, and add to the attraction of a centre. Such facilities are highly susceptible to vandalism, and may suffer from poor maintenance resulting in problems with paint work, pointing broken, uneven and missing parts, or poor citing.

4.66 Public facilities were considered adequate, with an overall average rating for all centres of 3.1. Three centres, Reede Corner (ID 30), Movers Lane Royal Parade (36) and Martin’s Corner (ID 4) were given the lowest possible score of 1 in this respect. No centres were graded as being very good.

Graffiti, fly posting vandalism

4.67 Some element of graffiti, fly posting and vandalism was identified at each of the local shopping centres, with no centres achieving a maximum score for this aspect of environmental quality. The overall average in thus respect for all centres was adequate (3.4).

Market Stalls / trades

4.68 Chadwell Heath prime shopping area (ID 1) is the only centre that was identified as having a market stall / trade. Other centres may have similar activities, to a lesser extent, which may only take place on certain days of the week.

Barriers to movement

4.69 The assessment also took into consideration any barriers to movement, including servicing traffic, lack of safe crossing facilities, illegal access and parking. Centres that score poorly on this aspect may be less attractive to less mobile sections of the community.

4.70 A number of centres scored well on this aspect of the assessment, a reflection of the recent investment that has taken place across the Borough in this respect (especially the introduction of safe crossings and dropped curbs). The average score for this aspect was 3.6, the highest of the 11 criteria that were assessed. Two centres (Edgefield Court and Talworth Parade) were given maximum scores in this respect, whilst no centres were considered very poor.



Cycle Parking

4.71 An assessment was made of the provision of both formal and informal cycle provision, including availability and capacity. Cycle parking received the lowest average rating of all the criteria, with an average of only 2.3 (poor), reflecting the fact that a large number of centres only have provision for informal cycling provision. Four centres only achieved a score of 1 in this respect (Rush Green, Matapan, Stansgate Road, Martins Corner), demonstrating the potential to introduce cycle parking provision at a number of centres.

Maintenance and repair of buildings

4.72 Maintenance and repair of buildings was considered across the 41 local shopping centres, taking into consideration shop fronts and canopies and use of roller shutters. Despite only one centre obtaining an overall rating of 5 in this respect (Talworth Parade, ID 19), the overall repair of buildings across the Borough is ‘adequate’ (average of 3.1), indicating that structurally, most buildings within the shopping centres are fit for their current purpose. No centres obtained a rating below 2.

4.73 In a separate section of the pro-forma (question 6, Retailer Typology), no shop units were identified as being ‘derelict’, which reinforces the findings taken from the environmental part of the assessment.

Personal security

4.74 Personal security plays an important role in determining where people choose to shop. This part of the assessment was used to assess the security of the shopping centres with regards to CCTV coverage, ambience, unlit spaces and surveillance.

4.75 Personal security received an average rating of 3.5 across all centres. Farr Avenue (ID 10) was rated as having ‘very poor’ personal security, reflecting the poor design, location and orientation of the shopping parade. Concerns for personal safety were also expressed by local retailers at this centre, highlighting the need to address security issues at this centre. Security at a further 5 centres (Marttins Corner, Broad Street, Gascoigne, Chelmer Crescent and Stangate Road) was considered to be ‘poor’, indicating the need to address personal security at a Borough wide level at local shopping parades.

4.76 Security at four centres was rated as ‘very good’ (Edgefield Court, Faircross Parade, Talworth Parade and The Merry Fiddlers). These centres tended to be well overlooked with good CCTV coverage, and few unlit spaces.



Wheel Chair Access

4.77 Adequacy of access to and within local centres was also assessed, including provision of ramps, dropped curbs, obstructions and facilities for the blind / partially sighted. Centres generally performed well on this aspect of their form, with all but one centre scoring either 3 or 4. This partially reflects recent improvements that have been made regarding the introduction of dropped curbs and tactile pavement surfaces at pedestrian crossings. Talworth Parade (ID 19) is the only centre that scored a maximum score of 5 for wheel chair access.

Rear access

4.78 Maintaining a good level of rear access to shops for servicing purposes is seen as essential to the efficient operation of local shopping centres by the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham.

4.79 For shops with rear access, poor or obstructed access routes can slow or prohibit deliveries being made to retail units. In centres where rear access is not available, deliveries to shops may need to be made via the main shop entrance fronting a main road. Such deliveries may be less efficient, and parked delivery vehicles can cause an obstruction to traffic along busy main roads. This issue is addressed in the UDP (1996, Policy S12), which states that the council will normally refuse applications which would prohibit the use of existing rear servicing to shops.

4.80 Based on a visual assessment undertaken during site visits to the local centres, rear access to shopping centres was considered to be poor in the following 9 centres: Goresbrook Road / Chequers Parade (ID 19), Dagenham East (north) (ID 14), The Bull (ID 35), Movers Lane, Royal Parade (ID 36), Princes Parade, New road (23), Reede Corner (ID 30), Eatbrook (ID 34), Westbury (ID 31), and Chadwell Heath, secondary area (ID 41). Rear access was not considered a serious issue the remaining 32 centres.

4.81 Chapter 6 identifies those centres which would benefit from improvements to the public realm to enhance their attractiveness and retail performance.



Table 4.12 - Quality of the Public Realm

Centre ID Centre Name

Car

riage

way

/ s

urfa

ce

Seat

s /

plan

ters

Publ

ic

Faci

litie

s

Gra

ffiti

/ va

ndal

ism

Mar

ket S

talls

/ t

rade

rs

Bar

riers

to

mov

emen

t

Cyc

le p

arki

ng

Bui

ldin

gm

aint

enan

ce

Pers

onal

Se

curit

y

Whe

el C

hair

A

cces

s

Rea

r Acc

ess

% S

core

28 Edgefield Court 5 4 4 4 N/A 5 2 4 5 4 3 80 11 Faircross Parade 4 4 4 4 N/A 4 3 4 5 4 3 78 19 Talworth Parade 4 2 3 4 N/A 5 2 5 5 5 3 76

Goresbrook 8 Road/Chequers Parade 5 4 4 3 N/A 4 4 3 4 3 2 72

22 Althorne Way 4 4 4 3 N/A 4 3 4 3 4 3 72 Green Lanes inc

40 Rowallen Parade 4 2 4 4 N/A 4 4 3 4 3 4 72 Chadwell Heath -

1 Prime area 4 2 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 71 2 The Merry Fiddlers 4 4 3 4 N/A 4 2 3 5 3 3 70 3 Andrews Corner 4 4 2 4 N/A 4 3 3 4 3 4 70

15 Rush Green 3 4 4 4 N/A 4 1 4 4 3 4 70 Gibbards Cottages,

29 Upney Lane 4 4 3 4 N/A 4 2 4 4 3 3 70 38 Five Elms 4 3 3 4 N/A 4 3 3 4 3 4 70 5 Gale Street, Becontree 3 3 3 4 N/A 4 3 3 4 3 4 68

Oxlow Lane/Hunters 7 Hall Road 4 3 4 3 N/A 3 3 3 4 3 4 68

Dagenham East 13 (South) 3 3 4 4 N/A 4 3 3 4 3 3 68 20 Whalebone Lane South 4 3 3 3 N/A 2 4 3 4 4 4 68 33 Great Cullings 4 2 2 5 N/A 4 2 4 4 3 4 68 17 Robin Hood 2 3 4 4 N/A 3 3 3 4 3 4 66 18 Marks Gate Shops 4 3 3 3 N/A 4 2 3 3 4 4 66 6 The Round House 3 3 4 3 N/A 4 2 3 3 4 3 64

4-28

Atkins Retail Study Jan 06


Centre ID Centre Name

Car

riage

way

/ s

urfa

ce

Seat

s /

plan

ters

Publ

ic

Faci

litie

s

Gra

ffiti

/ va

ndal

ism

Mar

ket S

talls

/ t

rade

rs

Bar

riers

to

mov

emen

t

Cyc

le p

arki

ng

Bui

ldin

gm

aint

enan

ce

Pers

onal

Se

curit

y

Whe

el C

hair

A

cces

s

Rea

r Acc

ess

% S

core

26 The Triangle 3 3 4 4 N/A 3 3 2 4 3 3 64 39 Lodge Avenue 3 3 2 4 N/A 3 2 4 4 3 4 64 21 Matapan 3 3 4 3 N/A 4 1 2 4 4 3 62 27 Fanshawe Avenue 4 2 4 3 N/A 4 2 3 3 3 3 62

Dagenham East 14 (North) 4 3 3 3 N/A 3 2 4 3 3 2 60 16 Eastbury 3 3 3 3 N/A 3 2 3 4 3 3 60 35 The Bull 3 2 2 4 N/A 4 2 4 3 4 2 60 36 Movers Lane 4 2 1 4 N/A 4 2 4 4 3 2 60

Royal Parade/Church 9 Street 3 3 3 3 N/A 3 2 2 4 3 3 58 23 Stansgate Road 3 2 3 4 N/A 4 1 3 2 3 4 58

Princess Parade, New 24 Road 3 3 4 3 N/A 2 3 3 3 3 2 58 37 Julia Gardens 3 2 2 3 N/A 4 3 2 3 4 3 58 31 Westbury 3 2 2 3 N/A 3 2 3 4 4 2 56 34 Eastbrook 3 3 3 3 N/A 3 2 2 4 3 2 56 25 Chelmer Crescent 2 3 4 3 N/A 3 2 2 2 3 3 54

Chadwell Heath - 41 secondary area 3 2 4 3 N/A 2 2 3 3 3 2 54 10 Farr Avenue 3 2 3 2 N/A 4 2 2 1 3 4 52 32 Gascoigne 3 1 2 2 N/A 4 2 2 2 4 4 52 12 Broad Street 3 1 3 2 N/A 3 2 2 2 3 3 48 30 Reede Road 3 1 1 3 N/A 2 2 3 3 3 2 46 4 Martins Corner 2 1 1 2 N/A 3 1 3 2 3 3 42

AVERAGE 3.4 2.7 3.1 3.4 3.6 2.3 3.1 3.5 3.3 3.3 63.2

4-29

Atkins Retail Study Jan 06


RENTAL LEVELS & COMMERCIAL YIELDS

Rental Level’s

4.82 The Retailer Survey was used to gain an appreciation of rental values amongst retailers at Local Shopping Parades within the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. Retailers were asked approximately how much they pay in rent for their current premises (Q3). Responses were standardised to annual rental levels (per sq.m), exclusive of business rates, bills and any residential accommodation.

4.83 Calculations were made to derive average rental values for retail floorspace / sq.m for each of the main types of retail activity. The sample of residents is representative of a wide range of centres. Results for each centre have been disaggregated into convenience, comparison and service retail sectors, and have been adjusted from gross to net floorspace. Table 4.13 provides a summary table by retail sector for the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham local shopping parades. The results provide a ‘snapshot’ for average rental levels within the Borough by retail sector, providing an indication of reported rental values within the Borough. The results are based on a small sample and are not statistically accurate.

4.84 Table 4.13 demonstrates that average rental values are highest for convenience shopping, at £225 per sq.m of gross retail floorspace. This reflects the fact that convenience shopping units are generally larger than comparison and service sector units and can consequently command higher rental values. Convenience stores are also a higher value of activity relative to other activities, occupy prime locations within local centres, and are of a higher quality than other types of retail provision.

4.85 Average rental values for comparison retail in the Borough are £146 per sq.ft, and for the service sector are £111 per sq.ft.

4.86 Table 4.13 draws upon the GLA Mixed Use Development and Affordable Housing Study report (2004), which considers rental levels for a number of land uses across London Boroughs. GLA research indicates that rental levels for Beacontree are between £250 and £300 per sq.m, slightly above the findings from the retailer’s survey.



Table 4.13 - Comparison of Rental Values (net floorspace)

Retail Sector Atkins Retailer Survey (£/ sq.m)

Beacontree comparison (£/ sq.m)

Convenience 225 250-300

Comparison 146 n/a

Service 111 n/a

Average 160 250-300

* Source: Average rental values for Beacontree taken from GLA Mixed Use Development and Affordable Housing Study (2004). Figures adjusted to mean rent from Zone A rental levels

Commercial Yields

4.87 The commercial yield on non-domestic property is an indication of the confidence of investor’s in the retail growth of a centre. The yield on a property investment represents the return (in the form of rent) on capital to an investor. As property investments do not usually produce a fixed income (due to rent reviews) the greater the prospect of future rental growth, the lower the initial yield an investor is prepared to accept. Conversely, a higher yield reflects a lower expectation of future growth. Yields therefore represent an indicator of future economic prospects/rental growth.

4.88 It was not possible to establish trends in commercial property yields due to the lack of an active investment market within centres reflected in the lack of recent retail property investment within centres. The retailer’s survey has been used to ascertain centre prospects.

CUSTOMER VIEWS AND BEHAVIOUR

4.89 PPS 6 recommends that for town centres information is collected on customer views and behaviour to verify and inform other streams of the healthcheck assessment. Within the context of an assessment of local centre healthchecks detailed surveys of each centre were not feasible possible given the number of centres and the study resource and time constraints. However, the study has been able to use the outputs of the household survey to gain an insight into shopping patterns within the Borough.



5. DEMAND ASSESSMENT

METHODOLOGY

5.1 An assessment of existing and potential demand was undertaken to establish the existing and potential retail floorspace requirements at the neighbourhood level.

5.2 The demand assessment was structured to consider the implications of the existing Barking and London Riverside Retail Assessment for neighbourhood centres but also to provide an independent assessment of likely retail expenditure which could be met by neighbourhood level facilities. The assessment considers the appropriateness of the assumptions used within the study for neighbourhood level facilities. For reasons of consistency the demand assessment utilises some of the key assumptions from the previous study where appropriate. This study is wider in scope than the CBRE report as it also considers the needs of other retail and service activities which are also located within local centres.

ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL DEMAND

5.3 In order to test the findings the Barking and London Riverside Assessment particularly the implications of the study for neighbourhood level retailing this assessment adopts a “bottom up” approach towards establishing the potential demand for retail floorspace at the Neighbourhood level.

5.4 The stages of the assessment are described and summarised below and illustrated numerically in Appendix C.

STAGE 1: IDENTIFICATION OF EXPENDITURE CATEGORIES

5.5 The first stage of the assessment was to review information on household expenditure patterns relating to the Borough. Household expenditure estimates for 2002-3 were derived by Experian Goad for the Borough as a whole. The estimates focus on household retail expenditure rather than expenditure on other goods and local services. These baseline expenditure forecasts are included within Appendix C (Table C.1).



5.6 The next stage was to identify which retail expenditure categories were likely to be satisfied by retailers located within local centre parades. This was achieved by:

• Identifying linking categories of expenditure identified within the expenditure and food survey with the retailer types represented within parades;

• Using the CBRE household survey findings identifying the aggregate market shares for local centres within Borough for each broad expenditure category based upon the CBRE findings;

• Using national data from the food and expenditure survey for categories of local centre expenditure not considered by the Barking & London Riverside assessment.

5.7 The expenditure category identified was included if local centres accounted for more than 1% of expenditure within the Borough. It should be noted that a wide range of other uses are also represented within local centres particularly within the service category which were not considered by the CBRE assessment which focussed on convenience and comparison spending. These have been supplemented to provide a better picture of demand wherever published data is available.

5.8 The full range of expenditure categories included within the demand assessment are described in Appendix C Table C.2, this includes all forms of convenience retailing, and selected household goods and services also represented within local centres. Average expenditure per household within the Borough for these categories equated to £114.50 per week within the Borough compared with £88.90 within London as a whole.

5.9 Although expenditure within these categories is higher in Barking & Dagenham compared with the London average this is not necessarily an indicator of affluence. Those categories where spending was greater than the London average included food and non alcoholic drinks, tobacco, medicines, prescriptions and healthcare products, gambling payments and takeaway food. This profile of expenditure is similar to the Northeast England region.

STAGE 2: IDENTIFICATION OF MARKET SHARES & CENTRE CATCHMENTS

5.10 To establish the potential level of expenditure which may be attracted to local centres two expenditure scenarios were derived, one based upon the CBRE household survey findings and the other based upon national patterns of expenditure.



Scenario 1: Application of assumptions used within the Barking and London Riverside Retail Capacity Assessment

5.11 The approach used within the assessment focuses on allocating convenience and comparison expenditure to centres and superstores with the residual demand not accounted by these centres assumed to be met by local centres. The assessment is based upon a household survey of 1,500 households located within the London Riverside area. This survey was supplemented by shopper surveys at Barking Town Centre and Dagenham Heathway District Centre (which are not directly relevant to the findings of this assessment).

5.12 The household survey identifies the proportion of convenience shopping expenditure taking place within local centres for each of the 4 zones located within the Borough considered within the assessment. The percentages attributed to local centres are identified in Appendix C (Table C.3) which also includes a map identifying the zones used within the CBRE study. For main food shopping this accounts for between 217% (excluding national supermarket chains located within local centres) and 2-24% if national supermarket chains are included.

5.13 For convenience top up shopping, between 11-20 % of expenditure takes place within local centres (excluding national supermarket chains) this rises to between 11 and 27% if national supermarket chains located within local centres are included.

5.14 The CBRE makes the assumption that 75% of convenience retail expenditure is accounted for by the weekly shop with the remaining 25% accounted for by top up shopping. If this weighting is applied to local centre spending then the average percentage of weekly convenience expenditure satisfied by local centres within each zone is some 9.2% of the total.

Scenario 2: National expenditure profile

5.15 It was necessary to benchmark the local centre market shares identified within the Barking and London Riverside Study this is because although the household survey was based on 1,500 households only 712 of the households surveyed (47%) were based within catchment zones located within the Borough. This means that the market shares for neighbourhood level retailing whilst statistically significant are relatively small. The survey design could also have skewed results as it only allowed for one centre to be identified for the main shopping and for top up shopping. Where a household uses more than one centre it is possible that the local centre would not have been mentioned first. The other difficulty is that the Barking and London Riverside retail study does not consider demand originating within the northern part of the Borough, market shares for this area are not known.



5.16 The market shares derived from the household survey were compared with the proportion of convenience expenditure which takes places place outside of major supermarket chains. Nationally, this equates to 20% of convenience expenditure4.

5.17 Depending on the scenario used, the forecast average weekly household expenditure which takes place in local centres equates to between £40.71 (Scenario 1) and £51.74 (Scenario 2).

5.18 Scenario 2 has been adopted for the purposes of the assessment as this better represents the potential expenditure which could be attracted to local centres.

STAGE 3: EXPENDITURE GROWTH FORECASTS

5.19 The next stage of the assessment was to consider expenditure growth forecasts. These were prepared for 2003 and 2016. Ward level estimates of the no. of households in each ward were based upon the household estimates prepared by Experian Goad for the Borough as a whole. These were distributed between wards using the distribution of households identified within the 2001 Census.

5.20 To establish expenditure forecasts for 2016, the assessment adopted the same level of convenience expenditure growth identified within the Barking and London Riverside Retail Study (a compound growth rate of 0.9% per annum). The additional households expected to be formed within the Borough were distributed between wards on the basis of the Councils housing capacity assessment which has informed the GLA London Housing Capacity Study.

5.21 The forecasts for 2003 & 2016 were then adjusted to take account of special forms of retailing such as internet shopping, markets and car boot sales. For consistency with the Barking and London Riverside Study an assumption of 1.9% of convenience spending was adopted.

STAGE 4: SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILING

5.22 Household expenditure patterns are generally very sensitive to the socio economic profile of households. As the assessment was directed towards the neighbourhood level of the retail hierarchy it was necessary to consider how average expenditure levels may vary within the Borough.

5.23 Household expenditure patterns were modelled for the following socio –economic characteristics:

4 Expenditure and Food Survey 2002-3, Office of National Statistics (2004).



• Economic activity of the head of household;

• Tenure; and

• Socio-economic group.

5.24 For the categories of expenditure represented within local centres average weekly household expenditure varies significantly this is illustrated in Figures 5.1 to 5.3 below.

5.25 Figure 5.1 indicates that household expenditure is 30-40% below average for households where the head of household is unemployed, retired or economically active. Whilst those in full time employment and the self employed have above average expenditure levels.

Table 5.1 - Difference in Household Expenditure by Household Economic Activity

-50.00

-40.00

-30.00

-20.00

-10.00

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

Household Economic Activity

% d

iffer

ence

com

pare

d w

ith a

vera

ge h

ouse

hold

Employees Full Time

Employees Part Time

Self Employed

ILO Unemployed

Retired

Other Economically Inactive

All Households


5.26


Table 5.2 - Difference in Household Expenditure by Socio-economic Group %

Diff

eren

ce

80.00

70.00 60.00

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00 10.00

0.00 Socio-economic group

Higher managerial & professional Lower managerial & professional Intermediate

Small Employers

Lower Supervisory

Semi-Routine

Routine

Long Term Unemployed

-10.00

-20.00

-30.00

Patterns of local centre household expenditure are typically 10-20% less where the head of household is employed in semi-routine, routine occupations or are in long term unemployment.

Table 5.3 - Difference in Household Expenditure by Tenure

% d

iffer

ence

com

pare

d w

ith a

vera

ge h

ouse

hold

20.00

10.00

0.00

-10.00

-20.00

-30.00

-40.00

-50.00

-60.00

Tenure

Owners Social Rented Private Rented

5.27 In relation to tenure, local centre household expenditure patterns are typically around half the average for those residing in social rented accommodation.



5.28 For each ward within the Borough forecasts of available local centre expenditure were adjusted to reflect the household profile for economic activity, mix of socioeconomic groups and tenure mix to establish how the profile varies from the Borough average. These 3 criteria were equally weighted.

5.29 Table 5.1 identifies the outcome of the socio-economic profiling. The table shows the difference in available weekly local centre expenditure for each ward compared to the average socio-economic profile for the Borough as a whole. Within Whalebone, Eastbrook and Longbridge wards, levels of expenditure attributable to local centres are 6-9% greater than the no. of households would suggest, which equates to between £13.5k - 17.5k more expenditure each week for these wards. Conversely the socio-economic mix within other wards including Gascoigne, Heath and Thames there is a lower level of potential retail expenditure than the no. of households suggests.

Table 5.4 - Difference in potential weekly local centre expenditure to reflect household socio-economic profile

Ward Adjustment Based on Ward Socio-economic profile % Difference

Abbey -£3,829 -1.8

Alibon -£3,835 -1.9

Becontree -£4,212 -1.7

Chadwell Heath -£791 -0.4

Eastbrook £13,504 6.2

Eastbury -£1,284 -0.6

Gascoigne -£18,676 -9.3

Goresbrook -£1,187 -0.5

Heath -£8,517 -4.1

Longbridge £16,360 8.6

Mayesbrook -£4,536 -2.3

Parsloes -£3,058 -1.6

River £7,181 3.3

Thames -£5,619 -3.1

Valence -£2,398 -1.3

Village £1,503 0.7

Whalebone £17,500 8.5

5.30 For the Borough as a whole annual potential local centre spending equates to an estimated £269,799,000 in 2003 and is forecast to rise to £399,734,000 by 2016 for those categories of expenditure included in the assessment.



STAGE 5: APPLICATION OF FLOORSPACE SALES DENSITIES

5.31 The next stage of the assessment was to convert potential local centre expenditure into floorspace requirements. The mechanism for deriving these estimates are sales densities which can by used to derive the level of expenditure/retail turnover required to support 1 sq.m of retail sales space.

5.32 Two measures of sales densities were used, the first relates to a nationally derived neighbourhood level retail density which was informed by research published by Verdict Research5. Which indicates average sales densities of £5027 for new floorspace.

5.33 The second indicator considered were the findings of the retailer’s survey. Sales densities were derived by dividing annual turnover for 2004-5 by net floorspace. The survey was a qualitative survey of 47 retailers and is indicative rather than representative of turnover levels. The sales densities of those retailers who were willing to divulge their turnover levels are indicated in Table 5.2, it should be noted that the no. of responses is not statistically significant. Compared with nationally derived figures convenience sales densities within the Borough are slightly higher than the national average. This reflects that convenience retailer tend to be in relatively larger premises, are efficiently operated either by national retailers or by active independents, and have relatively long opening hours.

5.34 Reported sales densities for comparison and service activities appear to be lower than the national average. This could be a reflection of the age, and layout and attractiveness of premises, the trading performance and attractiveness of individual parades and the efficiency and skills of the individual operator. An average sales density figure was derived for neighbourhood centres based upon the proportion of floorspace within each category, this equates to £2,978 per sq.m.

5 Verdict on the High Street (2004)



Table 5.5 - Indicative sales densities

Category Average Sales densities (£/Sq.m)

Convenience 5,789

Comparison 1,949

Services 1,583

Average 2,978

5.35 For the purposes of the assessment, nationally derived figures have been used as these are statistically robust and more accurately reflect levels of existing floorspace provision.

5.36 It has been assumed that the efficiency in use of retail floorspace will not improve up to 2016. This is because the bulk of floorspace considered within the forecasts relates to convenience retailing which has low potential more efficient use of floorspace/shelf space and because potential sales growth is limited compared with comparison retailing.

SUMMARY OF FLOORSPACE REQUIREMENTS

5.37 The conclusions of the demand assessment are shown in Table 5.3. The forecasts described above indicate that there is an existing convenience floorpsace requirement for 45,365 sq.m (gross). This compares with an actual provision of 48,557 sq.m (gross) which indicates that existing provision (July 2005) is currently just above 2003 forecasts. The demand assessment forecast indicates that neighbourhood convenience floorspace requirements (including Chemists, Hot food takeaway’s, Hairdressers, Bookmakers and Post offices) will increase to 67,225 sq.m by 2016 (+21,860 sq.m).

5.38 It has been assumed that similar growth rates will apply to the growth of the residual A Class comparison and service activities.

5.39 Taking account of these other forms of retail activity there is a combined retail floorspace requirement (excluding B-class, D Class, residential and sui generis uses) of 79,381 sq.m (2003). At present neighbourhood centres some 12,511 sq.m of other Non A-Class uses and 14,201 sq.m of vacant floorspace.



Table 5.6 - Gross Floorspace forecasts (sq.m)

Scenario 2003 2016

Convenience floorspace requirements* 45,365 67,225

Comparison floorspace requirements 19,165 28,364

Service floorspace requirements 14,851 21,979

Total Retail & Service needs 79,381 117,568

Other activities 12,511 (12,511)

Vacant floorspace 14,201 -14,201

Actual Floorspace (gross sq.m) 109,285 93,582

Net requirements (gross sq.m) N/A 23,986 *includes Chemists, hot food takeaway’s, Hairdressers, bookmakers & Post Offices.

5.40 Up to 2016 it is expected that total A-class retail requirements within neighbourhood centres could be up to 117,500 sq.m gross floorspace. Assuming that vacant floorspace could be brought into use this implies that up to an additional 23,986 sq.m (gross) of ‘new’ floorspace would need to be brought into use.

5.41 This level of additional demand is compatible (in their order of magnitude) with the Scenario 2 forecasts within the Barking and London Riverside Retail study which identifies potential for an additional 26,750 sq.m (gross) floorspace (21,400 sq.m net). It should be noted that the 2 studies are not directly comparable as this study refers to the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham whilst the CBRE study excludes Chadwell Heath and Whalebone Wards within the Borough and includes parts of Newham and Havering within the London Riverside area.

Implications of requirements for existing centres

5.42 In order to ensure that levels of retail floorspace provision within centres correspond with the expected levels of expenditure growth there is also a need to consider the distribution of floorspace requirements on a sub area basis.

5.43 Table 5.4 below considers floorspace requirements for convenience retailing within the Borough. The majority of the growth in convenience floorspace needs will occur in the Barking (+ 9,011 sq.m) and Riverside (+7,768 sq.m) sub areas with only a small net increased envisaged across the remainder of the Borough.



Table 5.7 - Convenience floorpsace requirements by sub area

Sub Area Net Retail

Floorspace (m2)

Gross Convenience Floorspace

Requirement 2016 (sq.m)

Actual Convenience Floorspace 2003 (sq.m)

Difference (sq.m)

Barking (Gascoigne & Abbey Wards) 8,461 10,576 1,565 -9,011

Riverside (River & Thames Wards) 9,225 11,532 3,764 -7,768

Rest of Borough 36,094 45,117 43,228 -1,889

Total 53,780 67,225 48,557 -18,668

5.44 The additional comparison and service floorspace requirements (20,327) are also likely to follow a similar spatial distribution.

5.45 The extent to which the level of additional demand can be accommodated within new and existing centres will depend on physical constraints relating to the expansion of existing centres and opportunities to incorporate new provision within new large scale residential developments in the Borough.

Barking and Riverside sub areas

5.46 If new District or Local centres are proposed within the Riverside area or Barking sub areas then it is possible that growth could be met within these sub areas.

5.47 However, if new centres are not envisaged then there would be insufficient capacity to accommodate this level of growth within existing centres and would need to be met further up the hierarchy within Barking Town Centre or Dagenham Heathway District Centre. This is because as there is a total of 669 sq.m of vacant floorspace within the Barking sub area and 2,319 sq.m Vacant floorspace within these areas tends to be poorly located in poor quality building stock. Opportunities to extend/reconfigure existing centres are not large enough to accommodate all of the additional requirements to 2016.

Rest of the Borough

5.48 Within the rest of the Borough the order of change envisaged is lower with a net additional requirement of up to 1,889 sq.m. However this figure needs to be considered within the context of a significant amount of existing vacant floorspace within centres 11,213 sq.m and the findings of the healthcheck assessment for individual centres which indicate there is a need for consolidation and renewal in order for them to ensure their long term sustainability.



5.49 Chapter 6 considers in more detail how the additional floorspace could be accommodated within the Borough and defines the network of centres required to meet neighbourhood shopping needs in the Borough including changes to the network and measures required to maintain and revitalise those centres which are currently underperforming.



6. CONCLUSIONS

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

6.1 This chapter summarises the main conclusions of the healthcheck assessment. It then identifies the network of centres which is required to meet the needs of the community up to 2016 and identifies the changes required to the existing network and measures required to sustain or improve the health of centres to be retained. The main findings of the assessment can be summarised as follows:

• Local centres support a diverse range of retail and non retail activities. The proportion of floorspace occupied by convenience retailers is relatively low at 23%; a similar proportion of floorspace is occupied by comparison activities (20%) whilst service activities occupy the greatest proportion of floorspace. The healthiest centres tend to have the greatest proportions of convenience floorspace, typically around 25-30%;

• The comparison sector whilst well represented within centres tends to be focussed towards the lower end of the market with a significant number of discount and second hand retailers. The exception is retailers who are specialist in nature who tend to serve a mixture of business consumers as well as households; the Borough has high representation of such retailers selling building, construction materials and furnishings. It is expected that centres will retain a core of convenience retailing but that services and comparison segments are likely to grow in significance;

• The service sector is strong within the Borough with a significant proportion of floorspace occupied by hot food takeaways and hairdressers. There was a perception from retailer’s that takeaways are over represented within the Borough. The healthcheck supports this assertion in respect of a number of weaker centres in the Borough, particularly as there is little differentiation in the food/service offered. The lack of diversity of retailer types within such centres is a weakness which could present a long term problem if the dominance of takeaway’s crowds out other potential convenience and comparison operators as levels of expenditure grow in the Borough;



• Analysing local centres by use class indicates that 50% of floorspace is occupied by A1 occupiers. Other A-class activities comprise 30% of floorspace, 13% of floorspace is vacant whilst the remaining ground floor floorspace comprises of non-A class activities;

• The retailer survey indicated that the main concerns of retailers operating within local centres were parking difficulties, cleanliness and street maintenance issues, overrepresentation of takeaway food outlets and antisocial behaviour;

• Retail vacancy levels within the Borough are 13% of total floorspace this is higher than the 5-8% normally represented by the frictional level of vacancy necessary for the rental market to operate. 25 of the 41 centres have more than 10% of floorspace vacant whilst 8 centres have more than a 25% of their floorspace unoccupied. The levels of vacancy present a significant problem within several centres although the reasons for the vacancy and the opportunities to improve occupancy differ between centres and need to be considered in conjunction with other issues;

• The study considered the accessibility of local centres to households in the Borough to identify access to fresh food (fruit & vegetables), food stores, Post Offices and pharmacies. Small pockets of the Borough are located further than 10 minutes walk from this range of facilities. The location of the areas deficient in provision varies depending on the type of facility;

• Environmental quality is a key factor in determining the attractiveness s of the centre to consumers and potential retailer’s. The study found wide variation in the attractiveness of public realm between different centres. However there were common themes which emerged which are relevant to most centres within the Borough, these are a general lack of bins and seating within centres, an absence of street greenery, a lack of provision of public spaces where people would wish to spend time. Several centres had buildings which were in a poor level of repair and there is a general problem in the upkeep of shop fronts and fascia boards.

In relation to access there was an absence of formal cycle parking at almost all centres, however more positively, there appeared to be adequate crossing facilities and provision of tactile paving. Although retailer’s reported parking to be a significant problem, the appraisals generally identified the arrangements to be adequate at the time of survey with few opportunities to accommodate additional parking.



• Reported rental levels within local centres are lower than for the main town and district centres within the Borough. Convenience occupiers appear to pay significantly higher rents compared with comparison or service sector occupiers. It is not clear whether this is a reflection of their higher turnover (and ability to pay), or is simply a factor reflecting competition for the smaller no. of large units within the centres, the location of premises within the centre or the condition of premises;

• The demand assessment identified that up to 20% of convenience and related expenditure in the Borough has the potential to be met by neighbourhood centres within the Borough;

• The average household spend within Local centres within the Borough is estimated to be £51.74 per week, however overall local centre expenditure levels originating from individual wards can differ +/- 9% from the Borough average reflecting differences in their social profile (tenure, socio-economic mix, levels of household economic activity);

• Expenditure in the categories of retail expenditure supported by neighbourhood centres is expected to increase by 48% from £269.8m to £399.7m between 2003 and 2016, this is a reflection of the additional households expected to be accommodated within the Borough and a small increase in levels of expenditure among all households (compound growth rate of 0.9% per annum);

• Taking account of existing vacant floorspace which it is assumed can be taken up it is expected that the level of floorspace provision required to support this level of growth would be in the order of 117,500 sq.m (gross) an increase of 38,200 sq.m on existing levels of provision (+38%). It is considered appropriate that at least 18,600 sq.m (relating to convenience and associated services) should be located within new or existing centres with the remaining comparison and service floorspace accommodated if physical constraints allow;

• The bulk of net additional floorspace should be located close to those areas likely to experience growth. Some 48% of net additional floorspace (9,000 sq.m) is required to support growth in the Barking area (Gascoigne and Abbey wards), 42% in Riverside (7,800 sq.m) and 10% (1,900 sq.m) in the remainder of the Borough;

• The potential to accommodate growth will be closely linked to opportunities within existing centres to utilise vacant floorspace and to bring forward



opportunity sites. Despite a relatively low magnitude of net additional floorspace envisaged within the rest of the Borough it is expected that there will be a need for significant change to sustain the attractiveness and suitability of existing centres. To reconfigure existing provision to meet future needs it will be necessary to renew or rationalise stock at particular locations.

ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE NETWORK OF CENTRES

6.2 PPS 6 (para. 2.55) recommends that a network of local centres is developed in order to provide easily accessible shopping facilities to meet people’s day to day needs which should be a focus for investment in more accessible local services. The key issues to be considered in identifying an appropriate network of centres are:

• To tackle existing deficiencies in provision particularly within deprived areas;

• To manage the mix of uses and functions within centres;

• To consider whether the network requires strengthening to ensure a scale of facilities consistent with the role and function of the centre or the designation of additional centres in the network.

Approach and principles

6.3 The findings of the study have been used to establish the extent and type of network of centres required within the Borough and how the existing network needs to be reconfigured to meet those needs. The following key considerations have been used to determine the level and type of provision required:

• The level of potential retail expenditure available within categories of expenditure which could be met by local centres taking into consideration socio-economic considerations;

• The physical capacity of centres to support the future retail requirements of the Borough through take up of vacant floorspace and opportunities for intensification of retail activities;

• The range of retail and non-retail activities supported within the centre especially the balance between convenience, comparison, service and non-retail functions, levels of community facilities provision;



• The existing environmental condition of the centre including the type and quality of the building stock and attractiveness of the public realm and the potential to improve existing conditions;

• Centre accessibility by foot, cycle, public transport and car;

• The size and scale of the centre; and

• Centre trading performance indicated through vacancy levels, retailer representation, rental levels, turnover levels and retailer perceptions.

6.4 Based upon consideration of these issues it was identified whether existing centres would remain in current role unchanged or whether intervention is required to enhance, consolidate or diversify centres.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR RE-ORIENTATION OF THE EXISTING NETWORK

Approach to individual centres

6.5 The potential change options are defined below together with a summary of the characteristics of centres within each category. More than one form of intervention can apply to each centre, however four main categories have been used to summarise the overall approach to centre. A summary of the change options for each centre is illustrated in Table 6.1 below and shown graphically in Figure 6.1. Appendix D provides the rationale and justification for the selection of the recommended change option.



Table 6.1 - Summary of change role by cluster No

change Enhancement Consolidation Diversification

Site No. Centre Name

No

chan

ge

Impr

ovem

ents

to p

ublic

re

alm

Dev

elop

men

t of V

acan

t La

nd

Impr

oved

util

isat

ion

of

uppe

r flo

ors

Smal

l sca

le c

onso

lidat

ion/

ra

tiona

lisat

ion

Larg

e sc

ale

site

re

conf

igur

atio

n

Part

ial d

iver

sific

atio

n to

no

n re

tail

uses

Ret

ail R

etre

at

1 Chadwell Heath - Prime area √ √ 2 The Merry Fiddlers √ 3 Andrews Corner √ 4 Martins Corner √ 5 Gale Street, Becontree √ √ 6 The Round House √ 7 Oxlow Lane/Hunters Hall Road √

8 Goresbrook Road/Chequers Parade √ √

9 Royal Parade/Church Street √ √ √ √ 10 Farr Avenue √ √ 11 Faircross Parade √ 12 Broad Street √ √ √ 13 Dagenham East (South) √ 14 Dagenham East (South) √ 15 Rush Green √ 16 Eastbury √ √ √ 17 Robin Hood √ 18 Marks Gate Shops √ 19 Talworth Parade √ 20 Whalebone Lane South √ 21 Matapan √ √ 22 Althorne Way √ √ 23 Stansgate Road √ √ 24 Princess Parade, New Road √ √ 25 Chelmer Crescent √ 26 The Triangle √ √ √ 27 Fanshawe Avenue √ √ √ 28 Edgefield Court √ 29 Gibbards Cottages, Upney Lane √ 30 Reede Road √ 31 Westbury √ 32 Gascoigne √ 33 Great Cullings √ 34 Eastbrook √ √ √ 35 The Bull √ 36 Movers Lane √



No change Enhancement Consolidation Diversification

Site No. Centre Name

No

chan

ge

Impr

ovem

ents

to p

ublic

re

alm

Dev

elop

men

t of V

acan

t La

nd

Impr

oved

util

isat

ion

of

uppe

r flo

ors

Smal

l sca

le c

onso

lidat

ion/

ra

tiona

lisat

ion

Larg

e sc

ale

site

re

conf

igur

atio

n

Part

ial d

iver

sific

atio

n to

no

n re

tail

uses

Ret

ail R

etre

at

37 Julia Gardens √ √ 38 Five Elms √ 39 Lodge Avenue √

40 Green Lanes inc Rowallen Parade √ √ √

41 Chadwell Heath - secondary area √ √

No change

6.6 This option was identified where expenditure levels within the catchment are stable or growing, where there are no clear opportunities to bring forward additional retail floorspace, where the balance between different retail activities is satisfactory and where the centre appears to be trading well, and where there is little scope from improving the quality or accessibility of the centre. There are 13 centres which were represented within this category these are identified in Column 1 of Table 6.1. Whilst centres are stable and do not represent a priority for intervention this does not mean that nothing could be improved within the centre, nor does it preclude the centre from any future development as current conditions may change.

Enhancement

6.7 Eight centres within the Borough were identified as having potential for enhancement. Centres where enhancement was the main option for intervention comprised of centres 1,3,4,6,17,18,30 and 31 although several other centres also have potential for enhancement as part of a more comprehensive approach to development. Within the enhancement category three forms of potential intervention have been identified:

• Development of vacant land. Opportunities to bring forward vacant or underutilised land parcels within or adjoining centres were identified during the site appraisal process. Appendix C and the health check database identify the nature of the opportunity at the 8 centres where this option applies. However, in most cases there is potential to support mixed use



development with ground floor retail activity and non retail floorspace on the upper floor/s. The total area of vacant/underutilised land equates to 0.32 ha.

• Utilisation of airspace above single storey premises. The nature of upper floor uses was recorded during the appraisal process. Single storey buildings with the potential for upper floors to be developed were identified. The opportunity to utilise upper floor space was identified within part of Centre 41 (Green Lanes) however, potential for intensification was identified at other centres in combination with other opportunities for consolidation/reconfiguration.

• Improvements to the public realm. Improvements to the quality of the public realm can positively affect people’s perception of a centre, and consequently have an impact on the propensity of people to shop at one centre over another. Public realm improvements may include installing new seats, bins, cycle parking facilities and planters as well as repositioning bus stops, improving the quality of shops fronts, repairing the condition of the carriageway and maintaining the centre so it is free from graffiti, fly-posting. Potential to enhance the public realm of centres was identified at 7 centres within the “Enhancement” category and at a further 11 centres within the “Consolidation” category. The exact nature of the intervention required at each site is summarised in Appendix D and described in more detail within the Health check database.

6.8 The prioritisation of sites for public realm enhancement was based upon the scores achieved within this part of the healthcheck assessment supported by other evidence from other aspects of the study which indicate a need to improve the attractiveness of the centre.

Consolidation

6.9 This option refers to centres which merit intervention beyond public realm improvements to improve their operational effectiveness and to secure their long term future. In some cases there is a lack of overall demand within the catchment has led to higher than average vacancy levels, other centres are poorly located and are not trading successfully, in other locations the design and layout of the centres is poorly configured and combined with other factors means that centres do not function effectively. These issues can combine to lead in a deterioration of centre performance which is indicated by the balance of centre activities, vacancy levels, attractiveness and the occurrence of social problems such as anti-social behaviour. Sixteen centres are represented within this category, however the severity of the problems experienced by each centre vary significantly.



• Small scale consolidation/rationalisation. 9 centres (7,8,9,12, 21,23,34 & 40) have been identified for small scale re-orientation of their existing role through changes to the balance of retail uses. In some cases minor changes to the layout and configuration of centres is envisaged including consolidation of the existing building stock (where the layout is fragmented). At some centres a small reduction in number of units is appropriate where there is unlikely to be sufficient demand up to 2016 for all space within the centre to be occupied and there is a physical/environmental rationale for upgrading the centre. At these locations where marginal units are not required to meet future retail requirements it is appropriate for them to be considered for alternative uses.

• Large scale centre reconfiguration. At 7 centres within the Borough (5, 10, 22, 24, 26, 27 and 32) opportunities exist for a more extensive form of centre reconfiguration. In these cases the existing centre problems are more severe which provides a rationale for a greater degree of floorspace consolidation or opportunities for larger scale mixed use redevelopment. The type of intervention envisaged at each site is identified in Appendix D.

Diversification

6.10 At 9 centres within the Borough there is a case for a diversification in the ground floor retail premises to an alternative use. At 5 centres it is envisaged that only a small proportion of the units experience a change of use to non A-class activities for example where a group of units is vacant but cannot easily be re-occupied or redeveloped to retain an element of retail use through lack of demand.

6.11 At four centres (25, 33, 35, 37) either all of the units are vacant or there is a high level of vacancy with little prospect of the vacant units being re-occupied for retail use. At these centres a “retail retreat” is envisaged whereby existing units in use are retained and are protected in a similar manner to individual ‘corner shops’ but due to the scale of retail activity the site is not classified as a local centre.

NEW CENTRES

6.12 The concentration of net additional floorspace within the Riverside and Barking areas is likely to necessitate the establishment of a new District centre within the Riverside area as the existing centres are poorly located with respect to the proposed housing area and do not have the physical capacity to accommodate such a level of growth. It is envisaged that the new centre will be anchored by a superstore (refer to CBRE report findings).



6.13 In addition, one or more additional local centres may be required to serve the Barking area. The new centre should accompany estate renewal initiatives, with the residual growth for this sub area should be accommodated through the take up of vacant floorspace at existing centres, the upgrading and reconfiguration of Gascoigne Local Centre (Centre 32), the strengthening of The Triangle (Centre 26) and Fanshaw Avenue (Centre 27) and accommodation of floorspace along the approaches to Barking Town Centre or within the secondary/unrestricted retail areas.

6.14 Chapter 7 identifies the policy approach required to support the level of change described within this Chapter.



7. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 This section sets out our recommendations in respect of the future neighbourhood shopping centre policy approach. The main purpose of the recommendations is to help inform the retail planning element of the Borough’s emerging Local Development Framework. The recommendations are set in the context of the neighbourhood health check (Chapter 4) which evaluated the supply of local shopping provision in the Borough across 41 local centres, and the demand assessment undertaken for retail provision in the Borough (Chapter 5).

POLICY APPROACH

7.2 The approach taken and recommendations made are consistent with PPS 6, Planning for Town Centres (2005), which establishes the importance of undertaking regular retail health checks to inform town and local centre policies. The policy recommendations have also been developed following consideration of the Retail and Leisure Capacity Study undertaken by CB Richard Ellis for Barking and London Riverside (2004), which made recommendations relating to Barking Town Centre and Dagenham Heathway District Centre (not included in this study) and the London Riverside Area.

7.3 The proposed retail policy approach for the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham has been developed by considering the findings of the supply and demand assessment, and reviewing the impact and effectiveness of the current retail policies in Chapter 3 of the adopted UDP (1996). It provides the policy framework required to support the prescribed network of centres identified in Chapter 6.

HIERARCHICAL APPROACH

7.4 The Borough must aim to meet the needs of its residents by promoting and safeguarding an appropriate portfolio of large and small shopping centres, reflecting market considerations, social needs and the issues arising from the centre healthchecks

7.5 PPS 6 promotes the development of a hierarchal approach for retail centres which is fit for the local context, to ensure there is an appropriate distribution of local centres which enables people’s everyday shopping needs to be met at the local level.



Existing hierarchy for retail centres

7.6 The adopted UDP (1996) adopts a hierarchical approach to retail shopping provision in the Borough. Town Centre and District Centre definitions reflect guidance provided by the London Plan (2004). The London Plan also identifies the need for Borough’s to identify and protect local centres. The London Plan does not give any floorspace indicators for District or Neighbourhood centres, although it does provide a floorspace indicator for Town Centres of 50,000 sq.m. Chapter 3 of the UDP (1996) contains a number of specific policies relating to the Borough’s District Centres, Local Centres and Local Parades.

7.7 Excluding Barking town centre, which contains the largest concentration of shopping facilities in the Borough, there are two District Centres at Dagenham Heathway and Chadwell Heath under the existing centre hierarchy. At the lower end of the hierarchy, the Borough also has 17 areas designated as Local Centres and 22 as Local Parades. The UDP includes 2 policy categories relating to local shopping provision, ‘Local Centres’ and ‘Local Parades’. These 2 categories are not defined within the plan.

Proposed Approach to the Centre Hierarchy

7.8 In accordance with PPS 6, it is recommended that the Borough continues a hierarchical approach to retail planning policy. It is proposed to replace the existing hierarchy of centres in the Borough with Town Centres, District Centres and Neighbourhood Centres.

7.9 Ranking centres according to the proposed centre hierarchy is dependent on a number of characteristics and issues affecting individual centres, outlined in paragraph 6.3. The healthcheck assessment (Chapter 4) was used to assess these factors, including the extent and range of retail provision at each of the 41 centres. The findings of the assessment were used to place each centre in the appropriate level of the proposed centre hierarchy.

7.10 Dagenham Heathway was not assessed as part of the healthcheck therefore work undertaken by CB Richard Ellis (2004) at this centre has been used to inform this part of the study6.

7.11 The hierarchy of centres is partly a function of the range of centres in a Borough in terms of their overall size. Analysis was undertaken regarding the size of the 42 centres (including Dagenham Heathway) in terms of gross floorspace to ascertain

6 The scope of work did not include an on site appraisal of Dagenham Heathway as this centre was subject to similar work in 2004.



which level of the proposed hierarchy each centre should be placed into. The size of centres varies from around 100 sq.m of floorspace at Gibbards Cottages to 29,112 sq.m at Chadwell Heath (primary and secondary areas).

7.12 Only Barking town centre meets the London Plan town centre size threshold. The London Plan does not include any guidance regarding floorspace indicators for District or Neighbourhood centres. To separate the 42 centres into these levels of the hierarchy, the criteria identified in paragraph 6.3 were used to distinguish different levels of the hierarchy.

7.13 The three largest centres, Chadwell Heath (29112 sq.m), Green Lanes (10,574 sq,m) and Dagenham Heathway (8,315 sq,m) were the most significant in terms of gross floorspace relative to the other centres.

7.14 Chadwell Heath and Dagenham Heathway distinguish themselves from other centres partly because the balance of floorspace is split fairly evenly between convenience retail, comparison retail and the service sector. Compared to smaller centres, the proportion of convenience retail floorspace is large, a reflection of the relatively high quality of the units, and providing an indication trade in this sector at these centres is commercially viable.

7.15 The overall health of centres in terms of vacant floorspace is also important to assist in determining whether a centre should be designated a District Centre rather than a Neighbourhood Centre. Chadwell Heath and Dagenham Heathway both perform well based on this indicator, having 10.7% and 12.7% of vacant floorspace respectively. This level of vacancy is a good indicator of the performance of these two centres, as it is close to the frictional level of vacancy that is required to allow the market to function effectively. It is proposed that Chadwell Heath and Dagenham Heathway should remain District Centres under the proposed centre hierarchy.

7.16 Green Lanes centre is the second largest centre surveyed in terms of gross floorspace. However, compared to Chadwell Heath and Dagenham Heathway, it does not perform as well in terms of the level of vacancy (15.3%). However, Green Lanes is also less accessible compared to Chadwell Heath and Dagenham Heathway. It is therefore proposed that Green Lanes should be put forward for consideration as a District centre.

7.17 Of the remaining 39 centres in the Borough (including Dagenham Heathway), none were large enough in terms of their total gross floorspace to be considered as a District Centre. The other centres are relatively similar in terms of their other functions, such as accessibility and environmental quality, it was not considered appropriate to distinguish between them in the proposed centre hierarchy. To reflect this, it is proposed that the remaining 39 centres should be designated as



Neighbourhood Centres to enable consistency with the London Plan and to avoid a 2 tier approach to policy protection. Table 7.1 summaries the proposed centre hierarchy for retail provision in the Borough.

7.18 At the 4 centres where a “retail retreat” is envisaged. It is proposed that existing units in use are retained and are protected in a similar manner to individual ‘corner shops’ but due to the scale of retail activity the site is not classified as a Neighbourhood Centre.

Table 7.1 - Proposed Centre Hierarchy

Centre type and Centre Name Site ID District Centre Chadwell Heath (Prime and Secondary areas) 1 & 41 Dagenham Heathway N/A* To be considered as a District Centre Green Lanes (inc. Rowallen Parade) 40 New District Centre London Riverside N/A Neighbourhood Centre The Merry Fiddlers 2 Broad Street 12 Whalebone Lane South 20 Oxlow Lane/Hunters Hall Road 7 The Round House 6 Gale Street, Becontree 5 Robin Hood 17 Faircross Parade 11 Goresbrook Road/Chequers Parade 8 Royal Parade/Church Street 9 Martins Corner 4 Andrews Corner 3 Westbury 31 Farr Avenue 10 Eastbury 16 Five Elms 38 Marks Gate Shops 18 Dagenham East (North) 14 Princess Parade, New Road 24 Eastbrook 34 Dagenham East (South) 13 Lodge Avenue 39



Rush Green 15 Reede Road 30 Gascoigne 32 Matapan 21 The Triangle 26 Movers Lane 36 Althorne Way 22 Neighbourhood Centre Talworth Parade 19 Stansgate Road 23 Fanshawe Avenue 27 Edgefield Court 28 Gibbards Cottages, Upney Lane 29 Retail Retreat (no designation) The Bull 35 Julia Gardens 37 Chelmer Crescent 25 Great Cullings 33

* a similar appraisal was undertaken at Dagenham Heathway by CBRE (2004)

SITE SPECIFIC DESIGNATIONS

7.19 Opportunities for enhancement, consolidation and diversification were identified at a number of centres across the Borough (Chapter 6). It is proposed that site specific allocations are overlaid on top of the retail designation to promote the regeneration of these centres. The Council should describe the mix of uses envisaged at each site.

7.20 Site specific designations will only be given to centres identified within the ‘enhancement’ category where an opportunity for the development of a vacant land parcel has been identified. At these centres, only the vacant parcel of land with the potential to be developed will be designated.

7.21 At centres classified within the ‘consolidation’ or ‘diversification’ category, it is proposed that the entire centre area is designated. A schedule of centre change options is attached as Appendix D.

BOUNDARY CHANGES

7.22 The Council’s adopted Proposals Map (1996) shows the current boundaries of District Centres, Local Centres and Local Parades within the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. An element of the healthcheck was to ascertain whether the current centre boundaries used by the Council remain robust, and to identify any proposed changes required to reflect the findings of the assessment. This process



was important to determine the extent of each centre, and to make the proposed retail centre boundaries defensible at inquiry.

7.23 The proposed boundary for each centre was determined by establishing the main concentration of A Class Use. This was done using Figures 4.1 (a, b, c & d), Retail Premises by Type, Figure 4.3, Local Centre Floorspace by Use Class, individual PDFs of each centre, and local knowledge of the local centres acquired during the healthcheck site appraisals.

7.24 Small outlying units containing A Class Use located outside of the cluster of units have not been included within the proposed centre boundaries, as they do not relate or significantly contribute to the core retail area. Non A class uses situated in the core retail area have been included within the cluster boundary where appropriate. A schedule of proposed boundary changes is attached as Appendix F.

7.25 To protect individual outlying shops which do not form part of centres it is proposed that Policy S7 is retained.

OTHER POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

7.26 A review of existing policies contained in Chapter 3 that are relevant to this study has been undertaken. The proposed policy recommendations are outlined in Table 7.2.

Table 7.2 - Other Policy Recommendations

Existing Policy Proposed Changes to Policy

Amend Policy to reflect findings of the healthcheck Policy S5 Chadwell Heath assessment. See paragraph 7.27 for proposed changes to

policy. Replace with new Neighbourhood Centre Policy to reflect Policy S6 Local Centres and proposed changes to the centre hierarchy. See paragraph Parades 7.30 for proposed changes to policy.

Policy S7 Shopping Parades / No Changes to Policy Proposed Individual Shops Policy S8 Food and Drink Uses Policy amended to reflect changes to Use Class Order (2005) Policy S9 Laundrettes No Changes to Policy Proposed

Policy S10 Post Offices

It is proposed that this Policy is updated to safeguard the provision of Pharmacies and Local Foodstores in the Borough, which also provide a valuable service to the local community. In the justification to the current policy approach, the UDP states that Post Offices should be within 400m – 750m to where people live, although this may not always be possible’. Access to Post Offices was identified in Figure 4.5. Figure 4.5 demonstrates that around 80% of the Borough’s population is currently within 800m of a Post Office, which represents a 10



minute average walking distance. It is therefore proposed that the Policy is amended to a 800m distance, which provides a more accurate reflection of the existing post office coverage within the Borough.

Policy S11 Environmental This policy should be extended to include a further Improvements and opportunities, such as shop front enhancements. Landscaping Works Policy S12 Rear Servicing No Changes to Policy Proposed Policy S13 Extensions to Retail No Changes to Policy Proposed Premises Policy S14 Shop Fronts No Changes to Policy Proposed Policy S15 Access for People No Changes to Policy Proposed with Disabilities Policy S16 On Street Trading No Changes to Policy Proposed Policy S17 Market Stalls No Changes to Policy Proposed Policy S18 Car Boot Sales No Changes to Policy Proposed Policy S19 Markets No Changes to Policy Proposed

Policy S5 Chadwell Heath

7.27 It is recommended that the existing Tertiary and Secondary Shopping Areas remain unchanged. Proposed boundary changes for this centre are outlined in Appendix F.

7.28 It is proposed that the existing Secondary Shopping Area should be renamed ‘Primary shopping area within Chadwell Heath’, and the Teritary Shopping Area within Chadwell Heath should be renamed ‘Secondary shopping Area within Chadwell Heath’. These proposed changes aim to clarify the position of retail provision within Chadwell Heath, whilst recognising that a higher level of retail provision does exist within the Borough (at Barking).

7.29 It is proposed that the existing 30% and 60% thresholds for non retail use at Primary and Secondary Shopping Centres are retained, as they reflect the existing balance of uses at the centre based on the findings of the healthcheck assessment.

Policy S6 Local Centres and Parades

7.30 Policy S6 should be replaced with a new Neighbourhood Centre policy to reflect proposed changes made to the centre hierarchy.

7.31 The existing policy states that non retail units in Local Centres and Local Parades should be restricted to a maximum of 30% of the measured frontage. To ascertain whether this Policy is currently working in the Borough, the average proportion of units in non A1 Class Use was identified in the centres proposed as Neighbourhood Centres in Table 7.1. Currently 38% of units across the Borough are in non A1 Class Use, meaning that the current policy approach has not been effective in controlling



the proportion of non A1 Class Use within Neighbourhood Centres. A number of centres greatly exceed this balance, with 9 having more than half (50%) of all units in non A1 Class Use.

7.32 To ensure that centres have an appropriate balance between uses, and to safeguard Convenience A1 Class Use in the Borough’s Neighbourhood Centres, it is proposed that the maximum level of non A1 Class Use in the Borough is changed to 35%. This proposed maximum level of non A1 Class Use is considered a more robust proportion of uses based on the findings of the healthcheck assessment,

IMPLEMENTATION

7.33 In order to implement the policy approach it will be necessary for the Council to take a more proactive approach to managing change within Neighbourhood Centres than in the past. The potential for the enhancement and consolidation centres represents an opportunity to deliver other benefits to the community. At appropriate locations mixed use development has the potential to act as a catalyst to the regeneration of surrounding housing areas through:

• Meeting the local day to day retail and service needs of the community;

• Accommodating community uses which are essential to serve the needs of the community;

• Strengthening centres through the inclusion of residential and business uses;

• Providing an example of a high quality development which can act as a trailblazer for the upgrading of the surrounding housing stock; and

• Securing improvements to the quality of the public realm including the provision of public spaces which are safe and promote social interaction and a focus for the community.

7.34 An implementation strategy is required to set out how the approach identified within site specific allocations should be achieved. It is anticipated that the regeneration of Broad Street Neighbourhood Centre will serve as a model which can be used to regenerate other centres in the Borough. At this centre a Supplementary Planning Document is being used to set out the approach to regeneration. This approach is likely to be appropriate at other centres where significant intervention is proposed to reconfigure the layout and mixed of uses within centres.

7.35 At other centres where improvements are confined to public realm improvements or refurbishment/upgrading of existing premises it is possible that proposals can be achieved without the need to prepare a Supplementary Planning Document.


london borough of barking and dagenham neighbourhood ...€¦ · atkins was appointed in january...

Documents