Recently in Planning Category

'Westfield Croydon' application registered

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

Last month's seminal announcement over Croydon's retail future led me, among many others, to ponder over what the exact specifications of the new joint venture project would be.

I suggested that a new application towards the end of 2013 might take on the guise of Hammerson's "Whitgift Quarter" proposals, spanning across Croydon's two mammoth retail developments, Centrale and Whitgift, rather than separate applications for each scheme.

It appears I was wrong.

Two weeks ago, Croydon Council registered (for the first time) the full application lodged in September by Westfield, after having put forward a scoping opinion a couple of months prior. The applicant is now listed on the (amended) application form as 'Westfield Shoppingtowns Limited & Hammerson UK Properties PLC':

Hammerfield.bmp

Strangely, the applicant listed on the 'application details' has changed over the weekend from the above to simply 'Westfield Shopping Towns Limited'. What we read into that, I don't know.

All documents within the newly-registered application make occasional reference to Centrale's role in the Croydon facelift, and make almost no mention of Hammerson at all! It's also interesting that the Design & Access statement for 'Westfield Croydon' (!) makes a pointed reference to the successful regeneration of King's Cross as being a precedent for a redevelopment of this scale.

So it appears that Hammerson is happy to "piggy-back" onto Westfield's concept for the Whitgift Centre redevelopment, having already secured consent in May 2012 to part-redevelop Centrale into a distinctly mixed-use mall.

Can we conclude, therefore, that the project will move forward as a double-pronged concept? Will the Westfield-branded shopping mall outlined in the new application come to pass? Can the 170,000 sq ft of leisure space proposed by Westfield coexist with the 99,000 sq ft currently permitted at Centrale?

If the answer to all of these is 'yes', then the exciting announcement made in January may not, in fact, yield an organic regeneration brainwave concocted by two retail heavyweights - but actually simply serve as a catalyst to accelerate two separate projects which could possibly have come to pass independently.

I suppose I would just be a little disappointed that the 'vision' for Croydon might simply turn out to be a staccato amalgamation of separate concepts, as opposed to an inspired 'meeting-of-minds' development spanning over both malls which could truly rubber-stamp the identity of the unique joint venture on the south London town. 

If the development is to be as described herein, then the key piece of cross-party co-operation will come in ensuring the complementary nature of the retail and leisure offer across both redeveloped schemes. 'Hammerfield' must ensure that the newly created "Quarter" evolves as a singular, functional retail core, and not as one entity prospering at the expense of the other.

Major New Schemes Join the Pipeline

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

With the apparent dearth of new retail schemes due to grace the 'completions' list in the near future, it might come as pleasant news to learn that over the past month, EGi's Retail Scheme database welcomed four new major developments comprising a total of over 600,000 sq ft of new retail space. Click the icons on the map below for more details on each (zoom out to see all icons):


Whilst you wouldn't classify these as 'traditional' retail schemes, they are nonetheless indicative of a growing trend in the retail development world - namely, to build new space as part of a mixed-use scheme, rather than restricting projects to A1 use. Indeed, we are now even seeing owners of high-profile malls look to alternative uses to help fill vacant space and increase customer numbers (in addition to dwell time). 

Of particular interest is the proposal just north of Dunstable, known in the official council document as the "strategic urban extension of Houghton Regis" It reminds me of a similar proposal I blogged about in November 2011 - an entirely new town on the Hoo Peninsula, to be known as Lodge Hill

That particular scheme is still without outline approval after 15 months, so with that in mind I'll hold off on predictions as to when all this retail space will complete. It's encouraging, however, to know that despite all the well-documented struggles facing the retail market, there remains the ambition of developers and councils to keep faith with large-scale retail schemes - even if, going forward, retail space has to settle for being a constituent part of a mixed-use project, rather than the headline act of a single-use mall.

Croydon Impasse Finally Resolved.

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
A new year brings new allegiances, and if 2013 brings a more noteworthy one than the Westfield/Hammerson joint venture announced today, it might well cause the property industry to implode.

So many column inches last year were dedicated to the 'impasse' between the two heavyweights over the proposed redevelopment of Croydon's Whitgift Centre - and with it, the potential to dominate South London's retail and leisure scene for the foreseeable future.

The origin of the feud came via this story in November 2011, when it was announced that Westfield had began exclusive discussions over the scheme redevelopment with freeholder and 25% long leaseholder, The Whitgift Foundation. Fellow long leaseholders, Royal London Asset Management and Anglo Irish Bank didn't take too kindly to this being announced without their blessing, and so backed Centrale owner Hammerson to oversee the regeneration of both malls.

Since then, we've had 14 months of carefully-designed surveys, various planning applications, 'battle lines' being drawn, mayoral opinions, and even presidential election-esque tactics, as each developer strained to one-up its rival. But now, thankfully, we have a resolution.

A press conference taking place this morning will reveal more details behind the joint venture's proposals for Croydon, so it's unclear at present if existing planning applications or consents will be factored into the £1 billion regeneration project. 

Hammerson obtained permission in May 2012 to reconfigure 140,000 sq ft of retail space at Centrale into an 11-screen cinema, two flagship retail stores and eight restaurant units. For its part, Westfield has lodged an application for the redevelopment of the Whitgift Centre, with 1.3 million sq ft of retail space, and 150,000 sq ft dedicated to leisure. 

One would, however, anticipate an entirely new proposal to be lodged - and I imagine that it will be Hammerson's "Whitgift Quarter" - an amalgamation of both schemes - that provides the blueprint for the joint venture to take forward.

In any event, it's terrific news for Croydon residents and Croydon Council after over a year of uncertainty - they have two heavyweight developers with an unrivalled wealth of combined expertise in how to build large, successful schemes. Lets hope that the joint venture yields more than the sum of its parts, and that the town can finally live up to its enormous potential.

NPPF: Six months on.

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

September 27th marked the six-month anniversary of the implementation of the government's new planning policy framework; designed ostensibly to simplify the planning system, protect the environment and, perhaps most crucially, to promote sustainable development.

With an entire section within the guidelines devoted to 'Ensuring the Vitality of Town Centres', the framework was also designed (albeit less pointedly) to stymie the proliferation of major out-of-town retail schemes, and lend another government hand to the long wished-for recovery of Britain's urban centres.

The full impact of the new framework won't be fully realised for some time; however, six months on, we can perhaps begin to assimilate an understanding of how the new guidelines are shaping retail planning (if at all) - and in particular the impact so far on out-of-town developments.

The criteria for inclusion in the following study were that the applications either have to be for new out-of-town retail developments measuring over 50,000 sq ft with three units or more, or for extensions to existing developments of that nature.

The charts below show the number of applications submitted between April 15th and July 15th over the last three years, and the combined sizes of all proposals:

What these charts signify is that although the number of applications has reduced compared to last year, the total amount of space has hardly dropped off at all - there are still several major applications for out-of-town space being lodged even with the new framework in mind. 2010 saw a similar overall number of applications to 2012, but for only around 60% of the amount of space applied for this year.

The pie charts below indicate the status of these proposals as of September 27th in each respective year:

In the two years preceding the NPPF, 50% or more of the applications submitted between April 15th and July 15th had been approved by September 27th. In 2012, only 33% of applications (5) had been given the thumbs-up by that date. This is in addition to one of the proposals having already been refused - which did not happen in 2011 or 2010. Whilst we can't assess the exact role of the NPPF in every individual application; it seems fair to say that the new guidelines are having an impact when it comes to the final outcomes of out-of-town proposals.

This theory is backed up by the chart below, which indicates the average time taken (within the 15th April - 27th September parameter) for the applications to be decided:

2012's average is a significant increase on those of 2010 and 2011, and may go some way to explaining the higher proportion of applications without decisions. As authorities adjust to operating the mechanics of decision making within the guidelines of the new proposals, delays to decisions are to be expected. This might also be due to different interpretations of the nuances of the planning framework causing developers to further explain why their proposal constitutes a 'sustainable development', and for objectors to counter that with reasons to explain why it doesn't.

Moving forwards, I will be interested to keep an eye on the undecided applications thus far from 2012 - as they represent 77% of the total space applied for. Of the undecided applications from 2010, 50% of the space was eventually permitted, whilst the 2011 figure is 29% (40% still without an outcome).

In twelve months' time, it will be of interest to see what proportion of the as-yet-undecided space has got the go-ahead, the percentage refused permission, and also how much has been either withdrawn or even superseded. I'll also be curious to see the number and scale of out of town proposals lodged during a full eighteen months of NPPF implementation.

I said at the outset that the full impact of the new planning framework is still to be realised - but there are certainly some visible trends so far that it is having an impact upon decision making, even if from a spatial point of view it hasn't quite dampened developers' tendencies to look beyond the urban perimeter for expansion opportunities. This may come further down the line, however, when the NPPF regulations mean a higher proportion of out-of-town applications are either turned down or left unresolved for an unpalatable length of time.


(All Sources: EGi Planning)

Out-of-Town Retail: An Inexorable Rise?

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
When Mary Portas published her 27-point plan for the future of Britain's high streets back in December last year, I remember thinking that the ideas were sound enough, but that the execution might be severely hampered by either a lack of strong government support, or a UK retail market too heavily focused on out-of-town development over town centre resurrection.

Since the turn of the year, I have seen precious little to convince me to deviate from that view.

EGi Research monitors the progress of new retail schemes (over 50,000 sq ft) across the country, usually starting with the first planning proposal. The chart below shows the location of all new schemes picked up by EGi so far this calendar year - and when compared to 2010 and 2011, indicates just how strong the shift has been from town centre developments to out of town schemes:


Whilst we're only two thirds through the year, and new town centre schemes could potentially stage a dramatic recovery between now and January, it is telling that the majority of new major retail developments are in out-of-town locations, despite the sentiments of both the high street review, and the new planning policy framework issued in March. 

Going further into the planning information - the chart below indicates that whilst town centre schemes accounted for some 68.3% of the floorspace for 2010's retail proposals, that figure drops to 20.7% for what has gone in so far this year:
 

Perhaps crucial to this was the government's decision not to fully endorse point 15 of the Portas Review, which called for an exceptional government sign-off for all out of town schemes. They instead insisted that call-in powers ought to be used sparingly in order to maintain the devolution of planning power to the local authority, and pointed to the new policy framework as evidence enough for their commitment to 'town centre first' retail development.

What's clear, however, is that neither the NPPF nor the High Street Review has discouraged developers from lodging plans for out of town schemes, and the reality is that it might take something as drastic as an exceptional sign-off obligation from central government in order to do so. 

With retailers disappearing from the high streets at an alarming speed, and even relatively solvent brands threatening to quit the UK over extortionate business rates, the amount and location of physical retail space in the country has to be very carefully scrutinised. If the desire is truly for our town centres to once again be the locus of retail activity, there perhaps needs to be heavier backing for what appear to be the more draconian points of the Portas Review. 

Westfield Bradford: A new dawn, or a repeated cycle?

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
For Bradford residents, last month's announcement that Marks & Spencer and Next had agreed deals to anchor Westfield's proposed mega-mall in their city might have given them a sense of deja-vu.

The news would have sounded strikingly similar to something they may also have heard in May 2008, since which time the project has suffered almost irreversible damage at the hands of the recession, leading many in the town to abandon hope that the proposed scheme will ever get built.

Construction on the development was abandoned in February 2009, and the 12-acre site has lain vacant ever since. The 'hole-in-the-ground' is encircled by graffiti-plastered hoardings which illustrate in no uncertain terms the level of resentment felt in the town towards Westfield - initially latent, now vociferous - and exacerbated in no small part by the Australian developer's financial commitments to their schemes in the south.

The battle to redevelop Croydon's Whitgift Centre now appears to be at the forefront of Westfield's plans for the U.K. - with the developer claiming it is ready to spend £1 billion on the project. It emerged yesterday that the company wants to treble that investment across the UK - but with an expressed focus on London-based developments. 

A parody Westfield Bradford twitter account commented: "Westfield's £3bn commitment includes Bradford...to the tune of £12.70...including VAT", before adding: "...there is actually no evidence Westfield wants to spend £12.70 in Bradford - sorry if I got your hopes up."

This rather accurately summarises the sentiment in Bradford surrounding Westfield. They have had to stand by whilst the company plunged around £1,743m into Westfield Stratford City, simultaneously scaling down the Bradford project from a £350m scheme into a £275m scheme - all against the backdrop of a big, empty patch of land in their city centre. Now, with Westfield claiming to be looking at a £3bn investment in the UK, there remains no real indication that we won't be back here again in four years, with retailers once again re-affirming their commitment to a mall which only exists on paper, in a city exasperated by endless setbacks.

I've no doubt that Westfield are doing all they can to deliver the Bradford scheme, and they will point to the fact that the anchor deals are for the revised development given permission last October, indicating that the scheme remains deliverable. However; until the mall is open and thriving, the Yorkshire city's level of contempt, frustration and despair will remain ardent - and even then, it might not fully disappear.
Enhanced by Zemanta

NPPF and an Oxfordshire squabble.

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
At the beginning of last month, I mentioned on Twitter that LXB Retail's Banbury Gateway was the subject of some Planning-Policy based protests from owners of town centre schemes, concerned that the development would have an adverse impact on town centre vitality in the long run.

The interactive map below gives a concise summary of the positions held by each of the scheme owners (click the icons for information, zoom out & drag to view all three):


The main criticism being aimed at LXB's proposed 295,000 sq ft development is that the sequential assessment undertaken by the developer is unsatisfactory, as it complies with the requirements of 2009's Planning Policy Statement 4 (PPS4), rather than the National Planning Policy Framework published in March. As such, there is the assertion that LXB cannot adequately demonstrate that the scheme is a sustainable development that will lead to sustainable growth, nor can it prove to a satisfactory level that it will not have a detrimental impact on Banbury town centre. Therefore, the application should be refused under paragraph 27 of the new planning policy framework.

LXB argue that the test was indeed adequate, as was agreed by the Local Planning Authority, and that the guidelines stated on such matters by the new policy framework are broadly consistent with the requirements it has already satisfied. They say that scheme does not stymie any current town centre investment plans, and cannot be shown to have a material adverse effect on nearby centres.

The application for the scheme was submitted in December 2011, and as such is one of many that is currently under consideration amid the backdrop of the NPPF without the legislation being in place when the proposals were being formalised. Many elements of this particular application were tailored to the draft NPPF from June 2011, but that will not sate the incandescence of protesters who feel that the framework validates the Town Centre First initiative more than ever, and to dismiss policy-based criticism of proposals submitted prior to its formal implementation is almost to discredit it altogether.

This is why I feel that this particular issue is one of a few developing around the country which may prove to make or break the new framework. From the point of view of those opposed to the scheme, LXB has adhered to planning and sequential requirements which, similar as they might be, are not exactly like those outlined in the NPPF, and as such it ought to be incumbent upon them to demonstrate under the new guidelines that their scheme ensures town centre prosperity, rather than jeopardises it.

From the point of view of LXB, they have adhered to the planning constraints and followed necessary guidelines in order to acquire the resolution to grant permission verdict precisely one day before the new framework was published. Does the NPPF dictate that they must carry out all of these necessary assessments again? Are Cherwell Council likely to use the new framework to delay the delivery of the scheme - and with it, the relocation of Prodrive?

My view is that the scheme will probably go ahead as stated in the original application, but with a series of section 106 conditions which would hopefully ensure the satisfaction of all parties - specifically, that the scheme is linked to the town centre by public transport, and perhaps an amnesty on securing any more retailers with a town centre presence to the scheme (if that's possible to enforce).

Either way, the outcome will provide no small amount of insight into how strictly local planning authorities are willing to enforce the new framework - and may set precedents for similar proposals nationwide.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Something Fishy at the Trafford Centre...

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
There were some local rumours in April that the Barton Square annex to Capital Shopping Centres' Trafford Centre would soon feature an aquarium. This was confirmed towards the end of June, when CSC submitted proposals to Trafford Council to convert part of the old Habitat store into a sea life centre.

Regulars at the Trafford Centre will hope that the new attraction will look just as spectacular as similar ventures undertaken in retail schemes around the world. 

Below is Siam Ocean World, the 2.8 million litre aquarium that features beneath Bangkok's Siam Paragon mall:

Thumbnail image for Siam Ocean World.jpg
Further inspiration comes from the 10-million-litre Dubai Aquarium and Underwater Zoo at The Dubai Mall:

Dubai Aquarium.jpg

It's not yet known which species of marine life will be showcased at Barton Square - but the operators might do well to learn lessons from Dubai. Ten percent of the sharks in the aquarium were killed before the mall had even opened, as Sand Tiger Sharks did what they do best, and decided they would pick off the weaker members of the community. The aquarium then made news again in 2010, as a crack in the reinforced glass caused water to leak into the main shopping area.

Should the proposal be approved, the aquarium is hoped to average 1,000 visitors daily, and will be run by the largest UK sea life centre operator, Merlin. 

'Portas Pilot' Entries - A Few Favourites...

| 1 Comment | No TrackBacks
Housing & Local Government Minister Grant Shapps tweeted yesterday that the successful bids for town centre regeneration funds via the 'Portas Pilot' scheme will be announced at the end of the month.

With hundreds of entries reportedly clamouring for the cash, I had a look at a few of the video entries to get an impression of how the town teams were going about pitching to the government.

With an extremely broad creative brief, it is of little surprise that each submission differs from the last - and as such, it's extremely difficult to judge which ones will be successful. There are some which unimaginatively point the camera at vacant stores with the word 'Help' emblazoned across the screen, and others who have clearly tried to stand out by engaging the town in wacky dance routines in various (former) retail hotspots.

The ones which I found most appealing came from towns such as St. Austell, Warwick, Grantham and Aylsham; as they seemed to have more of a focus on what their towns specifically require in order to regain the vitality of ages past - and already appear to have a plan as to how best use the government cash.  

There were also interesting entries from Ripon and St. Ives, who have focused their regeneration plans around unique heritage sites, and embraced the potential of tourism to help boost town centre footfall.

The most bizarre entry comes from Exmouth; wherein a teenage girl is apparently beamed down from space, and then escorted around the town by someone looking suspiciously like her sister, before concluding that the townsfolk are spending entirely too much time larking about by the beach, and not enough on their 'quite nice' high street, before she's whisked back into the orbit. The tagline, 'bring them here, keep them here", is altogether more sinister than was surely intended.

Also, if you'd like to see perhaps the worst impression of Mary Portas ever performed - check out Tamworth's effort

Some common themes mentioned in almost every entry are the failure of councils to come up with innovative town-centre-saving solutions over a number of years (or even decades); the cost of town centre parking or the lack thereof; proliferation of supermarkets & out-of-town developments causing town centres to falter, and the impact that on-line shopping has had on the high street. These, of course, are aspects that the government and Ms. Portas are already painfully aware of.

One wonders how the winners will eventually be chosen. Do the video entries carry as much weight as the application form? If so, does 'view count' get factored into the final reckoning? Are CACI ratings consulted in order to determine the most deserving of town centre investment? 

We'll find out in a couple of weeks - but for now, I'll champion Warwick's entry one last time...local bias at it's best!
The Local Government Association published a survey earlier this month which tackles the issue of high street 'clustering', which I have blogged about before on here, and once again it is of little surprise to see such things heavily lamented by council members. What I find particularly interesting about this survey, however, is the type of premises that councillors feel will help most to regenerate struggling high streets.

The officers rate books and clothes stores, restaurants, and local butchers and bakers highest with over 90% of those surveyed claiming these types of outlets were the most important elements needed to help restore the future vitality of Britain's high streets. Surprisingly, however, only 68% seemed to think that leisure elements such as cinemas and bowling alleys were of importance to ensuring town centre recovery.

The results seem to largely ignore the fact that supermarkets have largely made the traditional high street model redundant via a combination of favourable parking provision and unbeatable prices over a sustained period of time, perhaps pointing to a degree of romanticism. This feeling doesn't appear to be shared by developers and shopping centre owners nationwide.

Legal & General's Castle Place Market in Trowbridge; Harbourside Developments' Telford Shopping Centre; Capital Shopping Centres' Potteries Centre in Stoke and Key Properties' Kingsmead Centre in Farnborough have all received permission since the start of 2012 for either a cinema-led extension, or a reconfiguration of existing space to accommodate a cinema. Not to mention the plans submitted in February by Hammerson to develop almost 90,000 sq ft of leisure and restaurant space at Centrale, in Croydon.

Whilst these are only a handful of examples, they represent the major retail developers' recognition of how beneficial leisure space can be in a town centre scheme. On the surface, cinemas and bowling alleys, to use the survey's examples, are footfall-drivers and dwell-time boosters; but, crucially, they also offer at least an imitation of the social aspect of town centre shopping that has perhaps been lost through the proliferation of supermarkets.

If town centres are indeed to recover to the level we want them to, they have to provide something that is unattainable in out-of-town schemes or even on-line. This, regrettably, puts an arrow in the idea that the traditional high-street model can be revived, but it gives license to look towards a model that can ensure future success by driving shoppers into the centre of towns to engage in activities besides shopping.

Developers seem to have cottoned on to this notion - and perhaps it's time councils did too.
It's telling that the responses from the British Retail Consortium and BCSC to yesterday's new planning guidelines were altogether more positive than those given less than a week ago following the budget. 

The main section of the significantly-condensed planning document which would concern retailers and developers is that which deals with the future vitality of town centres, and how planning guidelines can assist the market in making vibrant, competitive, successful centres a reality; and not just a celebrity's dream.

It was pleasing to see the document make reference to the individuality of town centres, and recognise that local authorities need to govern what constitutes sustainable development in their area. The authorities can define the extent of their town centres, and develop their area plans around these parameters. This in turn will mean a greater power to refuse permission to schemes which are seen as being detrimental to the progress of urban recovery, and thereafter, development.

In strengthening the Town Centre First mechanism, the framework has certainly put faith in the long-term ability of struggling town centres to recover - but in terms of shopping and retail, the question remains whether the problems are too endemic for a planning reform to fix. Several planning hurdles may have been removed for town centre retail schemes from a development point of view - but can consumer behaviour change enough to make them 'viable' and 'sustainable'? And how many retailers will survive until the benefits of the guidelines are felt?

The public often give their backing to retail-led regeneration schemes in town centres, only to then either vote with their wallet and shop on-line, or to drive to the out-of-town retail park, where the stores are larger and the parking free. There also needs to be a little more help given to retailers in the battle to pay rent (an opportunity missed in the budget); as there is little point in making the delivery of a gleaming new project easier if there is nobody there to fill it.

The next couple of years will be of interest - as we observe just how quickly the reforms catch on, and how many schemes are turned down due to failing the requisite impact assessments. Only then might we see retailers, developers and, crucially, shoppers turn their eye towards the town centre rather than away from it. The NPPF may be seen as the first step towards town centre recovery - but make no mistake - there's a marathon still to run.

Related Posts:

Budget 2012: The Impact on Retail

| 1 Comment | No TrackBacks

The national headlines belonged to the scrapping of the 50p tax rate, and the government's curious decision to alienate everyone over 65 - but there were some elements of yesterday's budget which will have some interesting implications for the retail market over the next couple of years.

Perhaps the aspect mentioned most often by retail experts is over something that the budget didn't do, rather than that which it did. With no respite coming from the Chancellor over the impending 5.6% increase in business rates next month, the cost base for retailers will increase over the next year - and will be in no way offset by inflation, or the cut in corporation tax.

Documents released yesterday indicate that government revenue will be around £592 billion will be raised in the 2012/13 financial year - up £3 billion on 2011/12; and the increase in business rates accounts for a third of this figure.

The decision to relax Sunday trading laws for eight weeks over the summer seems almost like a piece of opportunism, rather than a carefully thought-out piece of legislation, and has gained mixed reviews since its announcement. CBRE's Jonathan de Mello called it a 'timely boost', and that any other decision would represent a 'missed opportunity'; whilst the Association of Convenience Stores have labelled it 'devastating', as it will cost local shops around £480 million in lost trade.

Below-inflation minimum wage increases for adults and freezing the youth rates will certainly be music to the ears of under-pressure retailers; and the increase in personal tax allowances should eventually help consumer spend. The question is whether this increase is coming soon enough - as by April 2013, consumers will have had another year of purse-string-tightening, and the requisite shift in consumer behaviour will be a lot more difficult to engender.

This budget rather gives an impression of the government leaving the retail market in the doldrums for the time being, and rather hoping that the one-time cash injection provided by the Olympic summer can stave off total catastrophe until the population in general has more disposable income in 2013 and 2014. There are, of course, longer term issues over the market which need to be addressed - but the chance for a shot in the arm has gone, and retailers are now left to make the best of what they can out of 2012.


For more from EGi on the Budget - see the Focus Blog for a summary on the impact on regions & click here for a summary of all the major budget stories.

Supermarkets: Good, Bad, Or just too convenient?

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
EGi this week reported some good news for the supermarket investment market via a report from IPD; which indicated that it was one of the fastest-growing commercial property sectors. This is the first time that IPD has grouped supermarkets in an investment category of their own when conducting its retail investment research - and much can be read into the fact that supermarkets appear to represent a much less risky prospect for investors than other retail assets, as well as offering a higher return than other prospective investments.

Good news, then, for anyone looking to dive into supermarket ownership - and also for any of the big four seeking to boost their expansion trail by divesting themselves of any owner-occupied premises - but what might this mean for the wider retail market?

Henry Porter launched a scathing attack on supermarkets on Sunday - calling for a 'Leveson enquiry for supermarkets' to attempt to prevent these retail behemoths from, as he sees it, fattening our children, ruining town centres, causing illiteracy, encouraging alcoholism and re-introducing a form of slave labour in order to boost profits.

So, to anyone of a similar persuasion to Porter, the IPD report should make for worrying reading; as with a dearth of truly healthy investment options currently available - it could foreshadow another unstoppable extension of the power wielded by superstores.

A common argument in defence of supermarket proliferation is that we, the consumers, are complicit in their expansion by opting to give in to their lower prices and higher levels of convenience - but what happens when those factors have such force that they destroy all existing competition, removing the element of choice entirely?

Testimony from Barnstaple last year tells a typical and all-too-often heard story of how the fanfares that greeted the arrival of a new Tesco Extra were soon drowned out by the 'high street closures' klaxon just months down the line; and residents have now taken matters into their own hands - petitioning North Devon Council to stop any further supermarkets coming to the town. They are not alone, with dozens of campaigns nationwide now actively seeking to discourage supermarkets from operating in their area.

Whilst I wouldn't go as far as Porter has, and lay the blame a disproportionate amount of the world's ills squarely at the door of Tesco-et-al; the Government may well want to look a little more closely at this issue, and possibly stymie the growth of supermarkets in certain areas in order to give town centres a better chance of recovery. 

Bookies vs Portas - who's your money on?

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
This month has seen a response from the betting industry to the assertion made by Mary Portas that gaming outlets were a 'blight on the high street', and that their proliferation is creating unsightly gambling 'clusters' on struggling retail hotspots.

The perception that December's High Street Review gave was that betting shops are wandering unbidden into troubled towns, sneaking into premises once occupied by banks, building societies and estate agents in order to fleece the community of its cash. Senior industry figures have now hit back, claiming that betting shops are taking space that would otherwise have been vacant, and that their contribution to both local and nationwide economies should dissipate any anti-gambling rancour.

The figures stack up for the gambling industry - employing an average of five workers per store, and paying an average of £10,000 annually in business rates as they contribute around £3 billion to the UK economy every year. With this in mind, it's surely no bad thing to put them in a separate use class, creating a level of authority at council level to decide whether or not there are valid enough economic factors to give approval to a gambling venue in their community.

Research from the Local Government Association suggests that the issue is not one of isolated resentment of betting shops, or indeed the idea of gambling, but rather an uneasiness within communities about how simple it appears to be for a new bookmaker to appear in their town centre. The survey also implies that the public perceive betting shops as being similar to sex stores, fast-food takeaways and tanning salons in that they are all 'blights' on the high street.

In my view, creating a new use class for gambling outlets could help to de-construct this negative perception, and shift public focus towards the economic benefits that a bookmakers can have on a local economy, outlined as they would be in any 'change of use' application. This may then result in more demand-led outlets nationwide, as communities look to the gambling industry to provide their high streets with a shot in the arm - when necessary.

I can understand why the Association for British Bookmakers is a little bent out of shape over the possibility of putting their stores in a separate use class; and sees it as a deliberate piece of restrictive policy against them. However, I think in time they might well find there is more to be gained from contributing to communities with the blessing of councils and the public than forcing an unwanted presence into retail centres through scattergun, unrestrained expansion. 

Portas: 'Right Diagnosis; Wrong Prescription'.

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
....At least that's the view that has been offered today by Phil Wrigley of LXB Retail and Majestic Wines, who has insisted that if the government were to adhere to the recommendations of Mary Portas' review, the High Street would be condemned to continue to plunge further into a 'Death Spiral', taking already ailing town centres with it.

Wrigley's own recommendation for our beloved urban centres to avoid this grim fate is to encourage increased conversion of high street premises to housing, which echoes some in-depth research conducted by think tank 'The Policy Exchange' in March last year. 

Both Wrigley and the Policy Exchange have championed the idea of increasing flexibility within the current planning structure to allow properties to under go a quicker and easier transition, if required, from Class A to Class C. The common criticism of the current planning system is that councils' obsession with 'maintaining the town centre', or 'supporting economic regeneration', means that they occasionally force buildings to stay within a certain use class, often refusing a change of use until the premises have been vacant for a number of years.

The reason for this is that councils consider planning applications within the confines of local development frameworks (LDF) set out roughly every decade to outline how they hope the area to develop. Change-of-use applications which appear out-of-line with the LDF are seldom given approval, no matter what their viability, with councils more inclined to agree to a short term solution which fits in with their development plan.

I don't particularly share Wrigley's overriding negativity about the recommendations Portas outlined in December last year; but his view, substantiated by the think tank, represents almost the exact opposite way that Portas could have gone with her suggestions. It is a view that was perhaps too radical to suggest to the current government, who have already relaxed change-of-use laws pertaining to office buildings, with so far less-than-resounding success.

Is Portas, as Wrigley puts it, "propping up a failing sector", or is she attempting to exacerbate a latent desire within the British public to return to thriving town centres, thereby resisting the temptation to consign traditional high streets to the history books? What is certain is that the government's implementation of any of Portas' recommendations will be put under intense scrutiny, as the queue of people waiting to say 'I told you so' gets longer by the day.

About this Archive

This page is an archive of recent entries in the Planning category.

Olympics is the previous category.

planning laws is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Other EG Bloggers