NS&OC OPA Town Centre and Sequential Impact Assessment

Sustainable Urban Extension North of Norwich

Town Centre Impact and Sequential Assessment

Beyond Green Developments Ltd

July 2012

i

No

rth

Sp

ro

wsto

n &

Old

Catt

on

– T

ow

n C

en

tre I

mp

act

an

d S

eq

uen

tial

Assessm

en

t

Beyond G

reen D

evelo

pm

ents

Ltd

(Ju

ly 2

012)




July 2012

ii

QA

North Sprowston & Old Catton – Town Centre Impact and

Sequential Assessment

Issue/Revision: V2 Final

Date: 21 July 2012

29 August 2012

Comments:

Prepared by: Elizabeth Milimuka

Elizabeth Milimuka

Signature:

Authorised by: Dr Steven Norris

Dr Steven Norris

Signature:

File Reference: 101104

101104




CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

THE PROPOSAL 1

REPORT STRUCTURE 4

2.0 POLICY FRAMEWORK 6

NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK 6

‘Main Town Centre’ Uses 7

JOINT CORE STRATEGY 7

(REPLACEMENT) LOCAL PLAN SAVED POLICIES 9

EMERGING DEVELOPMENT PLAN 9

3.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT 11

ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 11

Primary Catchment Area 11

Population Forecasts 11

Expenditure Forecasts 13

Total Available Expenditure 14

Estimated Turnover of Proposed Floorspace 15

Market Share from Total Expenditure 16

Higher Occupancy Rate: Sensitivity Testing 16

Summary 17

POTENTIAL IMPACT ON PLANNED AND COMMITTED PRIVATE INVESTMENT

17

POTENTIAL IMPACT ON TOWN CENTRE VITALITY, VIABILITY AND

CONSUMER CHOICE AND TRADE 18

Old Catton – The Paddocks 19

Spixworth Village Centre 20

Sprowston Local Centre 21




July 2012

iv

Anglia Square 21

Blue Boar Lane, Sprowston 21

NORWICH CITY CENTRE 22

SUMMARY 23

4.0 SEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT 25

5.0 THE QUALITATIVE NEED FOR NEW SHOPPING FACILITIES 28

6.0 CONCLUSION 30

7.0 GLOSSARY & ABBREVIATIONS 32

APPENDIX 1: PRIMARY CATCHMENT AREA

APPENDIX 2: CONVENIENCE GOODS RETAIL CAPACITY ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX 3: COMPARISON GOODS RETAIL CAPACITY ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX 4: HIGHER OCCUPANCY RATE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

APPENDIX 5: EXPERIAN POPULATION AND EXPENDITURE REPORTS FOR

PRIMARY CATCHMENT AREA




July 2012

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This impact assessment has been prepared by Planning Perspectives LLP for Beyond

Green Developments Ltd. to support an application for a new residential and mixed use

sustainable urban extension in Broadland District, on the north-east edge of Norwich,

known as North Sprowston & Old Catton (NS&OC).

1.2 The study considers the main town centre uses proposed in light of relevant policy

tests and guidance provided by the NPPF, Joint Core Strategy, ‘saved’ policies of the

Local Plan and other relevant material considerations to be taken account of in the

determination of this application.

THE PROPOSAL

1.3 NS&OC is conceived as a sustainable new community structured as an urban extension

to the north east of Norwich. The applicant’s vision is for a series of new and extended

neighbourhoods north of Sprowston that will offer the highest quality of life and lowest

environmental footprint in Europe. The overarching aim is to create a sustainable

mixed-use environment that enables more people to work, shop and access day-to-day

services close to where they live.

1.4 The proposal consists of:

• Up to 3,520 residential dwellings, of which up to 33% will be affordable housing;

• Up to 16,800 sqm (GIA) of B1 and B2 commercial development comprising a mix of larger office buildings, smaller offices, studios and workshops that will generate some 800 jobs on-site;

• Up to 8,800 sqm (GIA) of flexible A1-A5 retail, service and leisure development including a foodstore of up to 1,500 sqm (net), small scale non-food retailing and a variety of complementary cafes, restaurants, pubs and other facilities

• up to two small hotels of up to 1,000 sqm (GIA) combined;

• Up to 5,000 sqm (NIA) of education uses comprising two new primary schools;

• Up to 2,000 sqm (NIA) of other community facilities including two multi-use community spaces, a library, a primary care centre and 4-5 nurseries and creches;

• An energy centre;

• New formal and informal open space including lay and recreational areas;

• New and retained natural and semi-natural space; and

• Four accesses to the highway network.

1.5 A fundamental design premise of the proposed development is the “walkable

neighbourhood,” encouraging residents and visitors to live sustainably by providing a

range of necessary facilities and amenities within easy distance of their homes and

places of work.

1.6 To serve the neighbourhoods proposed as part of this urban extension, five “activity

centres” are proposed which incorporate a concentration of various mixed-use

activities and facilities to serve the everyday needs of proposed residents, such as

shopping, socialising and accessing public services. These consist of one main local




July 2012

2

centre around the proposed Main Square, a secondary local activity centre closest to

Wroxham Road serving the neighbourhood to the west of the scheme, the addition of

new retail linkages to Old Catton District Centre, a small scale parade at Church lane

South and a cluster of rurally-based business activities at Red Hall Farm which will

incorporate a parade-level of retail.

1.7 The main town centre uses proposed (including office, retail, service and office space)

are distributed amongst these proposed “activity centres” according to Table 1.1.

Table 1.1 Proposed mix of uses across “activity centres” (sqm GIA)

“Activity

Centre”

Employment Retail/Service

(A1-A5)

Community

Uses

Hotel Education

Main Square Up to 9,000 Up to 7,500 Up to 1,500 Up to 1,000 Up to 2,500

Wroxham

Road Square

Up to 9,000 Up to 1,000 Up to 500 Up to 1,000 n/a

Church Lane

South

Up to 500 (with no more than 100 sqm each allocated for

use as either pub or retail space)

n/a n/a

Red Hall Farm Up to 1,000 Up to 500 n/a n/a n/a

Old Catton n/a Up to 500 (with no unit larger than

100 sqm)

n/a Up to 2,500

Total Up to 16,800 Up to 8,800 Up to 2,000 Up to 1,000 Up to 5,000

Source: Beyond Green Social and Economic Development Statement.

1.8 With respect to retail, it is envisaged that the Main Square will take the form of a

traditional ‘High Street’ shopping experience as the focus for new retail, service and

community facilities to serve the local population’s day-to-day needs. The proposed

Main Square will be anchored by a foodstore of circa 1,500 sqm (net) which will

provide the critical mass and product offer to draw food shopping trips and activity

from the proposed development. This will help to generate the necessary level of day-

to-day trips, expenditure and linked trips to other shops and facilities to help underpin

the overall vitality and viability of this “activity centre”.

1.9 The anchor foodstore will represent the key component of the first phase of the

proposed High Street, as it will help to underpin the commercial and economic viability

of the whole mixed use development. It will help to attract other operators and

businesses needed to create a successful and viable centre at the heart of the local

community. In terms of location, it will be in a prominent position that is well

connected to other shops, businesses and facilities in order to maximise the potential

for linked trips and footfall, probably in either block MS07 or MS08. The store will

have a highly visible frontage onto the High Street.




1.10 The remainder of proposed retail and service floorspace proposed in the Main Square

will be comprised of up to 6,000sqm of smaller units (ranging from 50sqm – 250sqm

GIA each) which are flexibly earmarked for A1 non-food and other complementary A2-

A5 uses such as would be found in a vital mixed-use centre.

1.11 A secondary shopping street is proposed off Wroxham Road to the east, around

Wroxham Square, along with smaller neighbourhood shops and stores at Church Lane

South and Red Hall Farm. Floorspace here will be of a smaller scale and will support

the top-up facilities required to support an active community and to serve the day to

day needs of the local population and daytime employment population.

1.12 For the purpose of this assessment, and to be robust, we have assumed that the

proposal will contain a maximum of 2,840 sqm (GIA) of convenience floorspace and

2,000 sqm (GIA) of comparison goods floorspace. However, it is important to note

that a key element of the scheme is the development of adaptable buildings such as

townhouses in and around the central areas of the scheme to allow change of use over

time, and the retention of ownership and/or use of short leases to preserve flexibility

and allow the amount of retail/commercial uses to flex according to demand. This

physical framework will help prevent the scheme being locked into a “predict-and-

provide” approach to retail and simulate the gradual change over time characteristic of

successful traditional high streets. At the same time, the need to apply for change of

use consents will ensure there is appropriate planning control of that evolutionary

process. This will also enable the Main Square area to grow and evolve into a district

centre if so designated in the proposed Broadland Growth Triangle Area Action Plan or

a later policy framework.

1.13 Forty five per cent of the total proposed retail offer (circa 3,960 sqm GIA) is proposed

within the development for additional service and leisure facilities (Class A2-A5) to

complement and support the role and function of the proposed activity centres. This is

informed by the ‘benchmark’ average floorspace mix of all UK retail centres audited by

Experian Goad. These proposed uses will be concentrated primarily in the Main Square

and Wroxham Road and will help to diversify the range of activities in the activity

centres and help contribute to a vital and healthy mix of uses.

1.14 Overall a maximum of 8,800 sqm (GIA) of retail and service floorspace is proposed.

Table 1.2 shows the proposed split between convenience, comparison and service

floorspace.




July 2012

4

Table 1.2 Maximum Floorspace Proposals by 2030 (sqm, GIA)

Convenience Comparison Professional

and Leisure

Services

(A2 – A5)

TOTAL RETAIL

& SERVICE

FLOORSPACE

(A1 – A5)

Proposal 2,840 (32%) 2,000 (23%) 3,960 (45%) 8,800

1.15 With respect to office floorspace, the proposal will have a particular focus on nurturing

small and distinctive enterprises and providing premises for businesses in the heart of

the community, differentiating the offer from the business-park-type condition of

strategic employment sites. The proposed floorspace will consist of a mix of adaptable

and sub-divisible commercial buildings, smaller office and studio units in ‘converted’

townhouses, and homeworking units. It is proposed that the Main Square will

accommodate a more substantial, larger-floorplate office and/or civic building designed

to bring an element of grandeur to the square and contribute to a sense of place and

community. Due to its highly accessible location and proximity to large-scale land uses

such as the proposed energy centre, up to 9,000 sqm of office-based employment is

proposed at Wroxham Road Square.

1.16 This level of office floorspace will provide an opportunity for local employment,

contribute to a healthy mix of uses and ensure that there is a footfall around the

centre throughout the daytime period. Business space will be marketed to potential

occupiers in sectors where there is a good fit between the underlying business activity

and the ethos of the development. The focus is on the SME sector and where there is

an ethical and brand affinity with the purpose of the development to create a high

quality of life and low environmental footprint, including a willingness to work with

local supply chain initiatives, workplace travel planning and sustainable sourcing and

waste management.

1.17 The job opportunities will be of interest to people living in both the new development

and existing locals living in parts of Old Catton and Sprowston.

REPORT STRUCTURE

1.18 This assessment is structured as follows:

• Section 2.0 reviews the policy framework to be taken into consideration when determining the main town centre uses proposed as part of the development;

• Section 3.0 considers the potential impact of relevant main town centre uses proposed in light of our assessment of the forecast residual retail (convenience and comparison) expenditure capacity available to support new retail floorspace within the scheme;




• Section 4.0 assesses whether there are any sequentially preferable sites for the proposed main town centre uses; and

• Section 5.0 assesses the proposal in light of the qualitative need for new retail, service and office floorspace to meet the needs of the local resident population for day-to-day shopping, financial, service and other requirements.




July 2012

6

2.0 POLICY FRAMEWORK

NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published on 27th March 2012 and

is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. It sets out the

planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.

2.2 At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which

should be seen as “a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-

taking” (paragraph 14).

2.3 The policies in the NPPF constitute the Government’s view of what sustainable

development in England means in practice for the planning system. There are “three

dimensions” to sustainable development – economic, social and environmental. To

achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be

sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. The planning system

therefore has to perform a number of roles to support sustainable development:

• an economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation;

• a social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being; and

• an environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.

2.4 Within the overarching roles that the planning system ought to play, the NPPF sets out

12 core land-use planning principles should underpin both plan-making and decision-

taking (paragraph 17). These principles state that planning should, inter alia:

• proactively drive and support sustainable economic development;

• always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings;

• support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate;

• contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution;

• promote mixed use developments, and encourage multiple benefits from the use of land in urban and rural areas, recognising that some open land can perform many functions;

• actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable; and

• take account of and support local strategies to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all, and deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet local needs.




2.5 In order to deliver a strong and competitive economy, the NPPF states that planning

should operate “…to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth”

and “…significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth

through the planning system” (paragraph 19). To help achieve economic growth, LPAs

should “…plan proactively to meet the development needs of business and support an

economy fit for the 21st century” (paragraph 20).

‘Main Town Centre’ Uses

2.6 The NPPF defines ‘main town centre uses’ as including retail development; leisure and

entertainment facilities (including restaurants, bars, pubs and health and fitness

centres); offices and culture and tourism development (including hotels and

conference facilities).

2.7 When considering applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing

centre and not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan, the NPPF states that LPAs

should:

• require an impact assessment – if the development is over a proportionate, floorspace threshold (2,500 sqm if not set lower by the Local Authority). This should include assessment of:

o the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and

o the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area. For major schemes where the full impact will not be realised in five years, the impact should be assessed at five and ten years from the time the application is made.

• apply a sequential test - LPAs should require applications for main town centre uses to be located in town centres, then in edge-of-centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out-of-centre sites be considered. When considering edge of centre and out of centre proposals, “…preference should be

given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre” (paragraph 24). Applicants and LPAs should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale.

2.8 Where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have a “significant

adverse impact” on one or more of the above factors, it should be refused (paragraph

27).

JOINT CORE STRATEGY

2.9 The adopted Development Plan consists of the Joint Core Strategy (JCS), which was

undertaken on behalf of the Greater Norwich Development Partnership (GNDP) and

covers the administrative areas of Broadland, Norwich, South Norwich and the Broads.

The NPPF states that for 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may

continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004, even if there is a

limited degree of conflict with this Framework (paragraph 214). As the JCS was

adopted in March 2011, full weight must be given to its policies.




July 2012

8

2.10 Policy 9 of the JCS states that the Norwich Policy Area (NPA) is the focus for major

growth and development and identifies a housing requirement for 21,000 new

dwellings over the development plan period. The JCS identifies locations for the

distribution of a proportion of this need (12,000 dwellings) across the GNDP area.

However, the distribution of the remaining requirement for 9,000 new dwellings has

not yet been identified. This application will deliver a significant proportion (circa 40%)

of this remaining requirement and play an important role in delivering housing targets

for the area.

2.11 The retail hierarchy is set by Policy 19 which identifies Norwich City Centre at the

highest level of the hierarchy, followed by 6 town and large district centres (including

Anglia Square/Magdalen Street), 18 large village and district centres (of which 11 are

District Centres within the Norwich Urban area, including Old Catton) and a number of

local centres including new and enhanced local centres servicing major growth

locations.

2.12 The JCS recognises that Greater Norwich has the region’s largest economy and is the

highest ranking retail centre. The vision for Norwich is to continue to build on its

importance for key economic sectors and, in particular, expand its comparison retail

floorspace. The Main Towns, Key Service Centres and Service Villages will continue to

be focal points for communities to have better access to quality jobs, healthcare,

education and community facilities and shops.

2.13 Importantly, the JCS also recognises that “proposed large-scale housing areas will

provide for shops and services to meet local needs where they are not able to benefit

from existing centres” (paragraph 6.77).

2.14 With respect to retail capacity, the JCS recognises that the 2007 Sub-Regional Retail

and Town Centre Study (NSRTCS) forecasts significant capacity for new comparison

goods floorspace (up to 39,395 sqm net by 2016 in the Norwich Urban Area, growing

to 70,361 sqm net by 2021). However, due to uncertainty in the economic market, the

JCS takes a cautious approach and sets out a lower requirement for 20,000 sqm (net)

of comparison goods floorspace to be provided by 2016, with future need subject to

monitoring. Over and above this identified capacity requirement, the JCS roles forward

the recommendation for an additional 15% (circa 3,000sqm) of new floorspace for new

service related developments such as new cafes, restaurants and bars. With respect to

convenience floorspace, the JCS references a modest requirement for new convenience

goods floorspace which it states will largely be accommodated for by the proposed

redevelopment of Anglia Square.

2.15 The JCS also identifies a significant need for new office floorspace (250,000 sqm)

across the GNDP area, which is directed to Norwich city centre (100,000 sqm),

Norwich Research Park and Broadland Business Park (paragraph 6.10). This

requirement is carried forward from the Greater Norwich Employment Growth Study




(September 2008), which identified more than 370,000 sqm (circa 4 million sqft) of

office stock in Norwich and a “significant latent demand for city centre space.”

(REPLACEMENT) LOCAL PLAN SAVED POLICIES

2.16 The Broadland District Local Plan (Replacement) was adopted in May 2006. Although

the intention is for the emerging Development Framework to replace the Local Plan, a

number of policies that were ‘saved’ by the Secretary of State in 2009 remain in force

and are therefore a material consideration in the determination of planning

applications.

2.17 Of particular relevance to the present application, Policy SH02 sets out the retail

hierarchy within Broadland District. Within the Norwich Policy Area, Old Catton and

Thorpe St Andrew are defined as District Centres which function as “the providers of

goods and services that meet people’s day to day needs.”

2.18 Policy SH03 defines local and village centres in the District. In the north of Norwich

Urban Area, identified centres include Spixworth Village Centre and Sprowston Centre.

2.19 Policy SH04 states that no specific provision is made for additional major convenience

goods floorspace. Proposals for additional floorspace will only be permitted if they

demonstrate a qualitative and quantitative need, are consistent with the sequential

approach, do not undermine any plans for new investment, can be accessed by a

range of transport, will not significantly harm the vitality or viability of existing

shopping centres, and do not involve the loss of employment land.

2.20 Policy SPR10 identifies a site of approximately 12 ha to the north and north east of the

existing Tesco on Blue Boar Lane for comprehensive development including residential,

recreational open space, up to 1.2 ha of business use, small scale local shopping

facilities and a community centre, communal parking, landscaping and vehicular

access. The site was allocated for a mix of land uses in the previous Local Plan. Outline

planning permission was granted in 2006. Policy SH02 included the promotion of the

area to District Centre upon implementation of the proposal, however the permission

has now lapsed and there has been no further progress here.

EMERGING DEVELOPMENT PLAN

2.21 The Joint Core Strategy is the only development plan document which applies jointly to

other authorities. Broadland District Council is preparing supporting Development Plan

Documents which will need to be in conformity with the JCS and will help direct new

development in the District.

2.22 The Council consulted on the Issues and Options stage of its Development

Management DPD between September and December 2011. Progression of this

document is currently on hold, with the Preferred Option timetabled for consultation in




July 2012

10

June 2013, followed by publication of the pre-submission draft in February 2014 and

adoption in late 2014.

2.23 The Council is also currently consulting on Alternative Sites for Potential Development

as part of their emerging Site Allocations DPD. Consultation closes in August 2012 and

no dates are yet set for further consultation.

2.24 Broadland had also previously undertaken work towards preparation of a Growth

Triangle Area Action Plan, which would have managed the accommodation of 7,000

new homes in the north east of Norwich by 2026, rising to 10,000 thereafter.

However, a successful legal challenge in February 2012 has subsequently required

remittance of all references to the growth triangle in the JCS. It is important to note

that the judge did not challenge the scale of growth required in the Greater Norwich

area and considered that the preferred option was properly assessed. Rather, the

judge concluded that the Strategic Environmental Assessment carried out did not

properly explain the alternatives to the North East Growth Triangle or examine the

alternatives to the same extent as the preferred option. We understand a new

Sustainability Appraisal is being prepared (more detail is set out in the Planning

Support Statement accompanying the planning application).




3.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT

3.1 Although, as described above, the scale and mix of main town centre uses proposed

are designed to contribute to “walkable neighbourhoods” and will therefore primarily

serve residents of the development and local area, the site is located outside of a

designated centre. The proposed retail and office elements of the proposal are also

above the nationally set threshold of 2,500 sqm (net). Therefore, to be strictly in

accordance with the NPPF and adopted local policy, this assessment considers the

potential impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private

investment in centres in the catchment area of the proposal and the potential impact

on town centre vitality and viability, including on local consumer choice and trade.

3.2 As described above, the development In accordance with the NPPF and related Good

Practice Guidance relating to main town centre uses, the assessment considers the

baseline position (2012), design year (2015), as well as five (2020), ten (2025) and

fifteen (2030) after years after implementation of the scheme in order to assess the

impact of the proposal over time.

ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Primary Catchment Area

3.3 The first step towards assessing the potential impact of the proposed floorspace is to

understand the realistic catchment area for the new development. The proposal will

primarily serve the residents of the proposed urban extension. However, it is

recognised that the proposed shops and services will also be accessible to existing

households within the wider local area. The Primary Catchment Area (PCA) proposed

has therefore been informed by the accessibility and proximity of existing residences

and facilities to the proposed development. Although the PCA is not based strictly on

drive-times, the majority of the area is within five minutes of the proposal site.

3.4 Whilst it is clear that the scheme’s proposed shops and services would only draw a

proportion of trips and expenditure from the PCA, there are parts of this area for which

the new centre will be a more sustainable destination. As such, we consider that the

PCA represents a realistic and appropriate assessment area in the consideration of

proposed new retail and service facilities.

3.5 The extent of the PCA is shown on Plan 1 (Appendix 1).

Population Forecasts

3.6 The proposal consists of up to 3,520 dwellings. The average household size and

derived forecast population rate is shown in Table 3.1.




July 2012

12

Table 3.1 Type & Size of Proposed Dwellings, Average Household Size and Population Forecasts

Number of Units Average Household Size

Forecast Population

1-bed flat 279 1.2 338

2-bed flat 298 1.3 393

3-bed flat 66 1.8 117

2-bed house 840 1.8 1,493

3-bed house 1,240 2.5 3,089

4+ bed house 798 2.8 2,225

TOTAL: 3,520 2.2 7,655

Source: Social and Economic Development Study Please note that figures may not sum due to rounding.

3.7 The table shows that, based on 3,520 new dwellings and a conservative estimate of

household of circa 2.2 persons per household, the proposal area could have a total

resident population of around 7,655 people. Adopting a higher average household size

would further increase the proposed population and amount of available expenditure

as a result of the proposal. To demonstrate this, Appendix 4 shows the additional

expenditure which could be generated by the proposal if we assume there will be an

average of 2.4 persons per household, all other assumptions being equal.

3.8 For the purpose of our retail assessment we have assumed a 15-20 year build out,

with half of new dwellings occupied by 2020, three quarters occupied by 2025 and the

remainder by 2030. However, it is a requirement for the new retail floorspace to be

developed as part of the first phase of the residential development in order to support

overall delivery of the scheme. As a result, the 2030 scenario should be the primary

consideration when assessing the potential impact of the proposal.

3.9 It must be stated that the proposed main town centre uses would not have a

disproportionately more significant impact on existing centres and stores outside of the

proposal prior to the occupation of all proposed residential dwellings because the share

of expenditure “diverted” to the proposal from the PCA is not linked to occupation of

the residential units. Rather, it is normal for first phase retail uses to trade below

company benchmarks until such time as the development is fully completed and able

to sustain expected trading levels. This is acknowledged by the Practice Guidance on

Need, Impact and the Sequential Approach, which recognises that “a retailer may be

content with accepting a lower turnover level for a new store than their company

average in order to gain representation in an area” (paragraph D.14).




3.10 Table 1 (Appendices 2 and 3) shows the total forecast population for the proposal

and the wider PCA based on the Experian ‘Retail Expenditure and Population Report’

(see Appendix 5). This is reproduced in Table 3.2 below.

Table 3.2 Population Projections for the Beyond Green scheme and PCA

Year Proposal Wider PCA Total

2012 0 17,948 17,948

2015 1,914 18,505 20,419

2020 3,828 19,444 23,272

2025 5,741 20,481 26,222

2030 7,655 21,444 29.099

Source: see Table 1 (Appendices 2 & 3) and Appendix 5.

Expenditure Forecasts

3.11 The assessment of the average retail (convenience and comparison goods) expenditure

per capital levels for the forecast population of the scheme and the wider PCA has

been informed by the latest Experian ‘Retail Expenditure and Population Reports’*.

Within the scheme, the average (yearly) expenditure is taken to be equivalent of the

2012 UK average (in 2010 prices), which is £1,912 for convenience goods and £2,989

for comparison goods. This is considered to be a robust and conservative estimate,

bearing in mind the quality and type of the residential units included in the proposal.

Within the PCA, the Experian per capita expenditure levels in 2012 (in 2010 prices) are

slightly lower at £1,871 for convenience goods and £3,002 for comparison goods.

3.12 Our estimates of the potential growth in expenditure up to 2030 are informed by the

latest forecasts produced by Experian Business Strategies (EBS) and Pitney Bowes

(PB), which are widely used for retail studies and retail planning assessments. In this

case we have assumed an average convenience growth rate of 0.5% between 2012

and 2018, growing slightly to 0.6% up to 2030. For comparison goods, we have

assumed a growth rate of 3.0% between 2012 and 2018, growing to 4.0% up to 2030.

3.13 In accordance with standard approaches, we have made an allowance for ‘special

forms of trading’ (SFT refers to non-store purchases, such as mail order and internet

shopping) over the forecast period. We have assumed that SFT accounts for 2.3% of

average convenience goods expenditure per capita levels in 2012, increasing to 3.3%

by 2025 and 3.5% by 2030. For comparison goods expenditure, we have assumed

* These are standard reports used for retail planning assessments and have been produced by Planning Perspectives

using our in-house Experian MMG3 Geographic Information System (GIS). All expenditure and monetary figures are

expressed in 2010 prices.




July 2012

14

SFT accounts for 5.5% of average expenditure in 2012, plateauing at 6% between

2025 and 2030.

3.14 The table below summarises the total available convenience and comparison goods

expenditure generated by the forecast population in the proposal area only (i.e.

excluding expenditure in the wider PCA and from outside of the assessment area).

Table 3.3 Beyond Green scheme - Expenditure (£m)

Year Convenience Expenditure Comparison Expenditure

2015 3.7 6.1

2020 7.5 14.7

2025 11.6 27.0

2030 15.9 43.8

Source: Appendices 2 and 3 (Table 3).

3.15 In addition to the above, Table 3 of Appendices 2 and 3 also demonstrate that there is

a substantial amount of convenience (£43.6) and comparison goods expenditure

(£123.1m) in the wider PCA by 2030, albeit only a proportion of this is expected to be

drawn to the proposed retail floorspace.

3.16 There is therefore a substantial quantum of local expenditure that could be available to

support new shops and stores within the development.

Total Available Expenditure

3.17 The following analysis draws on the population and expenditure growth forecasts to

provide a high level assessment of the proportion (‘market share’) of available

convenience and comparison goods expenditure within the proposed development and

wider PCA that new retail floorspace could reasonably draw.

3.18 For convenience goods we have assumed that the scale, type and mix of food and

convenience stores proposed for the scheme has the potential to retain approximately

60% of the expenditure generated by the new population. This is in accordance with

the “walkable neighbourhood” principle, however still allows for a reasonable 40%

‘leakage’ of shopping trips and expenditure to nearby centres and larger foodstores in

the wider catchment area. We have also assumed that food and convenience stores

within the scheme could achieve a 10% share of convenience goods expenditure from

the wider PCA.

3.19 For comparison goods we have assumed that the proposal will have a more limited role

and attraction. We have assumed that the non-food retailing will achieve a 25%

market share of available comparison goods expenditure from residents of the




proposed urban extension. Only 5% of total comparison goods expenditure from the

PCA is expected to be drawn to the proposal.

3.20 Due to the location of the proposed development along a major arterial route into

Norwich, it is estimated that a proportion of convenience and comparison expenditure

will come from drive-by traffic outside of the PCA. In order to capture this potential

expenditure, we have assumed that an additional 20% of total available convenience

and comparison expenditure will be derived from this source.

3.21 We consider that these are reasonable market share estimates and reflect the

objective to provide sustainable and convenient facilities to serve the day-to-day needs

of the local community whilst still respecting the attraction of existing retail provision

in the area.

3.22 The total estimated available convenience and comparison goods expenditure derived

from these assumptions is set out in Table 4 of Appendix 2 for convenience goods

and Table 4 of Appendix 3 for comparison goods. Based on these robust and

conservative assumptions, we conclude that by 2030 there will be approximately

£16.7m of available expenditure to support convenience goods floorspace in the

proposed development and £20.5m of available expenditure for comparison goods.

Estimated Turnover of Proposed Floorspace

3.23 For convenience goods, it is estimated that the turnover of all proposed new floorspace

will be circa £5,000/sqm in 2012, growing to 5,152/sqm by 2030. This is higher than

the estimated turnovers of new smaller foodstores (£4,122/sqm by 2016) estimated

by the 2007 NSRTCS (Appendix 9, Table 36). Applying these estimates, the total

convenience goods elements of the proposal would result in a turnover of £13.2m by

2030.

3.24 In order to be robust, we have also tested the proposed foodstore element of the

proposal using a higher proposed average turnover (Table 6, Appendix 2). Assuming

this element of the proposal trades 30% higher (at circa £6,500/sqm in 2012), the

total turnover of all proposed convenience floorspace would be £15.5m by 2030. Even

assuming this higher turnover, there would be a surplus of £1.2m of available

convenience goods expenditure in 2030 to support all convenience floorspace

proposed.

3.25 For comparison goods, it is estimated that the proposed turnover of new floorspace will

be circa £5,000/sqm in 2012, growing to £6,886/sqm by 2030. Applying these

estimates, the total turnover of the comparison goods element of the proposal would

be £9.3m in 2015, growing to £12.4m in 2030.

3.26 Please note the sales density applied is lower than the £6,704/sqm estimated for new

comparison goods floorspace by the 2007 NSRTCS (Appendix 8, Table 16), however it




July 2012

16

is considered appropriate bearing in mind the minimal scale and overall amount of

comparison goods floorspace proposed.

3.27 Notwithstanding this, in order to be robust we have undertaken a sensitivity

assessment assuming that the proposed floorspace operates 20% above estimated

turnover levels (circa £6,000/sqm in 2012). Even assuming this higher floorspace

figure, by 2030 there would be a surplus of £5.6m of available expenditure to support

the maximum amount of comparison goods floorspace proposed.

3.28 Again, it must be reiterated that proposed main town centre uses would not have a

disproportionately more significant impact on existing centres and stores outside of the

proposal prior to the occupation of all proposed residential dwellings because the share

of expenditure “diverted” to the proposal from the PCA is not linked to occupation of

the residential units. Rather, it is normal for first phase retail uses to trade below

company benchmarks until such time as the development is fully completed and able

to sustain expected trading levels.

Market Share from Total Expenditure

3.29 Tables 5 of Appendices 2 and 3 also show the total market share the proposed

convenience and comparison goods elements of the proposal will have in the context of

total expenditure from the proposal and wider PCA.

3.30 The convenience goods element of the proposal could account for circa 21% of total

convenience goods expenditure within the proposal and wider PCA by 2030. Assuming

the higher sales density assessed as part of the sensitivity analysis, this could be up to

circa 25%.

3.31 The comparison goods element of the proposal could account for 7% of total

comparison goods expenditure within the proposal and wider PCA by 2030. This would

rise to circa 9% assuming the higher turnover level (used during the sensitivity

analysis) for proposed floorspace.

3.32 Even assuming high (sensitivity) turnover levels, it is considered that the amount of

floorspace proposed would not result in an inappropriate market share of convenience

or comparison goods expenditure in the proposal or wider area.

Higher Occupancy Rate: Sensitivity Testing

3.33 As shown in Appendix 4, adopting a slightly higher estimated occupancy rate of 2.4

persons per household would result in approximately £2.6m of additional available

expenditure to support new development here by 2030, all other assumptions being

equal.




Summary

3.34 Based on the population and expenditure growth forecasts, and our robust market

share assumptions, we conclude that there will be sufficient population and

expenditure growth within the proposed development to support 4,840 sqm (GIA) of

Class A1 convenience and comparison floorspace.

3.35 We anticipate that approximately £7m of the total turnover of the proposed

convenience retail units could come from outside of the proposed development. This

impact would be spread across the main and out-of-centre foodstore destinations

within the Primary Catchment Area and across the wider as a whole and would not

have a significant impact on any existing centres. Most importantly, this figure must be

considered in the context of the £6.5m of additional convenience goods expenditure

and nearly £33m of additional comparison goods expenditure which we have estimated

will not be accommodated by the proposal. This additional expenditure represents a

net increase which could be attracted by nearby centres that may represent a more

sustainable shopping destination for new residents (such as, in the case of comparison

goods particularly, Norwich City Centre).

3.36 Furthermore, this application must be considered in the context of an overall stated

requirement for an additional 6,981 – 20,942 sqm (net) new convenience goods

floorspace and 67,918 sqm (net) for new comparison goods floorspace in the Norwich

urban area by 2021 according to the results of the 2007 NSRTCS, even without

considering this additional expenditure generated as a result of major housing growth.

POTENTIAL IMPACT ON PLANNED AND COMMITTED

INVESTMENT

3.37 Anglia Square falls within the northern edge of Norwich City Centre and is designated

as a Large District Centre by the Joint Core Strategy. The area has been earmarked by

the previous Local Plan and Joint Core Strategy for major mixed-use redevelopment of

employment, shopping (including a replacement anchor foodstore) and leisure uses

and services with an element of residential.

3.38 In June 2011, Norwich City Council supported plans for a £100m revamp of Anglia

Square Shopping Centre, including widespread demolition of the existing shopping

centre and the seven-storey Sovereign House office block at Anglia Square/Magdalen

Street. The plans include a larger shopping centre comprising 16,433 sqm (net) A1-A4

floorspace (including a foodstore of 7,792 sqm (net), a gym and more than 100 new

residential units.

3.39 The proposed urban extension to the north east of Norwich serves a different function

and purpose than the plans for Anglia Square. With respect to convenience goods

floorspace, due to the naturally constrained distance people will reasonably travel to

undertake this type of shopping, there is currently very limited scope for existing or




July 2012

18

proposed expenditure to be attracted to existing or new floorspace in Anglia Square.

With respect to comparison goods expenditure generated by the proposal, we

anticipate only a small proportion will be retained by proposed comparison goods

floorspace in the proposal. This will effectively create an overall net increase in

available comparison goods expenditure in the area, which could be reasonably

attracted to Anglia Square.

3.40 In addition, and as stated elsewhere in this assessment, there is a significant overall

net requirement for convenience (6,981 – 20,942 sqm net), comparison (67,918 sqm

net) and office (100,000 sqm) floorspace in Norwich Urban Area by 2016, not taking

into account additional expenditure generated by the proposed urban extension. Upon

implementation of Anglia Square, there will continue to be a significant need across

these categories.

3.41 The proposed floorspace is appropriate in terms of its scale, uses and offer to

principally meet the day-to-day needs of the new local community and catchment. It

will not therefore have the critical mass of retailing or turnover to jeopardise any

planned investment in the City Centre or other centres, and it will not harm their

overall vitality and viability.

3.42 We are not aware of any other planned or committed public or private investment in

either the Norwich centre or any of District or Local Centre in the Primary Catchment

Area of the proposal.

3.43 We therefore conclude that the proposal will not have a significant adverse impact on

planning or committed private or public investment.

POTENTIAL IMPACT ON TOWN CENTRE VITALITY, VIABILITY AND CONSUMER CHOICE AND TRADE

3.44 As the application is for retail, leisure and office development outside of a defined town

centre and elements of the proposal are above the default threshold of 2,500 sqm, this

assessment considers the potential impact of the proposed development on town

centre vitality, viability and consumer choice and trade in the catchment area of the

proposal.

3.45 Only a limited amount of trade is expected to be drawn from the Primary Catchment

Area of the proposal. However, the PCA includes the following adopted centres which

will be considered here in terms of potential impact: Old Catton District Centre and

Spixworth Village Centre.

3.46 Although outside of the reasonable catchment area of the proposal, in order to be

robust we have also considered any potential impact on the Large District Centre of

Sprowston Local Centre, Anglia Square/Magdalen Street, and Norwich City Centre. In

addition, the assessment considers potential impact on Blue Boar Lane even though it

is not a defined District Centre.




Old Catton – The Paddocks

3.47 Old Catton is located on the edge of Norwich’s urban area to the north of the A1042

ring road. It is defined as a District Centre in the Broadland (Replacement) Local Plan

and JCS and serves a predominantly suburban residential population. It is purpose-

built and opened in the 1960s. It has an extensive surface car park adjacent to the

centre, part of which has been developed for new residential use.

3.48 The table below shows the retail composition of the centre, based on the findings of

the 2007 Norwich Sub-Region Retail and Town Centre Study (2007 NSRTCS).

Table 3.4 Old Catton Retail Profile in 2007/08

Retail

Category

Number of

Units

% of Units National

Average %

Floorspace

(m2 net)

% of

Floorspace

2007/08

National

Average %

Convenience 1 14 9.1 1,421 76 16.6

Comparison 3 43 46.4 286 16 51.6

Service 3 43 32.6 127 7 21.5

Vacant 0 0 10.5 0 0 8.9

Total 7 100% 100% 1,833 100% 100%

Source: Norwich Sub-Region Retail & Town Centre Study 2007

3.49 The centre’s food and convenience offer consists of a Morrison’s supermarket (formerly

Somerfield). According to company averages, it had an average turnover of circa

£6.8m at the time of the 2007 NSRTCS. The household survey commissioned to inform

the 2007 NSRTCS pre-dated the opening of the Co-op, but it identified that the

majority of people using the (Somerfield) supermarket in Old Catton lived in Zone 6,

from where it achieved a market share of 6.1% for ‘main’ food shopping trips and

21.7% for ‘top-up’ food shopping. It also drew shoppers from Zone 11, with 6.3%

using Somerfield for their main food shopping and 13.6% for their top-up food

shopping†. According to the results of the survey, the store had a turnover of

approximately £6m in 2006 and was therefore trading slightly below the company

average.

3.50 There is an adjoining parade of local shops, which in 2007 included a hardware shop, a

Sue Ryder charity shop, a Lloyds pharmacy, two hairdressers and a Chinese takeaway.

Significantly, there were no vacant units in the centre in 2007.

3.51 The 2007 NSRTCS concluded that the centre was vital and viable, as indicated by the

lack of vacancies. It also concluded that the centre “...would benefit from investment

† Please note that we have not been able to obtain a copy of a plan showing the household survey zones at this stage.




July 2012

20

in its environment and public realm. There could also be potential to introduce living

above shops”.

3.52 As of April 2012, other than the Morrisons, there have been no changes in occupiers.

Significantly, there continue to be no vacancies. The introduction of the Morrisons

appears to have improved attraction of the centre, particularly as it is the one of only

two Morrisons in Norwich Urban Area, and the only Morrisons in the northern half of

the GNDP.

3.53 Overall, Old Catton continues to provide essential convenience and service offer to its

local population and is easily accessible from neighbouring residential areas by a range

of transport modes. The supermarket is an important and well used anchor to the

centre. The centre continues to appear vital and viable.

3.54 Although there may be some diversion of trade as a result of the proposal, this will be

minimal and offset by additional available expenditure derived from the new housing

here which may look to Old Catton (and in particular, the Morrisons) to supplement

their local needs. This “leakage” of trade from the proposal area is taken into account

in the economic assessment, which assumes that 40% of total convenience trade will

not be “captured” by proposed convenience floorspace.

3.55 The application also includes plans for a walkable retail link to Old Catton Centre. This

would result in up to an additional 300 sqm of retail floorspace located on the new

frontages to the Spixworth/Buxton Road created by the development which will extend

the reach of the retail area northwards and thus directly link to and support the

position of Old Catton as a District Centre in the retail hierarchy.

3.56 We therefore consider that the proposal will have a significant positive improvement in

Old Catton.

Spixworth Village Centre

3.57 Spixworth is located to the north of the Norwich Urban Area and is allocated as a

Village Centre by the (Replacement) Local Plan. It consists of a small Co-Op foodstore

of circa 450 sqm (net), off licence, pharmacy, two takeaways and taxi rank. There is

one vacancy (a former Bakers). The small size of the centre is such that it was not

assessed as part of the 2007 NSRTCS.

3.58 It is anticipated that the proposal will likely attract an element of expenditure from

residents of Spixworth, as it may become a more convenient and sustainable

destination for accessing necessary facilities. However, the centre’s primary role is as a

local-top up shopping destination for immediate residents. This role would not change

as a result of the proposal.

3.59 There is therefore no evidence that the proposal will result in a significant negative

impact on Spixworth Village.




Sprowston Local Centre

3.60 Sprowston Local Centre is allocated in the (Replacement) Local Plan Proposals Map and

is located along Corbet Avenue. Like Spixworth, due to its minimal size it was not

assessed as part of the 2007 NSRTCS.

3.61 As of April 2012 the centre consisted of and convenience store, butchers, garden

centre, beauty parlour, insurance agents, funeral parlour and garden centre. There

was one vacancy (a former office). However, the centre’s primary role is as a local-top

up shopping destination for immediate residents. This role would not change as a

result of the proposal.


impact on Sprowston Local Centre.

Anglia Square

3.63 Anglia Square is allocated as a Large District Centre by the JCS. It is located 3 miles

south of the proposal site and is outside of the PCA. As such, it is considered too far

away and inaccessible to serve the local needs of the new development.

3.64 The shopping centre consists of a dated shopping centre which is primarily branded as

a “discount” destination. Current occupiers include Poundstretcher, QD Super Centre,

Savers PLC, Discount Shoe Zone, Barnardos Charity Store and Iceland. The current

mix is therefore qualitatively different than that proposed in the proposal site.

3.65 There are plans for redevelopment of the centre to provide a new mixed use

development including a larger replacement foodstore. However, these have

temporarily stalled due to the impact of the economic recession.

3.66 The proposed development will not have a negative impact on the existing centre nor

plans for the future the regeneration of the wider area for mixed use development.

Indeed, the proposal will create additional comparison goods expenditure which could

be attracted to the area and help support new and proposed floorspace.

Blue Boar Lane, Sprowston

3.67 Blue Boar Lane is located on the northern edge of the Norwich Urban Area on the

A1151 Wroxham Road. It does not currently fulfil the role of a District Centre and is

instead identified as a “potential district centre” in the Broadland Local Plan.

3.68 Its retail offer essentially consists of a Tesco Extra superstore, which opened in 1988

and originally comprised 4,674m2 net of floorspace. The store was extended and now

comprises some 6,182m2 net of retail floorspace of which approximately 35% (1,234

sqm net) is for non-food goods. The household survey carried out to inform the 2007

NSRTCS indicated that Tesco Extra draws main and top-up food shopping trips from

across the survey area, particularly from Zones 1-10. The zones with the highest




July 2012

22

markets shares for main food shopping are Zone 3 (23.7%), Zone 7 (44.4%), Zone 8

(36.4%), and Zone 10 (36.2%). The store also has a good market share for top-up

food shopping in Zone 7 (25%).

3.69 The estimated average turnover of the store according to the 2007 NSRTCS was circa

£50m. As of 2007, the store was trading well above company averages (at circa £60m

in 2006) and this was expected to increase (to £63m by 2011). The store continues to

be well used and we consider that it still trades above benchmark.

3.70 Complementary retail units are located within the Tesco store. As of April 2012, these

consist of a Timpsons, Thomas Cook, Dry cleaners and Estate Agents. There is also a

café, petrol station and a large car park.

3.71 We expect that a proportion of existing convenience trade to the Tesco will be diverted

to the proposal, as it will represent a more sustainable option for proposed and

existing local residents for undertaking their convenience goods shopping. However,

the store is currently significantly overtrading and any trade diverted would be minimal

both overall and in comparison to the total turnover of the store.

3.72 Furthermore, notwithstanding the primary goal of creating walkable communities

which provide for the day to day needs of residents, we anticipate that there will be a

proportion of trade which will “leak” from the proposal. This could be in the form of

more “bulky” convenience goods shopping, which we could be directed to the Tesco

Extra at Blue Boar Lane.


impact on the vitality or viability of the proposed centre.

NORWICH CITY CENTRE

3.74 As described above, Norwich City Centre is too far away to be accessible to serve the

local, day to day needs of the local population. However, it remains the primary

comparison goods retail destination in the area and as such is expected to attract the

majority of non-food purchases from the proposal. This is reflected in the capacity

tables which estimate that only 25% of comparison goods expenditure will retained by

the proposal, with the £34m by 2030 unaccounted for. The proposal therefore

represents a net increase in comparison goods expenditure available to support new

floorspace in the town centre.

3.75 With respect to offices, the scale of floorspace proposed as part of the development is

only a fraction of overall existing and required office floorspace in the Norwich Urban

Area.




Table 3.5 Greater Norwich Office Stock, 2001 - 2011

‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07/08 ‘08/09 ‘09/10 ‘10/11

Sqm 100,893 105,910 107,489 112,134 119,380 119,009 (+6,276)

125,285

(+13,205)

138,490

(+657)

139,147

(+2,404)

141,551

Source: Data from 2001 to 2006 taken from Economic Assessment of Greater Norwich (August

2009). Data from 2007/2008 to present taken from GNDP Annual Monitoring Report 2010-2011.

Please note AMR figures show completions only.

3.76 Table 3.5 above shows the total amount of office floorspace in Norwich according to

the results of the Economic Assessment of Greater Norwich (August 2009) and the

results of the most recent GNDP Annual Monitoring Report.

3.77 More importantly, it is relevant to note that the JCS identifies a significant need for

new office floorspace (250,000 sqm) across the GNDP area up to 2026, which is

directed to Norwich city centre (100,000 sqm), Norwich Research Park and Broadland

Business Park (paragraph 6.10). This requirement is carried forward from the Greater

Norwich Employment Growth Study (September 2008), which identified more than

370,000 sqm (circa 4 million sqft) of office stock in Norwich and a “significant latent

demand for city centre space.”

3.78 Taking into account existing office stock at 2011 and planned growth in office

floorspace as directed by the JCS between 2011 and 2026, the total amount of office

floorspace in the GNDP area by 2026 will be circa 391,500 sqm. The proposed

floorspace envisioned for the NS&OC Urban Extension would represent less than 5% of

existing stock. The proposal will primarily serve the surrounding residents and will not

compete with existing or proposed floorspace in the city centre. We therefore judge

that there will be no significant negative impact of the proposal.

SUMMARY

3.79 The proposed retail floorspace is strategically located and designed to promote a

significant proportion of walk-in trips from the local residential areas, as well as

attracting trips by public transport and other modes of travel. It will therefore function

as highly sustainable development in accordance with policy objectives.

3.80 The proposal will support a commercially viable anchor supermarket to meet the day-

to-day needs of the new and existing local population, as well as generate the

necessary critical mass of linked trips, footfall and expenditure to support other shops,

services and facilities on the proposed High Street.

3.81 Overall, we estimate that circa 20% of the turnover of the proposed convenience

floorspace could come from outside of the proposal. Of this, a large proportion of this

would be from drive-by traffic, the impact of which would be diversified across a wide

geographical area. The remainder of this would be diverted from areas to which the




July 2012

24

proposal would represent a more sustainable destination for shopping (such as the

Tesco at Blue Boar Lane, which is significantly overtrading).

3.82 The proposal should also be considered in the context of the significant overall

requirement for new convenience, comparison and office floorspace in Norwich Urban

Area. This is without taking into account the additional expenditure and job

requirements as a result of new residential floorspace proposed.

3.83 Furthermore, proposed floorspace will provide local choice and sustainable access to

important services for proposed and existing residents in the local area, in accordance

with the overall vision of the NPPF.




4.0 SEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT

4.1 As described elsewhere in this report, the level, mix and location of proposed main

town centre floorspace is to support and encourage the creation of walkable

neighbourhoods which provide for the day to day shopping, business, and leisure

needs of the proposed population and nearby local residents. It is therefore considered

inappropriate to locate these facilities elsewhere.

4.2 Furthermore, following a judicial review raised by Tesco Ltd against the decision of

Dundee City Council to grant Asda a planning permission for a new store in the west of

Dundee, a recent Supreme Court judgement has set out further detail with respect to

the application of the sequential test. Specifically, the judgement provides clarification

that the test of suitability must be “whether an alternative site is suitable for the

proposed development, not whether the proposed development can be altered or

reduced so that it can be made to fit an alternative site.” In addition, “criteria are

designed for use in the real world in which developers wish to operate, not some

artificial world in which they have no interest in doing so.” In the case of the present

application, the purpose of the main town centre uses proposed is to provide for a

range of necessary facilities for the proposed urban extension. The disaggregation of

the individual components of this application as part of the sequential test would be

contrary to the overall purpose of the proposed development.

4.3 Notwithstanding this, to be strictly in accordance with the sequential, test, this study

has reviewed opportunity sites identified by the 2007 NSRTCS as being potentially

suitable for main town centre uses. However, as the primary function and purpose of

proposed floorspace is to serve the day to day needs of the local population, these

sites are considered too far, inaccessible to serve the day to day needs of the proposed

development, and therefore unsuitable to accommodate the main town centre

floorspace proposed:

• Chantry Car Park: is approximately 0.24ha and located within Norwich City Centre, but outside the primary shopping area. It is currently used as a surface car park and the adopted Local Plan specifies that redevelopment of the site should be for a mixture of retail, leisure and/or restaurant uses with residential uses above and replacement car parking. The site is considered slightly off the retail pitch and was identified by the 2007 study as being more suitable for commercial leisure uses. We are not aware of any interest in developing the site since the 2007 NSRTCS. The site is unsuitable due to its location.

• Norwich Union Offices: is located on the southern edge of the city centre boundary. Furthermore, the site has recently benefited from a £69m refurbishment. The site is therefore not available for alternative development.

• Westlegate: is a circa 0.13ha site located with the Norwich Primary Retail Area and currently comprises a vacant office block. The Council has recently granted permission for conversion into 14 flats. The site is therefore both unsuitable and unavailable. Furthermore, the permission has reduced office stock.

• Ber Street/Rouen Road: is located to the south of Norwich, within the city centre boundary. It is currently used as Eastern Evening News Offices, The Woolpack Public House and several smaller units. It has been identified in the




July 2012

26

2007 NSRTCS as having the potential for a mix of residential, retail, office and/or leisure uses, potentially including a 4/5 star hotel. We are not of any further discussion on this or of any interest from Eastern Evening News Offices for relocation. The site is therefore both unsuitable and unavailable to accommodate the proposed development.

• Fire Station: is a small, Grade II listed building located to the rear of Norwich City Hall. It ceased operation for fire services in 2011 and has been granted planning permission for residential flats and offices. In addition to being unsuitable due to its location, it is also unavailable for the proposed development.

• Anglia Square: is identified in the JCS as being suitable for the delivery of a new (replacement) foodstore significantly larger than that proposed on the proposal site. As described above, it is considered that the site would be suitable for a mixed use development including residential, retail, leisure, open space, car parking and office uses. The Planning Committee approved plans in June 2011, however these have stalled due to economic uncertainty surrounding the recession. There is more than sufficient capacity to accommodate redevelopment of Anglia Square and capacity for comparison goods floorspace in particular will increase as a result of the proposal. The site remains unsuitable to accommodate the proposed development due to its inaccessible location.

• Barn Road Car Park: is a 0.42ha site located within the western edge of Norwich City Centre. It is currently used as a Council owned car park, which would require re-provision should the site come forward for alternative development. The NSRTCS considers there is potential for the site to come forward either alone or in conjunction with adjacent Cathedral Retail Park for larger and more modern retail units. The site is unsuitable to accommodate the proposed development.

• Barn Road/Timber Yard: is located outside of the city centre boundary, nearby the Barn Road Car Park site. It is currently used for light industrial purposes and owned by Cushions Timber Merchants. It is identified for potential for retail warehousing by the 2007 RS, however it is currently unavailable and no discussions have taken place for redevelopment.

• Hall Road Retail Warehouse Park: the site is located to the south of Norwich near Old Lakenham and is therefore considered too far to be considered accessible.

• Hall Road District Centre: is located to the south of Norwich City Centre and is allocated in the Local Plan as a New District Centre. It is allocated by Policy SH013 of the Replacement local Plan for a foodstore of no more than 1,300 sqm (net) with at least three local shops of no more than 500 sqm (net) each, residential or office use on upper floorspace and appropriate service uses. The site is also unsuitable due to its location.

4.4 In addition to the above, the NSRTCS identifies the potential for future expansion of

Aylsham Road District Centre, to the north west of Norwich City Centre. The Norwich

Local Plan sets out proposals for the future expansion, which could take the form of

development along Aylsham Road to link the existing centre with a (currently) out of

centre Lidl store. The site is outside of the PCA of the proposal and is therefore

inaccessible for local day to day needs. As a result, it is unsuitable to accommodate

the proposed development.

4.5 Although it is not allocated as a District Centre and is therefore, strictly speaking, not a

“centre” for the purposes of the Sequential Assessment, the area of land around Blue

Boar Lane is set aside for the future extension and expansion of this area. A

Development Brief was approved in 2007 and sets out broad guidance on the location

and connections between proposed new development. The centre is currently

considered insufficient to be allocated a “district centre” due to the predominance of




the retail (in the form of the Tesco store) and a lack of suitable supplementary

facilities. It therefore stands to reason that the majority of new development will be

required for services and facilities other than retail. This site is considered unavailable

to contain the proposed development and unsuitable due to its location outside a

reasonable walking distance from the proposed development.

4.6 In conclusion, the above sites are considered fundamentally unsuitable to contain the

proposed development. The retail, services, leisure and office floorspace proposed are

of a small scale and are considered important to support and encourage the creation of

walkable neighbourhoods, a fundamental design tenant of the sustainable urban

extension proposed here. There are therefore no sites in or at the edge of existing

centres which are considered suitable to accommodate the proposed development.




July 2012

28

5.0 THE QUALITATIVE NEED FOR NEW SHOPPING FACILITIES

5.1 This section identifies the qualitative need for new shopping provision to be provided

as an integral part of the proposed residential development. It describes the broad

characteristics, uses and facilities that are typical of smaller shopping facilities.

5.2 The smaller centres in the Norwich urban area primarily meet the day-to-day

shopping, service business, health and community needs of their local residential

catchment populations. Each centre’s retail offer is anchored by a food store. These

stores are vital to the overall attraction, performance, vitality and viability of the

centres as they generate frequent trips for main food and ‘top-up’ (basket) shopping,

as well as linked trips and ‘spin-off’ expenditure to other shops, service businesses and

facilities.

5.3 New shopping and community facilities proposed as part of Beyond Green’s scheme

will meet the day-to-day needs of the new population in an easily accessible and highly

sustainable location. In order to generate trips, footfall and expenditure, the proposal

will provide a ‘critical mass’ of facilities and services. This in turn will help to underpin

the commercial viability and sustainability of complementary main town centre

floorspace proposed.

5.4 The centre’s vitality and viability will depend on it being able to attract a food store

operator as a priority to anchor the overall retail and service offer. The anchor store

will help to generate the critical number and frequency of trips by different modes of

travel, which will in turn benefit other shops, businesses and facilities through linked

trips and expenditure.

5.5 If trips are to be minimised than the main town centre uses proposed must be of

sufficient scale, quantity and quality to be attractive to residents.

5.6 Research has shown that smaller shopping schemes need to provide a number of other

‘core’ shops, services and facilities to be viable. These can include, inter alia, banks

and building societies; cafes, restaurants and at least one public house; a library; a

post office; a newsagents; chemists/pharmacy; and health facilities (such as a doctor’s

surgery, dentist, opticians, etc).

5.7 The ‘Urban Design Compendium’ is produced by the Homes and Communities Agency

and sets out best practice guidance how to deliver high quality and sustainable places.

One of the key principles covered in the UDC is the benefits of mixed-use centres and

how design principles can lay the foundation for the creation of healthy and vital

communities. The UDC recognises the importance of providing sufficient facilities

within a close distance of residential dwellings, stating that “residential areas can

support a significant floor area of convenience goods and services. Every effort should

be made to retain as many of these uses as possible within the neighbourhood. This




can be aided by ensuring that densities are company, the quality of the services, and

both quality and convenience of the built environment area right (paragraph 2.3.2).

5.8 The UDC also recognises that the range of facilities promoted in a new neighbourhood

is unlikely to be viable in the early phases of the project. However “increasing the

number of facilities or opportunities available and accessible to potential occupiers or

users in a new development will increase how they perceive the quality of life that the

place offers” (2.3.2).

5.9 Another study, ‘Shaping Neighbourhoods’ (2003), provides further evidence as to the

services and facilities most likely to be used if they are provided locally, based on

selected case study estates in the Bristol sub-region. As Table 3.2 below shows, the

most frequented local services include supermarkets, secondary schools, newsagents,

post offices and health centres.

Table 5.1 Percentage of Trips to Facilities

Service % of trips to local

facilities when

provided locally

Service % of trips to local

facilities when

provided locally

Supermarket 70 – 80

Secondary School 60 - 70 Play Area 40 – 50

Newsagent 60 – 70 Community Centre 40 – 50

Post Office 60 – 70 Public House 40 – 50

Health Centre 60 – 70 Open Space 30 – 40

Doctor 50 – 60 Church 20 – 30

Food Shop 50 – 60 Library 10 – 20

Chemist 40 - 50 Dentist 10 – 20

Primary School 40 - 50 Leisure Facility 0 – 10

5.10 It is widely recognised that the creation of successful places is dependent upon

providing a mix of uses which link to and feed into each other, providing an

opportunity for residents and visitors to access required services and facilities in a

central space which also provides the opportunity interaction and the creation of a

community spirit.




July 2012

30

6.0 CONCLUSION

6.1 Based on the population and expenditure growth forecasts, and our robust market

share assumptions, we conclude that there will be sufficient population and

expenditure growth within the proposed development to support 4,840 sqm (GIA) of

Class A1 convenience and comparison floorspace by the expected completion of the

proposal in 2030.

6.2 The scale and mix of retail, leisure and office space proposed is considered appropriate

to support the creation of a sustainable and vibrant mixed use community. However, in

line with best practice, the proposed townhouses in and around the central areas of

the activity centres of the scheme are adaptable in order to allow the scheme to adapt

to and respond to changes over time. Part of the scheme includes the retention of

ownership and/or use of short leases to preserve flexibility and allow the amount of

retail/commercial uses to flex and contract according to demand. This physical

framework will help prevent the scheme being locked into a “predict-and-provide”

approach to retail and simulate the gradual change over time characteristic of

successful traditional high streets. At the same time, the need to apply for change of

use consents will ensure there is appropriate planning control of that evolutionary

process.

6.3 With respect to the NPPF impact tests, we have reviewed committed or planned public

and private investment in the area and concluded that none will be prejudiced by the

proposal. Indeed, the proposal will have a positive impact by generating additional

available expenditure to support the demand for the delivery of new committed

floorspace in the City Centre.

6.4 The results of our economic model demonstrate that only a small proportion of trade is

likely to be drawn to the proposal area from the wider catchment area. Furthermore,

this potential trade “draw” (of circa £7m) is significantly less than the estimated £6.5m

of new convenience expenditure and £33m of new comparison goods expenditure

which is not expected to be retained by the new proposal. This results in a net increase

in the amount of available expenditure which could be drawn to existing nearby

centres which may be a more sustainable destination for facilities or services (such as,

for comparison goods shopping in particular, Norwich City Centre). We have also

reviewed the health and role of existing centres within and adjacent to the PCA of the

proposal and there is no evidence that any centre will have a significant negative

impact as a result of the proposal.

6.5 With respect to the NPPF sequential test, the purpose of the proposed main town

centre uses is to enable the creation of sustainable “walking neighbourhoods” which

provide access to necessary facilities and services within close proximity of proposed

and existing residents. Therefore, the location of these proposed uses elsewhere in the




Norwich Urban Area would be contrary to the fundamental principle of the

development. Notwithstanding this, the study reviewed a list of opportunity sites

identified by the 2007 NSRTCS and concluded that the sites were not sequentially

preferable to accommodate the retail, leisure and office uses proposed.

6.6 We therefore conclude that the scale and extent of proposed town centre uses are

appropriate, necessary and meet the relevant tests of the NPPF.




July 2012

32

7.0 GLOSSARY & ABBREVIATIONS

DISTRICT CENTRE

(PPS4 DEFINITION)

Usually comprise groups of shops often containing at least one

supermarket or superstore, and a range of non-retail services,

such as banks, building societies and restaurants, as well as local

public facilities, such as a library.

LOCAL CENTRE

(PPS4 DEFINITION)

Include a range of small shops of a local nature, serving a small

catchment. Typically, local centres might include, amongst other

shops a small supermarket, a newsagent, a sub-post office and a

pharmacy. Other facilities could include a hot-food takeaway and

launderette. In rural areas large villages may perform the role of

a local centre.

TOWN CENTRE

BOUNDARY

(PPS4 DEFINITION)

Defined area, including the primary shopping area and areas of

predominantly leisure, business and other main town centre uses

within or adjacent to the primary shopping area. The extent of

the town centre should be defined on a proposals map.

PRIMARY SHOPPING

AREA (PSA)

(PPS4 DEFINITION)

Defined area where retail development is concentrated (generally

comprising the primary and those secondary frontages which are

contiguous and closely related to the primary shopping frontage).

The extent of the primary shopping area should be defined on

the proposals map. Smaller centres may not have areas of

predominantly leisure, business and other main town centre uses

adjacent to the primary shopping area, therefore the town centre

may not extend beyond the primary shopping area.

PRIMARY / SECONDARY

FRONTAGES

Primary frontages are likely to include a high proportion of retail

uses. Secondary frontages provide greater opportunities for a

diversity of uses.

EDGE-OF-CENTRE For retail purposes, a location that is well connected to and

within easy walking distance (i.e. up to 300 metres) of the

primary shopping area. For all other main town centre uses, this

is likely to be within 300 metres of a town centre boundary. In

determining whether a site falls within the definition of edge-of-

centre, account should be taken of local circumstances. For

example, local topography will affect pedestrians’ perceptions of

easy walking distance from the centre. Other considerations

include barriers, such as crossing major roads and car parks, the

attractiveness and perceived safety of the route and the strength

of attraction and size of the town centre. A site will not be well

connected to a centre where it is physically separated from it by

a barrier such as a major road, railway line or river and there is

no existing or proposed pedestrian route which provides safe and

convenient access to the centre.

OUT-OF-CENTRE A location which is not in or on the edge of a centre but not

necessarily outside the urban area.

OUT-OF-TOWN An out-of-centre development outside the existing urban area.

CONVENIENCE

SHOPPING

Convenience retailing is the provision of everyday essential

items, including food, drinks, newspapers/magazines and

confectionery.

MARKET SHARE Market share or retention level is the proportion of consumer

expenditure within a given area taken by a particular town centre

or shopping facility.




SUPERMARKETS Self-service stores selling mainly food, with a trading floorspace

less than 2,500 square metres, often with car parking.

SUPERSTORES Self-service stores selling mainly food, or food and non-food

goods, usually with more than 2,500 square metres trading

floorspace, with supporting car parking.

COMPARISON SHOPPING Comparison retailing is the provision of items not obtained on a

frequent basis. These include clothing, footwear, household and

recreational goods.

RETAIL WAREHOUSES Large stores specialising in the sale of household goods (such as

carpets, furniture and electrical goods), DIY items and other

ranges of goods, catering mainly for car-borne customers.

RETAIL PARKS An agglomeration of at least 3 retail warehouses.

CONVENIENCE GOODS

EXPENDITURE

Expenditure (including VAT as applicable) on goods in COICOP

categories: Food and non-alcoholic beverages/ Tobacco/

Alcoholic beverages (off-trade)/ Newspapers and periodicals/

Non-durable household goods.

COMPARISON GOODS

EXPENDITURE

Expenditure (including VAT as applicable) on goods in COICOP

Categories: Clothing materials & garments/ Shoes & other

footwear/ Materials for maintenance & repair of dwellings/

Furniture & furnishings/ carpets & other floor coverings/

Household textiles/ Major household appliances, whether electric

or not/ Small electric household appliances/ Tools &

miscellaneous accessories/ Glassware, tableware & household

utensils/ Medical goods & other pharmaceutical products/

Therapeutic appliances & equipment, Bicycles/ Recording media,

Games, toys & hobbies/ sport & camping equipment/ musical

instruments/ Gardens, plants & flowers/ Pets & related products/

Books & stationery/ Audio-visual, photographic and information

processing equipment/ Appliances for personal care/ Jewellery,

watches & clocks/ Other personal effects.

SPECIAL FORMS OF

TRADING

All retail sales not in shops and stores; including sales via the

internet, mail order, TV shopping, party plan, vending machines,

door-to-door and market stalls.

GROSS GROUND FLOOR

FOOTPRINT FLOORSPACE

The area shown on the Ordnance Survey map or other plans as

being occupied by buildings and covered areas measured

externally.

GROSS RETAIL

FLOORSPACE

The total built floor area measured externally which is occupied

exclusively by a retailer or retailers; excluding open areas used

for the storage, display or sale of goods.

NET RETAIL SALES AREA The sales area within a building (i.e. all internal areas accessible

to the customer), but excluding checkouts, lobbies, concessions,

restaurants, customer toilets and walkways behind the

checkouts.

RETAIL SALES DENSITY Convenience goods, comparison goods or all goods retail sales

(stated as including or excluding VAT) for a specified year on the

price basis indicated, divided by the net retail sales area

generating those sales.

FLOORSPACE

EFFICIENCY FACTOR

The percentage by which a retail sales density is assumed to

increase annually in real terms over a stated period.

– END –




July 2012

34

APPENDIX 1: PRIMARY CATCHMENT AREA




APPENDIX 2: CONVENIENCE GOODS RETAIL CAPACITY

ASSESSMENT




July 2012

36




APPENDIX 3: COMPARISON GOODS RETAIL CAPACITY

ASSESSMENT




July 2012

38




APPENDIX 4: HIGHER OCCUPANCY RATE SENSITIVITY

ANALYSIS




July 2012

40




July 2012

42

APPENDIX 5: EXPERIAN POPULATION AND EXPENDITURE

REPORTS FOR PRIMARY CATCHMENT AREA

Area Profile ReportTarget Area(s): Layers; Base Area(s): Standard Geography; United KingdomSorted On: Default (Ascending)Date: 11/06/2012

Retail Planner

Consumer Retail Expenditure (Coarse)

2010 Total Expenditure (in 2010 prices)

Target Target % Base Base % PenetrationTotal RetailTotal Comparison 52,637,624 60.94 182,308,788,482 59.98 0.029Total Convenience 33,739,746 39.06 121,651,861,724 40.02 0.028

Total Retail 86,377,370 100.00 303,960,650,206 100.00 0.028

2010 Total Expenditure (in 2010 prices) Comparison

Target Target % Base Base % PenetrationTotal Comparison10% of Non-Durable household goods 130,955 0.25 447,296,656 0.25 0.029

Appliances for personal care 4,872,067 9.26 17,636,569,103 9.67 0.028Audio-visual, photographic and information processing equipment

3,910,333 7.43 16,401,561,880 9.00 0.024

Bicycles 892,177 1.69 1,440,619,318 0.79 0.062Books and stationery 1,861,563 3.54 7,568,798,589 4.15 0.025Clothing materials and garments 10,474,017 19.90 40,198,955,905 22.05 0.026

Furniture and furnishings; carpets and other floor coverings

5,111,177 9.71 16,275,871,519 8.93 0.031

Games, toys and hobbies; sport and camping; musical instruments

6,313,277 11.99 19,742,928,822 10.83 0.032

Gardens, plants and flowers 1,048,471 1.99 3,838,999,859 2.11 0.027Glassware, tableware and household utensils 1,167,214 2.22 3,915,978,152 2.15 0.030

Household textiles 1,488,172 2.83 5,911,626,383 3.24 0.025Jewellery, clocks and watches 1,259,508 2.39 5,751,950,313 3.16 0.022

Major household appliances (electric or not) 2,125,550 4.04 5,271,245,426 2.89 0.040

Major tools and equipment 170,192 0.32 451,462,488 0.25 0.038Materials for maintenance and repair of the dwelling 2,469,935 4.69 7,167,626,086 3.93 0.035

Medical goods and other pharmaceutical products 1,648,840 3.13 4,876,949,733 2.68 0.034

Other personal effects 697,483 1.33 2,559,992,980 1.40 0.027

Target Target % Base Base % PenetrationTotal ComparisonPets and related products 970,581 1.84 3,350,999,791 1.84 0.029Recording media 1,620,080 3.08 5,348,057,628 2.93 0.030Shoes and other footwear 1,693,156 3.22 6,776,838,421 3.72 0.025Small electrical household appliances 284,613 0.54 765,928,568 0.42 0.037

Small tools and miscellaneous accessories 1,272,345 2.42 3,753,530,748 2.06 0.034

Therapeutic appliances and equipment 1,155,917 2.20 2,855,000,114 1.57 0.041

Total Comparison 52,637,624 100.00 182,308,788,482 100.00 0.029

2010 Total Expenditure (in 2010 prices) Convenience

Target Target % Base Base % PenetrationTotal Convenience90% of Non-Durable household goods 1,178,514 3.49 4,025,565,531 3.31 0.029

Alcohol (off-trade) 4,242,772 12.58 15,043,724,606 12.37 0.028Food and non-alcoholic beverages 24,664,074 73.10 87,042,667,241 71.55 0.028

Newspapers and periodicals 1,205,163 3.57 4,135,115,631 3.40 0.029Tobacco 2,449,222 7.26 11,404,788,715 9.37 0.022

Total Convenience 33,739,746 100.00 121,651,861,724 100.00 0.028

2010 Total Expenditure (in 2010 prices) Other Aggregations

Target Target % Base Base % PenetrationCore bulky goodsCore DIY Goods excluding gardening 4,554,551 28.05 13,447,516,370 25.09 0.034

Gardens, plants and flowers 1,048,471 6.46 3,838,999,859 7.16 0.027Other Bulky Goods 10,635,937 65.50 36,321,078,433 67.75 0.029

Core bulky goods 16,238,959 100.00 53,607,594,662 100.00 0.030

Target Target % Base Base % Penetration2010 Total Expenditure (in 2010 prices) Prescription CostsPrescription costs 3,448,480 0.00 12,167,230,434 0.00 0.028

2010 Total Expenditure per HH (in 2010 prices)

Target Target % Base Base % PenetrationTotal Retail per HHTotal Comparison per HH 6,915 60.94 6,788 59.98 101.871Total Convenience per HH 4,432 39.06 4,530 40.02 97.856

Total Retail per HH 11,348 100.00 11,318 100.00 100.264

2010 Total Expenditure per HH (in 2010 prices) Comparison

Target Target % Base Base % PenetrationTotal Comparison per HH10% of Non-Durable household goods per HH 17 0.25 17 0.25 103.297

Appliances for personal care per HH 640 9.26 657 9.67 97.468

Audio-visual, photographic and information processing equipment per HH

514 7.43 611 9.00 84.119

Bicycles per HH 117 1.69 54 0.79 218.507Books and stationery per HH 245 3.54 282 4.15 86.779Clothing materials and garments per HH 1,376 19.90 1,497 22.05 91.931

Furniture and furnishings; carpets and other floor coverings per HH

671 9.71 606 8.93 110.800

Games, toys and hobbies; sport and camping; musical instruments per HH

829 11.99 735 10.83 112.825

Gardens, plants and flowers per HH 138 1.99 143 2.11 96.361

Glassware, tableware and household utensils per HH 153 2.22 146 2.15 105.166

Household textiles per HH 196 2.83 220 3.24 88.820Jewellery, clocks and watches per HH 165 2.39 214 3.16 77.259

Major household appliances (electric or not) per HH 279 4.04 196 2.89 142.273

Major tools and equipment per HH 22 0.32 17 0.25 133.009

Materials for maintenance and repair of the dwelling per HH

324 4.69 267 3.93 121.583

Medical goods and other pharmaceutical products per HH

217 3.13 182 2.68 119.287

Other personal effects per HH 92 1.33 95 1.40 96.130

Pets and related products per HH 128 1.84 125 1.84 102.193

Recording media per HH 213 3.08 199 2.93 106.882Shoes and other footwear per HH 222 3.22 252 3.72 88.152

Small electrical household appliances per HH 37 0.54 29 0.42 131.108

Small tools and miscellaneous accessories per HH

167 2.42 140 2.06 119.599

Therapeutic appliances and equipment per HH 152 2.20 106 1.57 142.851

Total Comparison per HH 6,915 100.00 6,788 100.00 101.871

2010 Total Expenditure per HH (in 2010 prices) Convenience

Target Target % Base Base % PenetrationTotal Convenience per HH90% of Non-Durable household goods per HH 155 3.49 150 3.31 103.293

Alcohol (off-trade) per HH 557 12.58 560 12.37 99.508Food and non-alcoholic beverages per HH 3,240 73.10 3,241 71.55 99.976

Newspapers and periodicals per HH 158 3.57 154 3.40 102.831

Tobacco per HH 322 7.26 425 9.37 75.771

Total Convenience per HH 4,432 100.00 4,530 100.00 97.856

2010 Total Expenditure per HH (in 2010 prices) Other Aggregations

Target Target % Base Base % PenetrationCore bulky goods per HHCore DIY Goods excluding gardening per HH 598 28.05 501 25.09 119.500

Gardens, plants and flowers per HH 138 6.46 143 7.16 96.361

Other Bulky Goods per HH 1,397 65.50 1,352 67.75 103.319

Core bulky goods per HH 2,133 100.00 1,996 100.00 106.880

Target Target % Base Base % Penetration2010 Total Expenditure per HH (in 2010 prices) Prescription CostsPrescription costs per HH 453 0.00 453 0.00 100.000

2010 Total Expenditure per Person (in 2010 prices)

Target Target % Base Base % PenetrationTotal Retail per PersonTotal Comparison per Person 2,940 60.94 2,927 59.98 100.418

Total Convenience per Person 1,884 39.06 1,953 40.02 96.460

Total Retail per Person 4,824 100.00 4,881 100.00 98.834

2010 Total Expenditure per Person (in 2010 prices) Comparison

Target Target % Base Base % PenetrationTotal Comparison per Person10% of Non-Durable household goods per Person 7 0.25 7 0.25 101.824

Appliances for personal care per Person 272 9.26 283 9.67 96.078

Audio-visual, photographic and information processing equipment per Person

218 7.43 263 9.00 82.919

Bicycles per Person 50 1.69 23 0.79 215.390

Target Target % Base Base % PenetrationTotal Comparison per PersonBooks and stationery per Person 104 3.54 122 4.15 85.541

Clothing materials and garments per Person 585 19.90 645 22.05 90.620

Furniture and furnishings; carpets and other floor coverings per Person

285 9.71 261 8.93 109.220

Games, toys and hobbies; sport and camping; musical instruments per Person

353 11.99 317 10.83 111.216

Gardens, plants and flowers per Person 59 1.99 62 2.11 94.987

Glassware, tableware and household utensils per Person

65 2.22 63 2.15 103.666

Household textiles per Person 83 2.83 95 3.24 87.553

Jewellery, clocks and watches per Person 70 2.39 92 3.16 76.157

Major household appliances (electric or not) per Person 119 4.04 85 2.89 140.243

Major tools and equipment per Person 10 0.32 7 0.25 131.112

Materials for maintenance and repair of the dwelling per Person

138 4.69 115 3.93 119.849

Medical goods and other pharmaceutical products per Person

92 3.13 78 2.68 117.586

Other personal effects per Person 39 1.33 41 1.40 94.759

Pets and related products per Person 54 1.84 54 1.84 100.735

Recording media per Person 90 3.08 86 2.93 105.357Shoes and other footwear per Person 95 3.22 109 3.72 86.895

Small electrical household appliances per Person 16 0.54 12 0.42 129.238

Small tools and miscellaneous accessories per Person

71 2.42 60 2.06 117.893

Therapeutic appliances and equipment per Person 65 2.20 46 1.57 140.814

Total Comparison per Person 2,940 100.00 2,927 100.00 100.418

2010 Total Expenditure per Person (in 2010 prices) Convenience

Target Target % Base Base % PenetrationTotal Convenience per Person90% of Non-Durable household goods per Person 66 3.49 65 3.31 101.820

Alcohol (off-trade) per Person 237 12.58 242 12.37 98.089

Target Target % Base Base % PenetrationTotal Convenience per PersonFood and non-alcoholic beverages per Person 1,377 73.10 1,398 71.55 98.550

Newspapers and periodicals per Person 67 3.57 66 3.40 101.364

Tobacco per Person 137 7.26 183 9.37 74.690

Total Convenience per Person 1,884 100.00 1,953 100.00 96.460

2010 Total Expenditure per Person (in 2010 prices) Other Aggregations

Target Target % Base Base % PenetrationCore bulky goods per PersonCore DIY Goods excluding gardening per Person 254 28.05 216 25.09 117.795

Gardens, plants and flowers per Person 59 6.46 62 7.16 94.987

Other Bulky Goods per Person 594 65.50 583 67.75 101.845

Core bulky goods per Person 907 100.00 861 100.00 105.355

Target Target % Base Base % Penetration2010 Total Expenditure per Person (in 2010 prices) Prescription CostsPrescription costs per Person 193 0.00 195 0.00 98.574

Summary Demographics - Household and Population Estimates 2010

Target Target % Base Base % PenetrationHousehold and Population Estimates 2010: TotalsPopulation estimate 2010 17,907 0.00 62,279,718 0.00 0.029Household estimate 2010 7,612 0.00 26,857,270 0.00 0.028

Population estimate 2010

Population Estimates 2010 - Summary

Target Target % Base Base % PenetrationChildren and infants 0-15Males 0-15 1,579 8.82 5,934,567 9.53 0.027Females 0-15 1,549 8.65 5,658,149 9.09 0.027

Population estimate 2010 17,907 100.00 62,279,718 100.00 0.029

Target Target % Base Base % PenetrationAdults of Working AgeMales 16-64 5,547 30.98 20,179,265 32.40 0.028Females 16-59 4,922 27.48 18,293,704 29.37 0.027


Target Target % Base Base % PenetrationAdults of Retirement AgeMales 65+ 1,637 9.14 4,534,684 7.28 0.036Females 60+ 2,674 14.93 7,679,349 12.33 0.035


Target Target % Base Base % PenetrationPopulation Estimates 2010 - GenderMales 8,763 48.94 30,648,516 49.21 0.029Females 9,144 51.06 31,631,202 50.79 0.029


Target Target % Base Base % PenetrationPopulation Estimates 2010 - AgeAge 0-4 907 5.07 3,847,965 6.18 0.024Age 5-14 1,986 11.09 7,007,698 11.25 0.028Age 15-24 1,983 11.08 8,221,480 13.20 0.024Age 25-34 1,841 10.28 8,205,254 13.17 0.022Age 35-44 2,476 13.83 8,854,143 14.22 0.028Age 45-54 2,591 14.47 8,536,833 13.71 0.030Age 55-64 2,499 13.96 7,313,036 11.74 0.034Age 65-74 2,016 11.26 5,394,015 8.66 0.037Age 75-84 1,210 6.76 3,493,044 5.61 0.035Age 85+ 397 2.22 1,406,250 2.26 0.028


Summary Demographics - Household and Population Projections

Target Target % Base Base % PenetrationHousehold ProjectionsHousehold Projection 2030 9,941 0.00 32,704,685 0.00 0.030Household Projection 2029 9,821 0.00 32,437,301 0.00 0.030Household Projection 2028 9,715 0.00 32,164,731 0.00 0.030Household Projection 2027 9,610 0.00 31,884,289 0.00 0.030Household Projection 2026 9,495 0.00 31,606,965 0.00 0.030Household Projection 2025 9,370 0.00 31,328,189 0.00 0.030Household Projection 2024 9,261 0.00 31,046,013 0.00 0.030Household Projection 2023 9,110 0.00 30,758,854 0.00 0.030Household Projection 2022 9,020 0.00 30,465,752 0.00 0.030Household Projection 2021 8,908 0.00 30,168,846 0.00 0.030Household Projection 2020 8,760 0.00 29,872,869 0.00 0.029

Household Projection 2019 8,669 0.00 29,573,343 0.00 0.029

Target Target % Base Base % PenetrationHousehold ProjectionsHousehold Projection 2018 8,557 0.00 29,270,717 0.00 0.029Household Projection 2017 8,403 0.00 28,965,244 0.00 0.029Household Projection 2016 8,305 0.00 28,660,608 0.00 0.029Household Projection 2015 8,191 0.00 28,354,352 0.00 0.029Household Projection 2014 8,078 0.00 28,046,710 0.00 0.029Household Projection 2013 7,956 0.00 27,740,347 0.00 0.029Household Projection 2012 7,799 0.00 27,441,875 0.00 0.028Household Projection 2011 7,682 0.00 27,144,542 0.00 0.028

Target Target % Base Base % PenetrationPopulation Projections 2011 - TotalTotal Resident Population (2011) 18,005 0.00 62,705,265 0.00 0.029




Population Projections 2015

Total Resident Population (2015)

Population Projections 2015 - Summary

Target Target % Base Base % PenetrationChildren and infants 0-15 (2015)Males 0-15 (2015) 1,588 8.47 6,084,524 9.45 0.026Females 0-15 (2015) 1,545 8.24 5,805,048 9.01 0.027

Total Resident Population (2015) 18,748 100.00 64,401,348 100.00 0.029

Target Target % Base Base % PenetrationAdults of Working Age (2015)Males 16-64 (2015) 5,648 30.12 20,455,244 31.76 0.028Females 16-59 (2015) 5,071 27.05 18,643,664 28.95 0.027


Target Target % Base Base % PenetrationAdults of Retirement Age (2015)Males 65+ (2015) 1,969 10.50 5,257,199 8.16 0.038Females 60+ (2015) 2,928 15.62 8,155,669 12.66 0.036


Target Target % Base Base % PenetrationPopulation Projections 2015 - GenderMales (2015) 9,204 49.09 31,796,967 49.37 0.029Females (2015) 9,544 50.91 32,604,381 50.63 0.029


Target Target % Base Base % PenetrationPopulation Projections 2015 - AgeAge 0-4 (2015) 955 5.09 3,896,262 6.05 0.025Age 5-14 (2015) 1,976 10.54 7,306,171 11.34 0.027Age 15-24 (2015) 1,906 10.17 7,880,291 12.24 0.024Age 25-34 (2015) 2,213 11.81 9,144,106 14.20 0.024Age 35-44 (2015) 2,253 12.02 8,140,780 12.64 0.028Age 45-54 (2015) 2,758 14.71 9,078,796 14.10 0.030Age 55-64 (2015) 2,408 12.84 7,302,985 11.34 0.033Age 65-74 (2015) 2,338 12.47 6,233,575 9.68 0.038Age 75-84 (2015) 1,414 7.54 3,793,636 5.89 0.037Age 85+ (2015) 527 2.81 1,624,746 2.52 0.032

















Target Target % Base Base % PenetrationPopulation Projections 2020 - AgeAge 0-4 (2020) 1,025 5.21 3,987,739 5.99 0.026

Age 5-14 (2020) 2,090 10.63 7,764,278 11.66 0.027

Target Target % Base Base % PenetrationPopulation Projections 2020 - AgeAge 15-24 (2020) 1,804 9.17 7,487,793 11.25 0.024Age 25-34 (2020) 2,362 12.01 9,467,424 14.22 0.025Age 35-44 (2020) 2,398 12.19 8,380,268 12.59 0.029Age 45-54 (2020) 2,666 13.56 8,678,919 13.03 0.031Age 55-64 (2020) 2,623 13.34 8,125,360 12.20 0.032Age 65-74 (2020) 2,419 12.30 6,534,870 9.81 0.037Age 75-84 (2020) 1,607 8.17 4,241,541 6.37 0.038Age 85+ (2020) 675 3.43 1,918,561 2.88 0.035

















Target Target % Base Base % PenetrationPopulation Projections 2025 - AgeAge 0-4 (2025) 1,068 5.16 4,011,980 5.84 0.027Age 5-14 (2025) 2,210 10.67 7,904,978 11.51 0.028Age 15-24 (2025) 1,839 8.88 7,776,417 11.32 0.024Age 25-34 (2025) 2,302 11.12 9,115,545 13.27 0.025Age 35-44 (2025) 2,843 13.73 9,301,501 13.54 0.031Age 45-54 (2025) 2,480 11.97 7,984,093 11.62 0.031Age 55-64 (2025) 2,823 13.63 8,665,244 12.61 0.033Age 65-74 (2025) 2,332 11.26 6,583,752 9.58 0.035Age 75-84 (2025) 1,951 9.42 5,023,672 7.31 0.039Age 85+ (2025) 863 4.17 2,341,263 3.41 0.037

















Target Target % Base Base % PenetrationPopulation Projections 2030 - AgeAge 0-4 (2030) 1,066 4.92 3,981,449 5.64 0.027

Age 5-14 (2030) 2,325 10.73 8,025,895 11.37 0.029

Target Target % Base Base % PenetrationPopulation Projections 2030 - AgeAge 15-24 (2030) 1,964 9.06 8,218,665 11.64 0.024Age 25-34 (2030) 2,204 10.17 8,734,740 12.37 0.025Age 35-44 (2030) 3,010 13.89 9,637,141 13.65 0.031Age 45-54 (2030) 2,652 12.24 8,215,089 11.63 0.032Age 55-64 (2030) 2,764 12.75 8,309,374 11.77 0.033Age 65-74 (2030) 2,596 11.98 7,359,762 10.42 0.035Age 75-84 (2030) 2,019 9.32 5,301,212 7.51 0.038Age 85+ (2030) 1,075 4.96 2,833,055 4.01 0.038


Target Target % Base Base % PenetrationSummary Demographics - Experian Revised Household and Population Estimates 2010Experian Revised Households 7,498 0.00 26,844,138 0.00 0.028

Experian Revised Population 17,680 0.00 62,266,570 0.00 0.028Experian Revised Adults 15+ 14,792 0.00 51,392,550 0.00 0.029Experian Revised Adults 16+ 14,562 0.00 50,657,368 0.00 0.029Experian Revised Adults 18+ 14,149 0.00 49,125,393 0.00 0.029

Target Target % Base Base % PenetrationSummary Demographics - Experian Revised Population ProjectionsExperian Revised Population Projection 2011 17,774 0.00 62,695,436 0.00 0.028

Experian Revised Population Projection 2012 17,948 0.00 63,120,988 0.00 0.028














Target Target % Base Base % PenetrationSummary Demographics - Experian Revised Population ProjectionsExperian Revised Population Projection 2026 20,697 0.00 69,126,577 0.00 0.030





2011 Experian Ltd 2011 Experian Ltd, Data from the Living Costs and Food Survey 2008 and Living Costs and Food Survey 2009 has been made available by the Office for National Statistics and has been used by permission. The ONS do not bear any responsibility for the analysis. Census output is Crown copyright and is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland

□

NS&OC OPA Town Centre and Sequential Impact Assessment

Documents

Transcript of NS&OC OPA Town Centre and Sequential Impact Assessment