Retail innovation and planning

Retail Innovation and Planning

ANNE GIBBS

67 Corbyn Street, Finsbury Park, London, N4 3BY, U.K.

Progress in Planning, Vol. 21, pp. l-67, 1987.

Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved.

Contents

Acknowledgements

1. Introduction 1.1. Aim and Scope of the Study 1.2. Structure of the Report

0305~9006187 $0.00+.50

Copyright 6 1987 Pergamon Journals Ltd.

2. The Conventional Wisdom of Retail Planning 2.1. Introduction 2.2. The Spatial Framework for Retailing: The Retail Hierarchy 2.3. Planning Intervention in the Retail Market

3. The Challenge to Conventional Wisdom: The Retail Warehouse 16 3. I. The Innovation Life Cycle 16 3.2. The Genesis of the Retail Warehouse 18 3.3. The Evolution of the Retail Warehouse 20

3.3.1. The DIY sector 23 3.3.2. The furniture sector 24 3.3.3. The electrical sector 25

3.4. Future Prospects 25

4. Theoretical Framework: The Adoption and Diffusion Process 4.1. Planners as Adopters of Institutional Innovations in Retailing 4.2. The Adoption and Diffusion Processes

4.2.1. The adoption process 4.2.2. The diffusion process

4.3. Factors likely to Influence the Rate of Diffusion of Retail Innovations through the Planning System

3

5

7 7 7

9 9 9

13

26 26 26 26 27

29

4 Progress in Planning

5. Methodology 5.1. Introduction 5.2. The National Survey

5.2.1. Survey methodology and response 5.2.2. Analysis and typology of policy response

5.3. The Case Study Investigations

5.3.1. Selection of the case study authorities 5.3.2. Two-stage investigation

6. The Diffusion Process: A National Policy Review 36

6.1. Introduction 36

6.2. The Dtffision of the Retail Warehouse through the Planning System 37

6.3. Conclusion - Factors Influencing the Rate of Diffusion 42

7. The Adoption Process in Three Case Study Areas 46 7.1. Introduction 46 7.2. Awareness 46 7.3. Interest and Evaluation 49 7.4. Trial Stage 51 7.5. Adoption 52 7.6. Conclusion 55

8. Conclusion 58

Appendix. Interview Schedule 62

Section B - Retail Planning 62

Section C - Council Policy 62

Section D -Development Control 63

Section E - Miscellaneous 63

31 31 31 31 31 33 33 33

Bibliography 65

Acknowledgements

The research on which this paper is based was conducted in the School of Planning Studies at Reading University, supported by an SSRC (now ESRC) postgraduate research grant. I would like to thank my supervisor at Reading, Sophie Bowlby, for her advice and encouragement throughout the period of my PhD research.

My thanks are also due to the local authority officials who responded to the postal survey. I would especially like to thank the officers and members of the case study authorities who devoted time to the subsequent interview survey and, more recently, have spared the time to read and comment upon the draft of Chapter 7 of this paper.

I am particularly indebted to Richard Barras who suggested this paper in the first place and I am grateful to both him and Tony Key for the helpful comments which they made on a draft of this paper. Furthermore, Richard and his partner in Property Market Analysis, David Cadman, have generously allowed me the time in which to prepare this paper.

Finally, I dedicate this paper to Stephen.

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

1.1. AIM AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY

Retailing is a particularly dynamic industry: traders are constantly having to introduce new products and employ new methods in order to keep pace with the ever- changing demands of their customers. Such innovations are generally outside the control of the planning system, but occasionally the changing demands of the consumer prompt a more radical response, namely the introduction of a new type of outlet through which goods are sold to the public. Since these institutional innovations involve physical development, they are subject to planning control. It is the response of local planning authorities to such innovations which is the subject of this paper. Institutional innovations and other forms of innovation are not mutually exclusive, of course, since institutional innovations usually incorporate at least one other form of innovation in method or technique.

1.2. STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT

The paper starts with an examination of the conventional wisdom of retail planning, as this provides the philosophical framework within which local authorities respond to retail innovations. Two particular aspects of this conventional wisdom are examined in Chapter 2: firstly, planners’ preoccupation with the retail hierarchy as the spatial framework for planning, and secondly, the question of whether or not local planning authorities should intervene in the retail market.

The next chapter considers the challenge presented to such conventional wisdom by one of the latest innovations in retailing: the retail warehouse. This chapter examines the operating characteristics and evolution of this rapidly-developing form of retailing.

The remaining chapters of the paper are concerned with the response of local planning authorities to the introduction of the retail warehouse.

In Chapter 4 it is argued that in conceptualising the planning response to institutional innovations in retailing, it is useful to consider local planning authorities as potential adopters of the innovations. Thus the applicability of theories of innovation adoption and diffusion is explored, and the factors likely to influence the rate of diffusion of retail innovations through Lhe planning system are considered.

7


In the next three chapters, empirical evidence concerning the response of local planning authorities to retail warehouses is presented. The results of a national survey of local authority policies, and three detailed case studies are reported in Chapters 6 and 7, respectively. These are preceded by Chapter 5, which outlines the methodology employed in each of the two stages of research.

Generalising from the preceding empirical analysis, and with reference to research relating to other innovations, the concluding chapter (Chapter 8) considers the factors which determine whether a local authority is likely to adopt an innovation at an early or late stage in the diffusion process. This leads to some final comments on the implications of the research for dealing with future retail innovations.

CHAPTER 2

The Conventional Wisdom of Retail Planning

2.1. INTRODUCTION

The conventional wisdom of retail planning provides the philosophical framework within which local planning authorities respond to retail innovation. This chapter therefore considers the authorities’ perception of their role in retail development. Traditionally, planning authorities have been concerned primarily with the quantity and spatial distribution of retail facilities, employing the ‘retail hierarchy’ as the conceptual framework for their policies. But, with the introduction of new forms of retailing located outside established centres, planning authorities have increasingly intervened more overtly in the retail market. The first section of this chapter considers the theoretical basis of the ‘retail hierarchy’ and the reasons why it has proved so attractive to local authorities as the conceptual framework for retail planning. The second section considers whether it is within the planners’ remit to intervene in the retail market by adopting policies which differentiate between types of retail outlet.

2.2. THE SPATIAL FRAMEWORK FOR RETAILING: THE RETAIL HIERARCHY

As the planning profession developed in the post-war period, a spatial framework for retailing was sought which satisfied the dominant ideology of the profession, in other words, to achieve, in the ‘public interest’, a balanced and orderly arrangement of land uses (see Glass, 1959; Foley, 1960). The theoretical basis for such a structure was to be found in Christaller’s Central Place Theory. Christaller set out to establish a deductive theory of the spatial distribution of towns (or ‘central places’) in an agricultural area. One of the premises of his theory was that the status of a centre can be measured by the goods and services it offers. Thus, expensive goods purchased infrequently require a large population to sustain them, whereas everyday purchases require only a small population. On the basis of this principle, and assuming an isotropic plain, Christaller established a model of the distribution of ‘central places’. This model consisted of a five-tier hierarchy of central places in an hexagonal arrangement, each tier comprising successively fewer, larger centres offering a more comprehensive range of goods (Fig. 1). The model was the epitome of the balanced, orderly arrangement which the planners favoured.

Following publication in 1933, Christaller’s work was empirically applied not only,

9


0 K-place

0 A- place

0 M-place

- Boundary of the G-region

- Boundary of the ES-region

- - Boundary of the K-regw

Boundary of the A- region

Boundary of the M-region

FIG. 1. The central place system after Christaller (K = 3). Source: Carter (1975), Fig. 5.4, p. 79.

as originally conceived, to the distribution of towns within regions (see reviews in Berry and Pred, 1961; Carter, 1975), but also to the distribution of retail centres within towns (see, e.g. Proudfoot, 1937; Berry, 1962). Guy suggests that in bringing order to the urban system, the concept of the ‘retail hierarchy’, as it became known, has proved so attractive to planners that they ‘have tended to identify hierarchies almost at will’. (Guy, 1980, p. 136). By the end of the ‘fifties, Burns (1959) was able to describe what he believed was a commonly accepted four-tier inter-urban hierarchy in Britain. The system comprised:

1. The town centre. 2. District centre. 3. Neighbourhood centre. 4. Subcentre.

Since the 1950’s, planners’ philosophical commitment to the retail hierarchy has been reinforced by a financial commitment on the part of the local authority as a whole, to town centre redevelopment schemes. In this way councillors have become as committed as officers to the preservation of the established pattern of shopping. As Schiller (1979) points out, the desire to preserve the town centre appears to cross all political lines. Bennison and Davies (1980) articulate the goals of councillors in relation to town centre redevelopment as:

1. The defence/promotion of their town’s own commercial interests. 2. The enhancement of their town’s image/prestige.

On the other hand, corroborating the foregoing discussion, planners’ goals are seen to be:

1. The resolution of land use conflicts. 2. The achievement of an ‘optimum’ distribution of shopping facilities. In relation to the second of the planners’ goals, NED0 have questioned whether a

Retail Innovation and Planning 11

hierarchical arrangement of retail centres is optimal: ‘Some kind of hierarchy obviously exists and is likely to continue in the future. But, there seems no reason to assume it represents some ‘best’ solution for the spatial arrangement of human activity.’ (NEDO, 1970, p. 17).

In line with the above aims, the extent of local authority investment in town centre redevelopment schemes has been considerable and, indeed, the proportion of schemes funded at least in part by local authorities has increased over time. Furthermore, local authorities have often been involved in the larger schemes. Thus Bennison and Davies note that average investment per scheme has been much higher for developments funded by local authorities ($9.0m) than for those funded privately (23Sm). This disparity reflects the importance of the prestigious nature of town centre redevelopment, particularly to councillors, a fact which is confirmed by Davies’ (1972) study of redevelopment in Newcastle. The degree of investment of public funds in redevelopment has reinforced the planners’ claim that the maintenance of the town centre is in the ‘public interest’. Furthermore, a second kind of investment has been made by local authorities, described by Cox as follows: ‘ . . . once some actor in a situation decides to support an idea, he has, in effect, made an investment in it, an investment of his own prestige. It may be difficult for him to withdraw it without loss. And he will be reluctant to see his ‘capital’ diminish through the actions of others.’

(Cox, 1976, p. 139). By protecting and enhancing the role of the town centre in this way, local authorities have encouraged the development of a centralised, hierarchical structure of retailing.

A substantial amount of town centre redevelopment has now taken place. By 198 1, Hillier Parker found that 88% of towns with a population of over 100,000 had a town centre scheme of over 50,000 sq. ft which had been completed since 1965.

Although many town centre redevelopment schemes were planned during the ‘sixties, due to a long gestation period, completed floorspace did not reach its peak nationally until 1976 (see Fig. 2). But there has been a distinct spatial variation in

FIG. 2. Redeveloped floorspace 1965-1985. Source: Hillier, Parker, May and Rowden.


development: in 1977, London was least well served with only 34% of its centres redeveloped, whilst in South Wales and the south-west 60% of centres were redeveloped and in all other areas the proportion was over 70%, with the highest proportion of 88% pertaining in the north-west and North Wales (Schiller and Lambert, 1977). More recently, however, development activity has been concentrated in the south-east. Both Schiller and Lambert, and Bennison and Davies (op.cit.) attribute the early northerly bias in development to the keenness of local authorities in the poorer regions to attract investment to their area and thus provide a face-lift to towns which have a less well-endowed traditional resource in retailing to protect.

Partly as a result of this commitment to town centre redevelopment, local authorities still employ the ‘retail hierarchy’ as the conceptual basis of retail planning today. In a review of the operational methods adopted in twenty Structure Plans, Barras and Broadbent (1982) found that a retail hierarchy was identified in sixteen of the eighteen plans which considered retail issues. Furthermore, sixteen of the eighteen plans also sought to resolve at least one perceived ‘problem’ associated with the hierarchy. Barras and Broadbent categorise these problems as follows:

1. Inadequate hierarchy of centres - 7 entries. 2. Position of local centres within the regional hierarchy - 5 entries. 3. Out-of-town development - 3 entries. 4. Spatial distribution of new space across the hierarchy - 3 entries. Concomitant with their preoccupation with the retail hierarchy, planners tend to lay

particular emphasis on the quantitative distribution of shopping floorspace between centres. In their review, Barras and Broadbent noted that aggregate floorspace or turnover were the most commonly used measures in the definition of the retail hierarchy. The need for future provision is also generally expressed in terms of square feet.

Planners’ persistent use of the retail hierarchy as the spatial framework for planning has been the subject of much criticism (see, e.g. Dawson and Kirby, 1980; Guy, 1980). It is argued that consumers will not necessarily be ‘rational’ in their choice of centre and thereby conform to the implied assumption of the model by shopping at the nearest centre retailing the goods which they wish to purchase. Indeed, this assumption is increasingly less likely to be upheld given the greater mobility of consumers resulting from the rising level of car ownership. Increased mobility enables consumers to be more discriminating in their choice of centre and take into account the quality and range of shopping provision within each centre as well as its proximity.

Planners’ preoccupation with the retail hierarchy has resulted in a conservative approach to retail development. This conservatism and the emphasis placed by planning authorities on balance is exemplified by the following quote from the approved Structure Plan for North East Lancashire:

‘The particular characteristics which are seen to commend the system as it now stands are: (a) a good balance between modern and traditional shops and modes of retailing; (b) a good variety of shop sizes; (c) a good blend of national multiple establishments and local independent establishments; (d) a good balance between utilitarian cheap goods outlets (e.g. converted mills) and stylish, quality

provision (i.e. the large town centres and, less commonly, large out-of-town establishments) and local dispersed provision (i.e. within walking distance of the home).


The assumption is, therefore, that the existing blend of shopping over the area as a whole is close to being ideal or at least very difficult to improve upon.’ (North East Lancashire Structure Plan, para. 14.3; my emphasis.)

Thus Dawson suggests that in general the planning task is defined as ‘the creation of equilibrium, usually static equilibrium, within urban areas.’ (Dawson, op.cit., p. 201.)

Because of their conservative outlook, local authorities have generally resisted innovative forms of retailing which, because of their location or the range of goods which they retail, do not conform to the hierarchy. Thus, with the advent of off-centre retail outlets, local authorities have been prompted to intervene in the retail market to a greater extent than ever before.

2.3. PLANNING INTERVENTION IN THE RETAIL MARKET

According to Kivell and Shaw (1980), intervention in the retail market is generally justified by planning authorities on one or more of the following grounds:

‘(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

The retail case. It is desirable to restrain free market forces in order to prevent an excessive number of shops and in order to promote an optimum mix and range in any location. The urban case. The arrangement and location of shopping facilities exerts a strong influence upon other facilities and upon urban form in general. The social planning case. In the distribution of shopping facilities, as with other resources, planners have taken responsibility for ensuring that all sections of the community are adequately served. The environment case. The planner endeavours to separate, or reconcile, non-conforming land use activities and minimise the adverse environmental impact of new development.’

These arguments clearly reflect the main components of the dominant ideology of the profession already identified, viz. the search for order in the urban system and for balance between land uses and between retail centres, with the aim of serving the

‘public interest’. Furthermore, the first justification confirms planners’ preoccupation with the quantity rather than the quality of shopping provision.

The four cases quoted above and the planner’s persistent search for balance are reflected in the following statement of aims contained in the West Yorkshire County Council Structure Plan Report of Survey: ‘shopping policies must be cautious but not unduly restrictive; must continue to assign priority to the improvement of existing centres; must seek to provide facilities in areas of deficiency; must avoid gross over- provision, while permitting innovation and modernisation; but must remain flexible to allow for changes in behaviour and retailing methods, and for an up-turn in the economy.’ (p. 90). This is in line with the retail planning aims stated in many local authority planning documents. A cursory glance at these suggests that the social planning case is the most frequently stated, with the environmental and retail cases of secondary popularity.

In parallel with criticisms of the retail hierarchy made by NED0 (op.cit), both Kivell and Shaw, and Cassells (1980) question the consensus view of society implicit in the social planning case: ‘planners seem slow to recognise, and provide for, the fact that separate groups of consumers derive different benefits from different locational arrangements.’ (Kivell and Shaw in Dawson, op.cit., p. 145). This is in line with recent


challenges made to the profession as a whole concerning the distributive effects of planning (see, e.g. Simmie, 1974).

Arising from this consensus view of society, planners have traditionally been discouraged from taking social and economic factors into consideration in formulating policies and taking development control decisions. In a review of structure plans approved by the end of August 1980, Jowell and Noble (1981) found that whilst broad strategies and aims of a social nature contained within the structure plans were generally acceptable to the Secretary of State, policies of a social/redistributive nature were usually modified or deleted. Similarly in studying what the courts have accepted as ‘material considerations’ in development control decisions, Loughlin (1980) concludes that whilst the courts seem ready to accept a wide range of concerns as goals of the planning system, the means of achieving these goals are often considered to be outside the legitimate powers of the local authority. Loughlin quotes Lord Denning: ‘The planning authority are not at liberty to use their powers for an ulterior object, however desirable that object may seem to them to be in the public interest.’ Loughlin concludes that court decisions generally support ‘the traditional, negative, restrictive conception of planning’ and thus complement the ‘conservative orientation of planning policies themselves.’ (Loughlin, op.cit., p. 183).

In both policy formulation and development control decision-making, local authorities have found ways of extending their restrictive remit. As regards policy formulation, Jowell and Noble note that some councils have overcome the constraints imposed by the Secretary of State by incorporating social policies as ‘county council policies’ which are not subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. Similarly, in relation to development control decisions, local authorities have turned to the use of Section 52 agreements to accrue ‘planning gain’, i.e. ‘the achievement of a benefit to the community that was not part of the initial application (and was therefore negotiated) and that was not of itself normally commercially advantageous to the

developer.’ (Jowell, 1977). The use of Section 52 agreements to achieve ‘planning gain’ has been the subject of

much recent debate. The controversy culminated in a report by the Property Advisory Group (PAG) (HMSO, 198 1) which concluded that local planning authorities should be firmly discouraged from bargaining for planning gain except in limited circumstances, such as: the provision of essential infrastructure for the development site or the provision of public amenities related to the development.

Both the RTPI and the District Planning Officers Society (DPOS) were highly critical of the PAG Report (Planning, 455, 12/2/82) and, seeking to extend their remit, argued that planning gain is a valuable instrument of positive planning for achieving goals in the ‘public interest’.

However, following this debate, the Department of the Environment issued a Circular (22/83) which advised that local authorities should apply the following ‘tests of reasonableness’ to conditions or Section 52 agreements attached to planning permissions which impose obligations on developers, viz. whether what is required of the developer:

- is needed to enable the development to go ahead;


- will in the case of financial payments contribute to meeting the cost of providing such facilities;

- is otherwise ‘clearly related’ to the proposed development and to the use of the land after its completion;

- is designed in mixed use developments to secure an acceptable balance of uses; and

- is properly related in scale and kind to the proposed development and represents a reasonable cost to the developer.

Thus the traditional restrictive view of planning has been preserved. Social and economic issues are central to retail planning since retailing is a form of

social service and also contributes substantially to the local economy of every town. In advising local authorities on how to respond to applications for off-centre retail outlets, the DOE have sought to retain the traditional boundaries of planning. Thus DCPN 13 states ‘it is not the function of land use planning to prevent competition between retailers, or between methods of retailing nor to preserve existing commercial interests as such’, but it has not proved possible to strictly adhere to these boundaries. Thus McAuslan (1980) observes an increasing tendency for DCPN’s to move away from physical amenity considerations towards economic and social considerations, when dealing with large or novel issues, and he cites DCPN 13 as an example. Furthermore McAuslan observes that economic issues are now readily considered ‘material’ to the debate at superstore appeals. Thus McAuslan concludes that ‘the scope of the planner’s role expands to meet the scope of the issue presented to him’ (ibid., p. 157).

It appears, then, that the scope of planning is particularly confused in relation to retailing. Schiller (1979) describes how this confusion manifests itself in relation to councillors’ attitudes towards off-centre retailing. From a left-wing viewpoint, large off-centre stores offer cheap prices but are only accessible to the privileged car owning sections of the community. From a right-wing viewpoint, planners should refrain from intervention in the market, but the claims of the small shopkeeper cannot be ignored.

Thus the prevailing attitude of the planning profession towards retailing is inherently conservative. Planners, and local authorities in general, are philosophically and financially committed to a centralised, hierarchical structure of retailing; a commitment which is further reinforced by the statutes.

CHAPTER 3

The Challenge to Conventional Warehouse

Wisdom: The Retail

3.1. THE INNOVATION LIFE CYCLE

All innovations, including retail institutions, have a ‘life cycle’. This ‘life cycle’ is widely recognised as comprising the following four stages: introduction, growth, maturity, and decline. A fifth stage - saturation - is sometimes discerned between maturity and decline.

The life-cycle of retail institutions has tended to shorten over time, in response to continual social and economic change (Whitefield, 1983). Thus the department store is still alive, although in its declining phase, having been initially introduced about a century ago, and having reached saturation around 1950. In contrast, the supermarket, introduced in the late ‘fifties, took approximately 20 years to reach saturation and is now in decline, having been superseded by the superstore. The superstore itself reached maturity and even saturation in some parts of the country within a decade.

McNair’s ‘wheel of retailing’ explains in more detail the process whereby innovations are introduced to, and adopted by, the retail system. McNair (1957) suggests that innovatory forms of retailing are initially characterised by their low status, but that they gradually move up-market to become high status outlets with high costs and high prices. Then, after a peak of popularity, the institutional form becomes relatively less efficient, largely due to inertia and failure to adopt modern techniques, at which point it becomes vulnerable to the next innovation. Thus the wheel clearly follows the innovation through the life cycle from introduction through growth, maturity and saturation, to decline.

Several researchers have developed extended versions of the wheel theory to take account of inadequacies in McNair’s original formulation. Some commentators, for instance, have highlighted the fact that each innovation is more sophisticated than the last (see Cox, 1965) and that therefore a spiral movement might be a more accurate description of the continuing process of retail innovation than the circular motion of a wheel (see Agergard et al., 1968).

Furthermore, it has been observed that each new method of retailing tends to retain some of the techniques of established methods (Stacey and Wilson, 1958; Nielson, 1966). Nieshlag (1959) has pointed out that this process of mutual adaptation of new and old reduces the conflict between established retailers and innovators engendered

16


by innovation. Izreali (1973) attempts to theorize the process of mutual adaptation. He argues that as the innovative and conventional forms of retailing adjust and re-adjust to each other until they reach a compromise in terms of their service and price levels, the established retail system expands to embrace both high and low-level innovations (see Fig. 3). Izreali suggests that this competitive struggle is followed by a period of relative stability during which conditions become ripe for the emergence of another generation of innovators.

Relating innovative forms to established forms, Robertson (1971) has categorised innovations according to their degree of continuity. Three categories of innovation are thus discerned:

1. Continuous -the alteration of an existing [retail institution]. 2. Dynamically continuous - the creation of a new [retail institution] related to

an existing one. 3. Discontinuous -the creation of a new [retail institution] totally unrelated to

previous [institutions].

In relation to retail institutions, only the second and third categories would constitute a true innovation, since in this context the first category would comprise the introduction of a new method or technique, such as self-service trading, into an established retail institution, such as a multiple store. An example of a discontinuous

(i) 0 z0 Emergence of low-end (ii) innovative institution A and high-end innovative institution B 0 3 B

C

Response of established institutions C and D, and reactions of innovative institutions A and B

(iii) Establishment expands through addition of former innovative institutions A and B

(iv) The cycle starts again with entry of innovative institutions E and F

FIG. 3. The three wheels of retailing. Source: Izreali (1973).


institutional innovation in retailing, totally unrelated to previous institutional forms, would be the supermarket. The superstore and retail warehouse, on the other hand, could be regarded as dynamically continuous innovations, being extensions of the supermarket concept of trading, although nevertheless clearly discernible modes of retailing. Not surprisingly, Robertson contends that continuous innovations will be assimilated more readily into the established retail system than discontinuous ones.

3.2. THE GENESIS OF THE RETAIL WAREHOUSE

As the retail warehouse is a dynamically continuous innovation, in order to trace its true origin it is necessary to return to the introduction of the supermarket in the late ‘fifties. Led by the co-operatives, self-service retailing had been introduced immediately after the Second World War, but it was not until the end of rationing and the lifting of building restrictions in 1954, that the development of supermarkets became possible. The use of self-service trading methods enabled retailers to increase the size of food stores to around 2000 sq. ft and thus take advantage of the following economies of scale: a relative decline in expenditure per unit floorspace on rent, rates and heating; the ability to offer an extended range of merchandise; and the opportunity to overcome indivisibilities of labour, management and capital.

Supermarkets were first developed in London and the home counties, where retailers were able to take advantage of the concentration of demand for convenience goods arising from the high population densities in and around the capital. As already indicated, the supermarket form of trading spread rapidly. McClelland (1963) estimated that there were at least 80 supermarkets in Britain by mid-1957, a total which rose to 996 just five years later. By 1970 it was estimated by NED0 that the total had risen to over 2500.

By this time, however, the continued search for economies of scale had resulted in the supermarket being superseded by the larger units of the superstore (50,000- 100,000 sq. ft) and the hypermarket (over 100,000 sq. ft). The size of these new stores, the relatively low value of the goods which they retail, and their low profit margins, meant that they were not viable in a town centre location with high rental levels: Zone A rents, even in secondary locations, standing as high as g65 in major regional centres in 1984 giving an average square foot rent of 232.50 for a standard unit of 20 ft by 80 ft. The increasing proportion of households owning at least one car was a crucial factor in releasing retail development from the physical and economic constraints of the town centre and the necessity of access by public transport.

Two other social trends particularly encouraged the development of large out-of- town convenience goods outlets:

1. The rising proportion of economically-active female population, encouraging less frequent major shopping trips.

2. The increasing proportion of households with the use of a fridge or, more


particularly, a freezer, facilitating the bulk storage, and therefore purchase, of food.

The relative significance of the above trends does, of course, vary both spatiahy and in relation to social class (factors which are themselves not entirely independent). On the face of it, it is surprising, therefore, that the more affluent areas of the south-east have not been disproportionately favoured in the development of large off-centre stores. Indeed, in direct contrast to the pattern of spatial diffusion of the supermarket, the development of the superstore has spread in a generally north to south direction. Nationally the annual number of hypermarkets and superstores opened reached a peak in 1978, but it is only in the last few years that there has been substantial pressure for development in London (URPI, 1985). This somewhat surprising directional drift can be largely explained by the relative lack of suitable low-cost sites and the restrictive attitude of local planning authorities in the London area (Sumner and Davies, 1978).

Following the successful development of the hypermarket and superstore, the concept of off-centre trading quickly spread to durable goods sectors, resulting in the introduction of the retail warehouse. This form of trading has proved particularly attractive to retailers trading in those sectors in which the goods are bulky (e.g. furniture, carpets and electrical goods) and/or of a low unit value (e.g. DIY materials).

Retail warehouses are characterised, then, by the sale of a specialist range of non- food goods direct to the public from a warehouse type building in an off-centre location with stock stored on the premises. Stores generally have adjacent surface-level parking and offer discount prices. Store sizes vary according to the goods being retailed, and have risen slightly over time, but they currently average lo-15,000 sq. ft in the electrical trade, 30-40,000 sq. ft in the DIY trade and 40-50,000 sq. ft for furniture and carpets.

In addition to the social trends which encouraged the general decentraIisation of retailing, other trends encouraging the development of retail warehouses, particularly in the DIY and self-assembly furniture sectors, have been: the growth in home ownership, the increase in leisure time, and the rising labour costs of home improvement. The Family Expenditure Survey for 1984 shows that owner occupiers spend 51% above the average for all households on repairs, maintenance and decorations. Expenditure does, of course, rise with income, but it is also interesting to note that the differential between home owners and all households is greatest in the lower income groups, presumably reflecting the relatively high spending levels of first- time buyers. There is also a spatial variation in expenditure, Fig. 4 shows that in 1983- 84 expenditure was highest in the East Midlands and Scotland and lowest in the North.

The development of retail warehouses has been further encouraged by trends in expenditure. In response to rising real incomes, over the period 1971-1984, there was a rapid increase in demand for durable goods, particularly electrical goods, in contrast to virtually static expenditure on convenience goods (Fig. 5). Growth in expenditure on DIY goods was particularly rapid in the late ‘seventies, stagnating somewhat in the early ‘eighties but since picking up again. Similarly, expenditure on furniture and carpets fell markedly at the beginning of the ‘eighties, but has since seen renewed growth.


Legend

Owner occup

All h’ holds _

FIG. 4. Expenditure on repairs by region. Source: Family Expenditure Survey, CSO, 1984.

SO-

275 -

m-

8 225 -

”

k 20s -

I 70 & 175 -

150 -

A- Convenience c- - - Comparison +--- Furnkarpets /+

;I+: Ele&ncal +I’

/I

/# /

/’ .’

#/t--+e /J I

y--+-w +,* p--J

I

Year

FIG. 5. Expenditure trends 1971-1984. Source: URPI.

3.3. THE EVOLUTION OF THE RETAIL WAREHOUSE

In contrast to the early superstores which were generally located in or adjacent to major residential areas, the first retail warehouses, developed in the early ‘seventies, were most often located on industrial estates or on major radial routes out of the town. Retailers operating these early stores were usually newcomers to the retail scene


and often operated only a few outlets in one particular region. Some of these newcomers, such as Comet (established in 1968) and MFI (established in 1971), quickly spread their operations throughout the U.K., achieving a near monopoly in

their particular sector of the market. In line with the ‘wheel of retailing’, retail warehouse developments have become

more sophisticated over time. This ‘up-market’ movement is evident in the improved store image as standard industrial units have been abandoned in favour of purpose- built warehouses. Furthermore, the quality of the service has been considerably improved, particularly in the highly competitive DIY sector in which specialist advice and information services are now almost always provided. These improved services suggest that the retail warehouse may now have reached maturity, but they have resulted in rising operating costs including rental levels.

Retail warehouse rents were initially on a par with industrial rents, but by 1981, URPI noted that increased demand for retail warehouses had led to substantial increases in rental levels on industrial estates to between %2 and 24.5O/sq. ft. Rents have since continued to rise: Table 1 shows that the upper limit of the range is now g7.00, and the difference between retail warehouse rents and industrial rents averages 78%, although there is a significant regional variation. Retail warehouse rents remain, of course, substantially below High Street rents (Gibbs, 1986a).

As the retail warehouse has become more sophisticated, established multiple traders, such as W. H. Smith (trading as ‘Do-It-All’), Sainsbury (trading as ‘Homebase’) and Woolworths (trading as B & Q), have entered the market. In line with the spiral theory

TABLE 1. Comparison of retail warehouse and industrial rents (f psf)

Region Retail Warehouse

range average Industrial average

Differential between R.W. and industrial

Zone A rate

range

South East (12 centres) W. Midlands (10 centres) E. Midlands (5 centres) E. Anglia (3 centres) South West (3 centres) North West (7 centres) North (5 centres) Yorks/Humb (7 centres) Scotland (6 centres) Wales (4 centres)

4.75-7.00 5.90 3.96

3.50-4.50 3.98 2.15

3.50-6.00 4.65 2.16

4.00-5.25 4.66 2.58

4.00-5.00 4.66 2.53

3.50-5.00 4.14 1.89

2.50-4.00 3.25 1.52

3.50-4.00 3.61 2.07

3.25-4.50 3.71 2.20

3.75-4.50 4.19 2.20

National Average 4.37 2.46

49%

85%

115%

81%

84%

119%

114%

74%

68%

90%

78%

45-100

30-90

40-70

50-80

65-95

40-125

45-125

40-100

30-100

50-95

Source: PMA/PAI Rental Survey, December 1985.


propounded by Agergard et al. (op.cit), the entry of the multiple traders has perpetuated the up-market movement and created a highly competitive environment. Competition is most severe in the DIY market where retailers are not only subject to competition from other retail warehouse operators, but also from superstores and builders’ merchants who have expanded their ranges to incorporate this growth area. In response to this competition, DIY traders are reported to be increasingly differentiating their trading styles in order to capture a discrete part of the market (Jordans, 1986). Following a series of mergers and acquisitions, there are now only a handful of major retail warehouse operators in the DIY sector (Table 2) with Texas and Woolworths’ B & Q chain dominating the ranking. Woolworths first entered the market in August 1980 when they acquired an established chain of DIY stores - B & Q Retail. Just over a year later in October 1981, they acquired the Dodge City stores from F. R. Northcott, and most recently, in 1984, they acquired Comet, including the Timberland DIY stores. B & Q now have an estimated 17% share of the market.

TABLE 2. Ranking of major DIY retail warehouse operators

Operator Number of stores

October 1985

B&Q 159 Texas 137 Payless 40 Do-It-All 59 Great Mills 43 Homebase 27

Source: Chartered Surveyor Weekly supplement, ‘Out-of-Town Retailing: Shop or Shed?‘, 3rd October 1985.

In response to the competitive nature of the environment, retail warehouse operators are increasingly locating adjacent to one another in order to ensure an adequate customer draw. Indeed, shared sites have always been favoured by operators of electrical warehouses as a means of facilitating comparison shopping and attracting sufficient custom to ensure viability. The earliest groupings of retail warehouses arose from ad hoc developments on industrial estates. But grouped developments or retail warehouse ‘parks’ are now becoming more sophisticated (Bernard Thorpe and Partners, 1985). They are planned from the outset as grouped developments and, in response to social trends, sometimes include leisure uses. It seems certain that this type of development will become more common and gradually supersede earlier forms of retail warehousing.

Within these overall trends, there is some variation in the growth and development of retail warehouses in the three main goods sectors.

3.3.1. The DIY Sector


Although estimates of the size of the DIY market vary with the goods included, analysts such as Earnshaw Haes, Jordans, and Euromonitor generally agree on the broad pattern of growth. Thus following rapid growth between 1973 and 1979, estimated by Earnshaw Haes and Sons (1980) to be of the magnitude of 300%, by 1983 the market had reverted, in real terms, to less than its 1976 level (see Fig. 6). Since then the market is reported to have picked up again, and Jordans (1986) anticipate continued growth over the next five years, in response to increased rates of owner occupation, increased numbers of households, and rising real incomes. However, they warn that growth in the market is unlikely to match the planned growth in the number of stores and that therefore further contraction in the number of retailers can be expected. In response to this mis-match between demand and supply, Texas have reduced the number of stores which they plan to open in 1986 from 25 to 15.

2500

r

1600 t

I500 I I I I I I I I

1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 lEEI0 1981 1982 1983

Year

FIG. 6. The market for DIY goods. Source: Euromonitor.

Retail warehouses selling DIY goods are more widespread than those selling electrical goods or furniture and carpets. This is partly due to the recent rapid growth in the DIY market and the more local nature of the catchment area of a DIY retail warehouse arising from the lower value of the goods concerned: retailers generally seek a catchment area of 100,000 people within lo-15 minutes drive time to support the average store of 20-30,000 square feet gross floorspace. In addition, as we shall see, planning policies have generally been less restrictive in relation to DIY stores than those in other goods sectors. The development of DIY warehouses is currently being concentrated in the more favourable areas of the South East, which were previously under-provided.


3.3.2. The Furniture Sector

Between 1977 and 1984, FIRA estimated that the share of total furniture sales accounted for by discount stores rose from 12 to 28%. These sales are accounted for by two types of furniture retail warehouse: those selling conventional furniture and those selling self-assembly furniture. The self-assembly furniture sector has similar characteristics to the DIY trade and therefore enjoys greater growth than the conventional furniture sector. Indeed, the DIY and self-assembly furniture sectors overlap somewhat: in 1981/82, the EIU estimated that around 33% of self-assembly kitchen units and 20% of self-assembly bedroom units were sold through DIY retail warehouses, compared with 30% of kitchen units and 50% of bedroom units sold through furniture retail warehouses. Traditional high street furniture stores, on the other hand, were estimated to be responsible for just 20% of non-kitchen, self- assembly sales. FIRA estimated that between 1979 and 1981, the percentage of all domestic furniture sales accounted for by the self-assembly furniture sector rose from 20% to 24%, a proportion which was expected to continue to increase to around 32% by 1984 (Retail Business Nos. 275 and 302).

Despite the similarity between the self-assembly furniture and DIY sectors, turnover per square foot tends to be rather higher in the self-assembly furniture trade than the DIY trade, due to the slightly higher value of the goods being retailed: MFI’s sales/square foot averaged $85 in 1983 compared with an average of 533 achieved by W. H. Smith’s Do-It-All. MFI also achieved a higher turnover per outlet: 51,869,000 in 1983 compared with Do-It-All’s E873,OOO. The differential may well be exaggerated by the fact that MFI have a near monopoly in the self-assembly furniture sector: they now operate more than 130 outlets, compared with approximately 10 operated under the name of Brown Bear, the only other chain trading exclusively in self-assembly furniture.

The Harris Queensway chain who sell conventional furniture achieved a turnover per outlet of E1,026,000 in 1983 (URPI Information Brief 84/6). Like MFI, Harris Queensway have a near monopoly in their particular goods sector. However, new traders are now moving into this market: the Swedish-based IKEA group have recently entered the U.K. market, and the traditional high street retailer Courts have started developing retail warehouses under the trade name ‘Mammoth’.

Between 1976 and 1980, furniture sales rose by just 3.7% per year compared with an increase of 12.7% for all retailers (Retail Business No. 276, February 1981). Since 1980, however, the market seems to have recovered somewhat, total sales increasing by an annual average rate of 7.3% between 1980 and 1985, to stand at around $4.77 million. This rate of growth is expected to be maintained over the next few years (Retail Business No. 336, February 1986). Nevertheless, as suggested by URPI, the following two strategies already adopted by individual retail warehouse operators in response to the decline in the market, may become more widespread: firstly, larger stores of 200,000 sq. ft such as those planned by IKEA serving regional catchment areas, and secondly, ‘showroom’ operations where all the merchandise is displayed, no stock is held on the premises, and goods are ordered and delivered direct from the manufacturer, thus reducing overheads. This trend could be further encouraged by the development of home shopping.


3.3.3. The Electrical Sector

Despite the recent rapid growth in expenditure on electrical goods, retail warehouses have been developed at a slower rate in this sector than in the other two, due to a number of factors. Firstly, due to the relative infrequency with which large electrical goods are purchased, retail warehouses in this sector require a larger catchment area: Comet suggest they need about 120,000 people within 15 miles. Because of this relatively low drawing power, retailers in this sector were the first to favour grouped retail warehouse developments. Secondly, established electrical retailers responded to the introduction of retail warehouses by reducing their own prices, thus narrowing the price differential, so that by 1981 the EIU suggested that the potential for future growth in the market share of retail warehouse operators was limited. Thirdly, as we shall see, planning restrictions have been generally more severely imposed on this sector than either the furniture or DIY sectors. Until recently, then, the emphasis in this sector was still on high street trading, but, perhaps in response to the increased development of retail warehouse parks, renewed growth is now evident in the retail warehouse sector, with Comet continuing to expand at a modest rate, and Dixons’ purchase of Currys leading to renewed expansion of the chain formerly known as Bridgers and now known as Power City.

3.4. FUTURE PROSPECTS

Although the above evidence suggests that the scope for the further development of retail warehouses is limited, there are signs that rather than entering a period of decline, the form of retail warehouse developments is changing. Thus there is a movement away from the development of individual stores towards the development of retail warehouse ‘parks’. The development of such parks is likely to result in the closure of many of the older, poorly located individual retail warehouses. Thus even though saturation level has apparently been reached in some parts of the country, in relation to some types of goods, there remains scope for further development as earlier forms of retail warehouse are replaced by the more sophisticated later forms.

In the longer term, however, the development of home shopping seems likely to have a particularly severe impact on all forms of retail warehouse operation. Indeed to protect their position, some retail warehouse operators, such as Comet, are already involved in home shopping through the Prestel network.

CHAPTER 4

Theoretical Framework: The Adoption and Diffusion Processes

4.1. PLANNERS AS ADOPTERS OF INSTITUTIONAL INNOVATIONS IN RETAILING

In conceptualising the response of local planning authorities to institutional innovations in retailing, it is helpful to view planners, like retailers, as potential adopters of such innovations. Theories of innovation adoption and diffusion are applicable in this context since the diffusion (or spread) of an institutional innovation is dependent not only on the adoption of the new form by retailers, but also, since such innovations involve physical development, by planners. Thus through their policies and development control decisions, planners can influence the rate of diffusion of an innovatory form of retailing,

This chapter, therefore, firstly considers in detail the applicability of theories of adoption and diffusion to the response of local planning authorities to retail innovation, and secondly, examines the factors which are likely to influence the rate of diffusion of retail innovations through the planning system.

4.2. THE ADOPTION AND DIFFUSION PROCESSES

4.2.1. The Adoption Process

In his seminal work on the diffusion of innovations Rogers (1962) outlined the ‘adoption process’, comprising the following five stages:

1. Awareness stage: the adopter is exposed to the innovation but lacks complete information.

2. Interest stage: the adopter shows interest and seeks further information about the innovation.

3. Evaluation stage: the adopter mentally applies the innovation to his present, and anticipated future, situation and decides whether to try it.

4. Trial stage: the adopter tries the innovation on a small scale. 5. Adoption stage

26


This remains the basic model despite suggestions of modifications to adapt it to particular circumstances.

The adoption process can be applied as follows to local authorities’ response to institutional innovations in retailing:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Awareness stage: the local authority is subjected to development pressure in relation to the innovation, but lacks information about its characteristics. Interest stage: the local authority shows interest and seeks further information about the innovation itself and possible planning responses to it from, for example, the Unit for Retail Planning Information, central government and other local authorities. Evaluation stage: the local authority evaluates the innovation in relation to the established system of retailing. Trial stage: this is the stage which is the most difficult to apply because institutional innovations, by their very nature, involve physical development which it is difficult to ‘try’ on a limited basis. Although a sort of trial may be possible through the allocation of sites for new forms of retailing, such a policy would be difficult to reverse if the trial was considered to be a failure. Adoption: Policies are approved which take a positive stance in relation to the development of the innovation.

Although the above model provides a useful starting point in the analysis of the adoption process, the five stages should not be regarded too rigidly. In some cases the adoption process may be aborted after just one or two stages, and it may or may not be restarted later; in other cases, stages in the process may be skipped, and the process may finally result in rejection (i.e. the approval of negative policies) rather than adoption.

Lastly, and perhaps most fundamentally, the model assumes that the adoption decision is rational which, almost certainly, will not be the case. The potential adopters will not have access to complete information about the innovation and, furthermore, they will ‘filter’ the information which is available in accordance with their preconceived ideas. Thus the conventional wisdom of retail planning described in Chapter 2 represents the starting point from which planners embark upon the adoption process, and as such it is likely to have a significant impact on the outcome of that process.

4.2.2. The Diffusion Process

If the cumulative pattern of adoption over time is examined then the pattern of diffusion is revealed. It is generally recognised that the rate of adoption of an innovation follows a normal distribution over time. Translated into a cumulative curve, this normal distribution becomes the well-known innovation S-curve (Fig. 7). In the early stages of diffusion, only a few individuals or organisations (dubbed ‘innovators’ and ‘early adopters’ by Rogers) are prepared to take the risk of adopting the innovation. But, as time passes, the innovation is improved and adapted to the


Time of adoption

FIG. 7. The cumulative curve of adoption (the S-curve). Source: Rogers (1962).

market, there is an increase in experience and information relating to it, and therefore the risks of adoption are reduced. Simultaneously, the pressures to adopt increase, and hence the “bandwaggon effect’ begins to have an impact resulting in a rapid increase in the number of adopters (Mansfield, 1968); these adopters constitute the ‘early’ and ‘late majority’. Finally, a few ‘laggards’ adopt the innovation after the majority of other adopters (see Fig. 8).

This diffusion process takes place simultaneously with the movement of the innovation itself through the life cycle or the ‘wheel of retailing’ (Brown, 1981). Thus, when an institutional innovation is first introduced into the retail system and is in the early stages of diffusion, monopoly conditions prevail as only a few retailers are prepared to take the risk of adopting the new form of outlet. As the institutional form becomes more sophisticated, and the risks of adoption fall, more retailers enter the market, developing retail outlets both within new market areas and, increasingly, in those already served. These trends are accentuated as the innovation progresses

FIG. 8. Adopter categories. Source: Rogers (1962).

Retail innovation and Planning 29

through maturity and saturation until eventually the innovation is modified beyond recognition or is superseded by the next innovation and thus enters into a decline. As indicated in Chapter 3, this pattern of diffusion is clearly discernible in the development of retail warehouses.

Brown (op.cit.) uses the term ‘adoption rent’ to describe the windfall gain or competitive advantage enjoyed by those who adopt early in the diffusion process. The value of adoption rent falls over time as more individuals or firms adopt the innovation. This concept is most obviously applicable to retail firms enjoying high profits in the initial phases of an innovation, but some adoption rent may be accrued by planners in the form of social/political advantages of early adoption. This ‘adoption rent’ must, of course, be offset against the greater risks of early adoption.

A number of researchers have attempted to identify the typical characteristics of early adopters (see, e.g. Webster, 1969). In this connection, two interesting studies of retail innovation are cited by Robertson (1971). In the first, Star (1969) found that large retailers were more innovative with respect to operating methods than new institutional forms. In line with this finding, in his study of the diffusion of institutional innovations in retailing, Curhan (1969) found that the innovators were entrepreneurs from outside the dominant, conventional distributive channels. These findings may well be attributable to the relative risks of adoption: the risk of adopting a new institutional form being much higher for the established retailer than for the newcomer. This pattern of adoption is evident in relation to the retail warehouse which, as described in Chapter 3, was first adopted by newcomers to the retail scene such as Comet and MFI, and only later adopted by established multiple traders such as Sainsbury and W. H. Smith.

In the conclusion to this paper, an attempt is made to characterise the early adopters amongst local planning authorities as regards their response to the retail warehouse.

4.3. FACTORS LIKELY TO INFLUENCE THE RATE OF DIFFUSION OF RETAIL INNOVATIONS THROUGH THE PLANNING SYSTEM

A wide range of factors will affect the decision of an organisation as to whether or not to adopt an innovation, and hence, in cumulative terms, the rate of diffusion of that innovation. In relation to the adoption of retail innovations by local planning authorities there are five potentially influential factors.

Firstly, there is the way in which the innovation is perceived by the local authority. The advantages and disadvantages of the innovation must be assessed in relation to the existing retail system and weighed against the potential risk of adoption in terms of the impact of the development. The local authority’s perception is likely to be strongly influenced by the conventional wisdom of retail planning described in Chapter 2. Of course, this perception is likely to change over time as the innovation itself changes with movement through the life cycle. Sheth (1971) has suggested that the risk of adoption, which is usually particularly high in the early stages of diffusion, can be reduced by prior experience.


Secondly, the local planning authority’s response may be influenced by that of other authorities, and central government. In this connection, Dunleavy (1981) claims that the influence of what he terms the ‘national local government system’, comprising the local authority associations, national party organisations, public service unions, and M.P.‘s with local authority backgrounds, not only constitutes an important source of values and ideas for local government officials, but ‘determines the parameters within which local authorities operate.’ (Dunleavy, 1981, p. 105). Information provided about the nature of the innovation by independent research organisations such as the Unit for Retail Planning Information (URPI) is also likely to influence the policy response.

Thirdly, pressure will be exerted on the authority by innovative and established retailers respectively to adopt and not adopt the innovation. In addition, there may be some competitive pressure from neighbouring authorities.

Fourthly, politico-organisational factors are likely to have a considerable influence,

such factors include the nature of intra- and inter-authority relationships and relationships between central and local government, as well as the nature of the local government and planning system within which the authority operates.

Finally, the socio-economic environment within which the local authority operates will also influence the outcome. Retailers will, of course, prefer to develop in the buoyant areas of the country, and thus the socio-economic environment partially determines the development pressure exerted on the local authority.

The relative importance of the above factors will, of course, vary over time and from one authority to the next. One of the aims of the empirical research to which we now turn, is to identify the circumstances in which each of the above factors influences the outcome of the adoption process, and the relative importance of each factor in the

policy response.

CHAPTER 5

Methodology

5.1. INTRODUCTION

The empirical part of the research comprised two elements: firstly, a postal survey of all English local authority planning departments and, secondly, a detailed analysis of three case study counties. The research was conducted between 1980 and 1982 and thus related to the crucial period when retail warehouses were in the growth stage of their life cycle and planning authorities were finally becoming aware of the need to respond to this new form of retailing.

The methodology of each of the two stages of empirical research is now outlined.

5.2. THE NATIONAL SURVEY

5.21. Survey Methodology and Response

A letter was circularised to all English local planning authorities in November 1980 requesting information about whether or not the authority had prepared a policy for out-of-town outlets in general and retail warehouses in particular, and the degree of development pressure exerted on them.

Eighty-five per cent of the authorities responded to this initial request for information, and a further 10% responded after a reminder was forwarded in January 1981. The response rate did not vary significantly either spatially or from one type of authority to the next. Of the 369 authorities who responded, nine refused to provide any information due to constraints on staff time and resources. The high response rate can probably be attributed to the following factors: the informality of the approach and the limited demands which it made on local authority resources; the inclusion of a stamped addressed envelope; and the keenness of local authorities to find out more about, and encourage research on, new forms of retailing.

52.2, Analysis and Typology of Policy Responses

Forty-six authorities, whilst not actually quoting policy statements verbatim, gave some indication of their attitudes towards out-of-town retailing in their reply. These

31


replies were analysed manually. Where policy statements were quoted by authorities they were classified and coded for computer analysis. The variables used in the analysis are listed below.

TABLE 3. List of variables

1. Type of authority (i.e. county or district) 2. Name of authority 3. Type of plan (i.e. structure plan, local plan, etc.) 4. Plan number 5. Policy number 6. Outlets concerned 7. Policy statement 8. Date of preparation or submission 9. Stage of preparation and, if appropriate, whether or not approved by the

Secretary of State 10. Date of approval 11. Criteria attached to policies 12. Justification of policies

As regards the policy statement itself, a typology of policy approaches was derived, which is described in Chapter 6.

Where specified by the local authority, the criteria and justification attached to the policies were also classified. The criteria were grouped as follows:

1.

2.

3.

4. 5.

6. 7.

8.

Urban structure criteria concerning the location of retail development considered appropriate within, and in relation to, the built-up area as a whole and other land use activities within it. Impact criteria relating to the potential impact of the proposed use on existing and proposed retail developments, and other retail provisions, such as floorspace allocations. Transport criteria concerning traffic generation, parking provision and access by public transport. Zoning criteria relating to the zoning of the site concerned. Site availability criteria concerning the nature of the sites considered appropriate/inappropriate. Goods criteria concerning the types of goods considered acceptable. Policy criteria concerning consistency with other local authority policies, design criteria and the imposition of Section 52 agreements. Miscellaneous criteria, such as amenity and infrastructure considerations, and economic and social implications.

Groups l-5 and group 8 were similarly used to group the stated justifications. It was on the basis of this analysis of the national survey, that three counties were selected for further study.


5.3. THE CASE STUDY INVESTIGATIONS

5.3.1. Selection of the Case Study Authorities

In identifying appropriate counties for more detailed study, the primary aim was to select authorities at different stages in the adoption process, with a view to explaining these differences. The date of structure plan submission, and whether or not policy documents relating specifically to retail warehouses had been prepared by the authority, were used as indicators of the stage reached in the adoption process. In addition, it was considered necessary to explain the spatial patterning of response revealed by the national survey and therefore one authority was selected in the North, one in the Midlands, and one in the South. Related to this locational criterion, the socio-economic wealth of the county was taken into consideration.

The remaining selection criteria related to those influential factors considered in the conclusion to Chapter 4 which are subject to inter-authority variation, thus the factors relating to the perception of the innovation and information flows were excluded. Firstly, pressures to adopt were measured by development pressure. Secondly, in relation to organisational factors, appeals conducted and modifications made to the structure plan by the Secretary of State were used as indicators of central government involvement, whilst the number of districts and the degree of known inter-authority conflict were used in relation to inter-authority relations. Finally, the response to the national survey was also taken into consideration, since there would have been no point in selecting a county in which several authorities had failed to respond to the initial survey.

In line with the stated aim, three areas were selected which were subject to different influences, where the relative importance of the factors represented by the selection criteria varied and which were reasonably representative of the variation at the national level. As indicated in Table 4, most factors were held constant over two of the case study areas in order to isolate the influence of that factor on the policy outcome in the third area. Councils at both county and district levels in each area were studied, although predominantly rural districts were excluded.

The identity of the case study areas is concealed throughout the report in Chapter 7 in order to preserve the confidential nature of some of the data. The areas are lettered A, B and C and the constituent districts numbered respectively and consecutively e.g. County A comprises Districts Al, A2, A3 and A4.

5.3.2. Two-stage Investigation

The case study investigations comprised two stages: firstly, a fact-finding visit to each local authority in the area; and secondly, a series of interviews with officers and members in selected authorities. The first stage, conducted in the autumn of 198 1, involved the collection of documentary evidence on the adoption process. This evidence included: planning applications and associated committee minutes, officers


TABLE 4. Case study area selection criteria

Criteria Selected area

County A County B County C

Pressure to adopt Development pressure

Organisational factors Structure plan:

submission date modifications

Appeals heard Number of districts Changes at

reorganisation Inter-authority

relations

Socio-economic environment Location Socio-economic wealth

Other Response to national

survey General policy

response Policy specifically

for retail warehouses

medium medium

1977 1979 none significant none known one low medium

significant none

poor O.K.

north midlands poor medium

good good

liberal mixed

yes yes

high

1979 none four high

none

good

south prosperous

good

restrictive

no

reports and appeal documents; policy documents and associated committee/council minutes.

On the basis of this documentary evidence, some district councils were excluded from the second stage of the investigation, due to the lack of development pressure for retail warehouses and therefore lack of potential for adoption. Where duplication of the socio-economic and policy formulation environment occurred between case study authorities, only one authority was considered in the second stage of the analysis. Thus district A3 was included as representative of itself, A4 and C3; Cl was included as representative of itself and Al; and C2 was included as representative of itself and Bl. All county councils were included.

In the second stage of the investigation, conducted in the spring of 1982, a total of 33 interviews were conducted with members and officers in both development control and policy sections and at senior and middle echelons within the selected authorities. The interviewees were generally well experienced. On average, the officers interviewed had worked for the local authority concerned for nine years, and each of the members had served on the planning committee for between two and sixteen years. The members interviewed were reasonably representative of the political composition of the case study authorities at the time of the research.

Each interview comprised the following five sections, relating to the policy response and the factors hypothesised to influence it:


A. Personal background: to provide details of the professional qualifications and experience of the respondents.

B. Retail planning: to ascertain the interviewees’ personal perceptions of retail planning.

C. Council policy. D. Development control. E. Miscellaneous: concerning internal and external influences on policy

formulation.

In Sections B-E the questions asked varied according to the position of the interviewee within the local authority and whether he/she represented a district or a county council, but most questions were asked of at least two members of the authority to facilitate corroboration of the replies. The Appendix contains the full interview schedule and a record of which questions were asked of which respondents.

Pilot interviews were conducted with officers and members of Berkshire County Council. Some minor amendments were made to the questionnaire in the light of this pilot (the above format is the final one).

The interviews were taped; this was for two main reasons: firstly in order that the responses could be accurately and fully recorded and, secondly, to enable the author to concentrate on conducting the interview. Whilst being aware beforehand of the possibility that the tape recorder might inhibit or bias the response of the interviewees, it was concluded that the benefits in terms of accuracy, and avoidance of filtering of responses on the part of the researcher in the pressure of the interview, outweighed these potential disbenefits. In the event, none of the interviewees appeared inhibited by the use of the tape recorder, and it is debateable whether the inevitable bias in their responses was exacerbated by it.

CHAPTER 6

The Diffusion Process: A National Policy Review

6.1. INTRODUCTION

This chapter and the next explore the idea of the local planning authority as a potential adopter of institutional innovations in retailing. With this aim in mind, empirical evidence is presented concerning the response of local planning authorities to the innovation of the retail warehouse. Drawing on the results of the national survey of planning policies, this first chapter considers the diffusion of the retail warehouse through the planning system. The case study analysis undertaken in the next chapter considers in more detail the adoption process of individual local authorities.

The following discussion is based on a typology of policy approaches derived from the national survey (see Table 5). As with any form of categorisation, there were some policy statements which were difficult to allocate to a group, either because the policies themselves were poorly expressed, or because they represented a subtly different approach to the norm. Despite these reservations, it is submitted that the typology provides a useful indicator of local authority attitudes towards retail

TABLE 5. Typology of local authority policies

Continuum Attitude displayed towards specified

Category outlet types

Negative

Conservative

1 2 3 4

5a

5b

6 7 8a

Positive 8b

Presumption against Generally not allowed Not on land zoned for industry/warehousing: ‘On its merits’ Allowed in or adjacent to existing centres provided a specified list of criteria is satisfied Allowed in or adjacent to existing centres (no criteria) Allowed on designated sites Allowed on fringe sites Specific types of outlet allowed outside existing centres Allowed outside existing centres providing a range of criteria is satified

36

Retail innovation and Planning 37

warehouses. Broadly speaking, these attitudes lie on a continuum ranging from negative through conservative to positive.

6.2. THE DIFFUSION OF THE RETAIL WAREHOUSE THROUGH THE PLANNING SYSTEM

As explained in Chapter 4, the diffusion of an innovation runs in parallel with its movement through the life cycle. Thus in tracing the diffusion of the retail warehouse through the planning system, the following discussion makes reference to the changes in the form of retail warehousing which were simultaneously taking place, in so far as they are relevant to planning.

The first experiences which planners had with retail warehouses in the early ‘seventies, concerned changes of use of wholesale warehouses to retail warehouses; these changes of use often took place without planning permission. The resultant enforcement problems were generally dealt with on an ad hoc basis by development control planners working without a policy framework.

At this time, the policy sections of the planning departments had scarcely reached the awareness stage of the adoption process, being preoccupied with the hypermarket/superstore debate. Indeed in as much as planners were aware of retail warehouses at this time, they perceived them simply as a different kind of superstore, and thus dealt with them in the same way as hypermarkets and superstores. There was very little information available on retail warehouses at this time, and therefore local authorities were heavily dependent on central government for advice on the appropriate policy response. This advice came in the form of DCPN 14, which encouraged a collective approach: ‘where a proposal relates to premises to be used for the sale of goods mainly or wholly to the public the considerations set out in DCPN 13 in relation to out-of-town shops and shopping centres may app!y.’

In dealing collectively with large off-centre stores, local authorities tended to adopt policies at the negative end of the continuum - types 1 and 2. Policy type 1 was, however, strongly discouraged by the Secretary of State because of its overly restrictive nature. In the early years of structure plan submission, the Secretary of State tended to recommend authorities alternatively to adopt neutral policies stating that such outlets would be treated ‘on their merits’ (policy type 4). Modifications of this type were made, for example, to the Leicestershire, Staffordshire and Worcestershire plans. Policy type 4 was, however, subsequently criticised for its vagueness and so the alternative term ‘generally not allowed’ (policy type 2) was later favoured (e.g. Worcester City and Surrey).

At the time of the survey, policy type 2 was employed in about a quarter of approved structure plans. Although the popularity of this policy type partly resulted from the modifications made by the Secretary of State noted above, this policy type also represents the primary response of many authorities. These still rather negative policies were generally justified on the grounds of perceived risks of approval in terms of the anticipated impact of the innovatory outlets on existing shops, the perceived lack of need for such stores, and their inaccessibility by public transport.


The enforcement issue gradually became one of the past as tighter controls were imposed by local authorities and an increasing number of retail warehouses were purpose-built. As the enforcement issue subsided and development pressures mounted, planners began to realise that retail warehouses had rather different policy implications from hypermarkets and superstores and, contrary to the advice given by central government in DCPN 14, the Inspectorate encouraged a more discriminating approach. Thus some Inspectors took advantage of the inherent flexibility of type 2 policies to argue that retail warehouses should be regarded as exceptions to the general rule of locating retail developments in existing centres on the grounds of the bulky nature of the goods to be retailed, and the lack of evidence regarding impact on existing centres (appeal references: APP/Sl 1 l/A/80/033 16 and APP/S 114/A/77/6 133, respectively).

In recognising the distinction to be made between retail warehouses and other forms of off-centre retailing, authorities had reached the awareness stage in the adoption process, but few of them proceeded to the interest or evaluation stages. Since at this time, the mid- to late-‘seventies, retail warehouses were still most often located on industrial estates, it was the potential conflict between industrial and retail uses which was the focus of most of the early policies specifically for retail warehouses. This land use conflict meant that most local authorities persisted in their negative approach to the development of retail warehouses by adopting policy type 3, stating that retail warehouses would not be allowed on industrial estates. More recently, local authorities have tended to safeguard industrial land by the inclusion of a criterion to that effect within a more comprehensive policy such as type 8.

At this time, industrial zoning was the subject of much debate at planning inquiries (Gibbs, 1981), but no concensus of opinion was evident amongst the Inspectorate in relation to this issue. Some Inspectors rejected outright the use of industrial land for retail warehouse development, and others rejected it on the basis of the precedent which approval would set. Increasingly, however, the question as to whether retail warehouses could be accepted on industrial land was linked to the local demand for such land. Thus although some Inspectors acknowledged that industrial sites were suitable for retail warehouse development, they concluded that because of a local shortage of industrial land, the particular site in question should be retained for its original use. Conversely, other Inspectors discounted the zoning of the appeal site on the grounds that it was not required for industrial use and therefore could be used alternatively for retail warehouse development.

Reflecting their commitment to the retail hierarchy in general and the town centre in particular, a number of authorities adopted policies protecting existing centres (type 5). Again this conservative response was encouraged by central government guidance. The revised edition of DCPN 13 (published in 1977) laid even greater emphasis than its predecessor on the maintenance of the existing retail hierarchy, the components of which were described in detail. It was felt that such a spatial distribution was in the public interest: ‘sharing of the advantage can best be achieved where the new store can be accommodated within the existing urban area, particularly within an expanding town centre or where it acts as the nucleus for a district centre.’

By the beginning of the ‘eighties, as the number of retail warehouses increased and


the innovation approached maturity, the balance changed and the advantages of adoption came to outweigh the disadvantages for an increasing number of authorities. Thus it was recognised that there were circumstances in which large new stores, particularly retail warehouses, could justifiably be located outside existing centres and therefore, contrary to central government guidance, authorities began to adopt policy types 6,7 or 8 at the positive end of the continuum (see Table 6).

Three factors particularly influenced this shift in opinion. Firstly, an increasing amount of information became available concerning the

characteristics of retail warehouses and their impact. This meant that local authorities became less dependent on central government advice. Furthermore, at a more general level, the increasing amount of available information lessened the uncertainty surrounding the development of retail warehouses and hence reduced the risks of adoption. Much of the additional information was generated by the local authorities themselves as they moved through the interest and evaluation stages of the adoption process. For instance, Tyne & Wear County Council attempted to bridge the information gap as regards the impact of retail warehouses, by conducting their own impact study (Tyne & Wear County Council, 1981). Other authorities have concentrated on other aspects of the issue such as appeal decisions (Berkshire County Council, 1980), the use of industrial land for retail purposes (Suffolk County Council, 1979), and assessments of need (Sheffield City Council, 1981; Nottingham City Council, 1981). It appears that the results of these studies have been fairly widely disseminated via the general network of inter-authority communications.

TABLE 6. Temporal trends in local authority policy responses

Policy Type Date* Status 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8a 8b

1971 Structure plan Non-statutory I

1975 Structure plan 1 Non-statutory

1976 Structure plan 1 I Non-statutory

1977 Structure plan 3 Non-statutory 1

1978 Structure plan 1 1 Non-statutory 2 2

1979 Structure plan 2 2 2 2 3 Non-statutory 1 1

1980 Structure plan 4 3 3 22 8 Non-statutory 1 6 1 2

1981 Structure plan 1 1 1 2 Non-statutory 1 1 1 1

*Date of submission of structure plans or approval by the council of non-statutory documents.

Source: Gibbs, A. (1982) Local Authority Policies for Retail Warehouses, URPI Information Brief 8214, Reading.


Secondly, the development pressure exerted by retailers increased as the retail warehouse moved through the growth stage of the life cycle and competition became more intense. As noted in Chapter 3, the entry of several established multiple traders into the market at this time perpetuated the up-market movement of the retail warehouse which was already taking place in line with the ‘wheel of retailing’. Such developments undoubtedly improved the image of the retail warehouse, which thus became more compatible with planners’ expectations.

The third factor which encouraged an increasing number of authorities to adopt at this time was the change in their economic circumstances brought about by the recession. This change increased the relative advantages of retail warehouses in terms of employment provision, environmental improvement and economic regeneration. In the light of such advantages, industrial zoning was increasingly waived by planning inspectors and local authorities alike. Taking advantage of this shift in opinion, an increasing number of developers submitted applications for industrial developments which incorporated retail warehouses as a means of making the entire development viable. Not surprisingly, the poorer counties of the north were more readily attracted by the economic incentives of such developments than the southern counties, who were better insulated against the effects of the recession. Thus at the time of the survey, liberal planning policies were more common in the north than the south (Gibbs, 1982).

In addition to the differential impact of the recession, this spatial bias may also reflect the greater experience which local authorities in the north had had by then with off-centre retail developments, in the form of the superstore. As already established, the innovations of the retail warehouse and the superstore are related and so the adoption of one is inextricably linked to the adoption of the other. Thus it is to be expected that the northern authorities who, in the light of experience, had relaxed their attitude towards superstores, should look more favourably on retail warehouses than the authorities in the south who did not have the experience of superstore developments upon which to draw.

Finally, as the balance shifted in favour of adoption, the ‘bandwaggon’ effect became important and an element of competition entered into the situation. Thus the case study evidence shows that authorities acknowledged that they would rather have a superstore or retail warehouse development within their own boundaries where they could enjoy the advantages, than in a neighbouring authority in which case only the disadvantages would be felt.

In response to these various factors, then, an increasing number of authorities adopted apparently more positive policies (i.e. types 6, 7 and 8).

However, as the least homogenous of the policy groupings, policy type 8 does not always reflect a positive attitude. The appropriate position on the attitude continuum represented by any particular policy in this group can generally be determined by the nature of the associated criteria, and the criteria adopted in association with many type 8 policies are so wide-ranging and/or restrictive as to be prohibitive. One authority, for instance, simply states that the proposed development would have to be supported by an ‘overwhelming case’ in order to be approved, and other authorities emphasise that such developments will only be considered favourably in exceptional


circumstances. Most criteria are characterised by extreme vagueness and would therefore be difficult to operationalise, the ultimate example being the sole criterion of

one authority that the ‘benefits must outweigh the disbenefits’. Reflecting the conventional wisdom of retail planning, the criteria most frequently

attached to type 8 policies contained in structure plans are, firstly, that the development should have only a limited impact on existing outlets, and secondly that it should be accessible by public transport. At the district level, the criteria adopted are more frequently concerned with detailed physical planning matters such as: parking provision; zoning; traffic generation and amenity, although access by public transport remains important. Finally, in a bid to reduce the risks associated with adoption, a few authorities require the developer to enter into Section 52 agreements limiting the type of goods to be retailed.

Adoption of retail warehouses by local authorities by means of policy type 8 has often only been partial. Many authorities have only adopted the particular types of retail warehouse which are perceived to be of the lowest risk in terms of impact. Some authorities simply state that stores selling bulky goods ‘inappropriate’ to existing centres will be allowed outside them. Others are more specific, DIY, self assembly furniture stores and garden centres being the most frequently accepted exceptions on the grounds that they are, to an extent, tapping a new market rather than competing directly with established outlets. Conventional furniture and carpet outlets and electrical stores are, on the other hand, more likely to be directed to fringe locations on the assumption that they do compete with established outlets.

Adoption has often taken place under the terms of a compromise reached between the retailers and the planners whereby retail warehouses have been directed to designated sites (policy type 6) or locations on the fringe of the town centre (policy type 7). At the time of the survey, due to their detailed nature and the constraints imposed by central government on the content of structure plans, policies allocating sites for retail warehouse development had only been adopted at the district level either in local plans or non-statutory documents. This policy type represents the ‘trial stage’ in the adoption process. Some authorities, such as one of the case study authorities, have actively invited applications for designated sites, others have taken a more passive approach.

Several authorities, whilst not designating specific sites for retail warehouses, have directed developments to a specified area on the fringe of the town centre (policy type 7). It is argued that where the goods to be sold from the retail warehouse are also sold from town centre shops, notably in the case of conventional furniture and electrical goods, the impact of the retail warehouse will be mitigated by a fringe location which may enable some spin-off in trade from the warehouse to the town centre. This policy type represents a compromise between planners’ concern to protect existing centres and developers’ pressures for large, cheap, off-centre sites. Thus the planning and retail systems are seen to be going through a process of mutual adaptation, similar to that which Izreali suggested would occur in relation to established retailers and innovators.

In line with diffusion theory, some local authorities are lagging behind in their adoption of retail warehouses. The laggards are mainly to be found in the London


area where development pressure has only just reached its peak. Here some authorities still have no policies at all for retail warehouses and those that do generally reveal a persistently conservative attitude (see Wilson, 1984; GLC, 1984).

In tracing the diffusion of retail warehouses through the planning system, the above discussion has been concerned with the policies adopted by the majority of local authorities at each particular point in time. However, at each stage in the diffusion process some authorities have adopted policies which are contrary to the majority view. Thus some authorities responded positively to retail warehouses at an early stage in the diffusion process, in Roger’s terms these are the ‘early adopters’. Other authorities have still not adopted positive policies, these are the ‘laggards’. Furthermore, some potential adopters (locai authorities) may never formerly adopt the innovation. The analysis of the case studies reported in the next chapter leads, in the final chapter, to the characterisation of those authorities which constitute such minority groupings.

We now turn to consider the factors which have in~uenced the rate of diffusion of the retail warehouse through the planning system.

6.3. CONCLUSION - FACTORS INFLUENCING THE RATE OF DIFFUSION

In Chapter 4 it was concluded that there are five factors which potentially could influence the rate of adoption and diffusion of retail innovations in the planning system, viz.: the local authority’s perception of the innovation; policies adopted by, and information received from, other organisations; pressures exerted by innovative and established retailers as well as other local authorities; political/organisational factors; and the socio-economic environment within which the local authority operates.

As regards the first factor, the policies themselves as well as the justifications stated by local authorities for those policies indicate that the local authorities’ perception of retail warehouses has clearly been influenced by the conventional wisdom of retail planning discussed in Chapter 2. Table 7 indicates that in relation to off-centre outlets in general, the justifications are dominated by three issues: firstly, the authorities’ perception of the risk of the impact of off-centre outlets on existing outlets, secondly, their related questioning of the need for new outlets, and thirdly, their desire to protect town centres (reflected in “maintaining the role of the town centre’ and fear of ‘competition with the town centre’). Other issues frequently mentioned were the need to ensure access by all sections of the community to the new store, and the protection of industrial land. In relation to policies specifically for retail warehouses, the principal reasoning stated for the agreed policy was the need to protect the supply of industrial land, but recognition of the peculiar requirements of retail warehouses in relation to the size and location of the site (‘directed to fringe sites’ and ‘sites on fringe of town centre’) was also high in the ranking.

As regards the influence of policies adopted by, and information received from, other organisations, the foregoing discussion suggests that central government guidance in the form of DCPN’s I3 and 14 was initially very influential, resulting in


rather negative policies, but that this influence declined over time as local authorities increasingly conducted their own independent evaluations of retail warehouses leading to more liberal policies. Evidently this additional information was disseminated via a local authority network of communications. The convergence of local authority policies which consequently emerged is reflected in the above justifications and in the fact that contiguous counties have frequently adopted the same type of policies (Gibbs, 1982). Interestingly, evidence from planning appeal decisions suggests that the influence of central government has increased again since the latest statement of policy made by the Secretary of State for the Environment in response to a Parliamentary Question in July 1985 (Gibbs, 1986b).

The policy convergence which is evident both amongst local authorities and between them and central government is characteristic of a system of ideological corporatism. Dunleavy (198 1) suggests that if the professional dominates local authority decision making, such a system, in which ‘flows of ideology influence may effectively unify policy development across formal agency boundaries’, will almost always result.

The above review indicates that the pressure exerted on local authorities to adopt has increased over time, as development pressures have risen steadily as a result of the movement of the retail warehouse through the growth stage of the innovation life cycle.

TABLE 7. Justifications most frequently stated

Justification No. of Citings

All off-centre outlets: Effect on other outlets Need Accessibility to community Supply of industrial land Supports the existing hierarchy Conflict with amenity Accessibility by public transport Innovation Traffic generation Maintain the role of the town centre Competition with the town centre Employment

Retail warehouses: Supply of industrial land Size of site required Suitability to the town centre Effect on other outlets Competition with the town centre Maintain the role of the town centre Traffic generation Directed to fringe sites Employment Accessibility to community Innovation Conflict with amenity Supports the existing hierarchy Sites on fringe of town centre

56 44 28 27 23 21 21 20 20 15 15 15

16 11

8 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5


As regards organisational factors, the influence of central government has been reinforced by the operation of the statutory planning system. Thus, in line with the advice contained in DCPN 14, modifications made to structure plans by the Secretary of State have often discouraged policies dealing specifically with retail warehouses, favouring instead rather more general policies which are often more restrictive. For example, the policy specifically for retail warehouses submitted in the North Yorkshire plan was deleted on the grounds that it was not of structural significance, being replaced by a more general statement relevant to all off-centre outlets.

Such modifications can generally be traced back to the structure plan Examination in Public (EIP). Thus in the cases where retailing matters are not selected by the Secretary of State for discussion at the EIP, structure plan policies generally remain unmodified: liberal policies submitted in the Mid- and North-East Hampshire Structure Plans were not challenged at the EIP and remained unchanged.

If, on the other hand, objections have been made to the structure plan policies and retailing is consequently chosen as a matter for debate at the EIP, modifications are quite likely to result. For example, objections were raised at the EIP on the Greater Manchester plan concerning the detailed nature of the criteria included in the submitted policy. In this case, the Secretary of State replaced these criteria with a more general statement, viz. ‘the proposed development would not be likely to cause severe planning, economic or social effects on any shopping centre in Greater Manchester or elsewhere’. The resultant vagueness of the Structure Plan policy prompted the Greater Manchester Council to prepare a report as a guide to its interpretation (GMC, 1980). Similar reports have been deemed necessary in Norfolk (Norfolk County Council, 1980) and West Yorkshire (West Yorkshire County Council, 1980). As regards the submitted West Yorkshire policy which proposed that certain types of retail warehouses should be allowed outside existing centres, it was argued at the EIP that since there was ample derelict and redevelopable land in or near existing centres to accommodate any additional retail floorspace, there was no need for major new shopping developments outside the town centre. The Secretary of State consequently replaced the original policy by one stating a presumption against major new shopping development outside existing centres. A similar modification was made to the Structure Plan submitted by one of the case study authorities.

Although in general the Secretary of State has favoured a collective approach to off- centre retail outlets, there have been a few exceptions to this rule. Thus, in direct contrast to the above decisions, an explanatory paragraph in the Northumberland Structure Plan relating specifically to retail warehouses was upgraded to a policy in order to provide ‘an adequate framework for local plans and development control’. A similar amendment was made to the South East Dorset plan, on the basis of an EIP (Examination in Public) panel recommendation.

In line with the findings of Chapter 2 concerning the way in which local authorities have attempted to extend the scope of planning to encompass social and economic issues, a number of authorities have sought to avoid the institutional constraints of central government approval by incorporating more flexible policies in non-statutory documents (see Table 6). Non-statutory policies have generally carried just as much weight at appeals. This reflects the fact that the Inspectorate has adopted a rather


different attitude towards retail warehouses from that of the Secretary of State. Thus policies for large off centre outlets in general have quite often been dismissed by Inspectors as being either totally irrelevant or too strictly applied in the case of retail warehouses. For example, the Inspector in one appeal case concerning a DIY retail warehouse in Kent concluded that the policies in the structure plan for large off-centre outlets did not take ‘specific cognisance of the appellants type of use’ and that consequently ‘there appears to be no strategic guidance in this regard’ (DOE appeal reference: APP/5062/C/79/5 122). Other inspectors have argued that retail warehouses should be regarded as exceptions to the location of retail outlets within existing centres on the grounds of the bulky nature of the goods concerned (appeal refs: APP/5213/A/79/08226; APP/5122/C/76/5009; APP/5301/C/75/1223). This stance remains evident in more recent appeal cases in which although in general substantial support for council policies is evident, exceptions to policy have quite frequently been made in relation to DIY stores (Gibbs, 1986b).

The differing attitudes of the Inspectorate and the Secretary of State are further illustrated by the fact that since the Secretary of State modified the West Yorkshire Structure Plan, conflicting appeal decisions have been taken. In the first instance an appeal concerning a proposal for a DIY store was upheld on the basis that the intention of the original policy (i.e. that DIY stores were special cases) was incorporated in the revised policy. In contrast, the second appeal was dismissed partly on the grounds that the Structure Plan did not differentiate in this way. Following these conflicting decisions the West Yorkshire development Control Forum made representations to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities about the apparent failure of central government to support local authority policies in appeals. For a number of years, the Association and others pressed for the publication of revised DCPNs dealing with development in town centres, large new stores, and retail warehouses, but in the event the Government decided not to issue any further guidance on the subject. The only recent statement is in the form of a reply made by the Secretary of State to a Parliamentary Question in July 1985. This statement broadly confirms previous central government policy, but implies that the trading impact of a store should only be considered in exceptional circumstances where ‘the cumulative effects of other recent and proposed large scale retail development in the locality . . . could seriously affect the vitality and viability of a nearby town centre as a whole’.

Finally, the socio-economic environment has had an important influence on the north to south diffusion of positive local authority attitudes. Thus local authorities in the north have more readily accepted retail warehouse developments, due to the more depressed nature of their local economies and their greater experience with off centre retail outlets in comparison with authorities in the south.

CHAPTER 7

The Adoption Process in Three Case Study Areas

7.1. INTRODUCTION

As the innovation of the retail warehouse was diffused through the planning system, so individual local authorities moved through the adoption process. Although for ease of discussion each stage in the process is described in turn below, it will become evident that the number of stages in the process has varied from authority to authority, and rejection has occurred at varying stages.

7.2. AWARENESS

In all cases, initial awareness of retail warehouses resulted from development pressure. Table 8 shows that County C was the first of the case study areas to receive applications for retail warehouse developments. This early pressure is almost certainly a reflection of the more favourable socio-economic characteristics of this county proving attractive to potential retail warehouse operators. As the southernmost of the three case study areas, County C has a higher proportion of people in the upper socio- economic groups than the other two counties, and higher home and car ownership rates. But, despite the earlier development pressure in County C, the authorities here have generally responded to retail warehouses rather later than their counterparts in the other two counties. This confirms the spatial variation in response noted in the previous chapter and attributed to the prior experience of authorities in the north with an earlier form of off-centre retailing: the superstore.

However, the number of applications received is not an entirely accurate measure of development pressure. Enquiries are often made to local authorities by prospective developers which, for a number of reasons, do not materialise as applications. Not least of these reasons is the response of the local authority to the developer’s overtures. For instance, Table 8 shows that Districts A3 and C3, have received relatively few applications for retail warehouses, considering the size of their populations. This is largely a reflection of the fact that in a bid to protect the considerable investment they have made in town centre redevelopment, both councils deterred applications for retail warehouses, even before the formal adoption of policies relating to such developments. Thus although 23 enquiries were received for retail warehouses in District A3 between 1976 and 1979, only one of these proceeded to the application stage, and even this was

46


TABLE 8. Applications for retail warehouses received by case study authorities 1971-1981

Authority Year

1971 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 Total

County A County 2 2 District A 1 1 2 1 2 6 District A2 3 3 District A3 1 1 2 District A4 4 4

Sub-Total 1 3 1 4 7 1 17

County B County 1 2 3 District Bl 1 1 District B2 2 1 2 3 8 District B3 1 1 2

Sub-Total 2 1 1 3 3 4 14

County C County 1 1 1 1 4 District Cl 2 1 3 District C2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 9 District C3 1 1 District C4 1 1 1 3 District C5 2 2 District C6 1 1 2

Sub-Total 2 1 1 1 4 7 3 3 2 24

Source: Local Authority Records.

refused on the grounds that the proposed range of goods would conflict with town centre retailing. Authorities with a very flexible or ill-defined policy, on the other hand, such as Districts B2 and C2, have attracted a relatively high number of applications.

Having become aware of the innovation, few authorities proceeded immediately to the interest and evaluation stages of the adoption process. Indeed, as suggested in Chapter 6, due to the perceived conflict of the retail warehouse with their conservative ideologies, most local authorities, at least initially, rejected the innovation at this first stage. As suggested in Chapter 6, this early rejection was initially encouraged by central government. Thus the Structure Plan policies formulated by both Counties A and C confused cash and carry outlets and retail warehouses as DCPN 14 had done, and, echoing DCPN 13, resisted the development of retail warehouses outside established shopping centres. Although these policies thus reflected the national thinking of the early ‘seventies, due to the lengthy statutory process of structure plan preparation and approval, the Structure Plans of Counties A and C were not approved until 1977 and 1980 respectively.

But whilst most authorities initially rejected the innovation at the awareness stage, some authorities jumped from the awareness stage to the adoption stage without going through the intermediate stages of interest and evaluation. Amongst the case study


authorities, such a response was confined to those authorities whose jurisdiction is primarily rural, but encompasses the fringes of the large urban area of an adjoining district, i.e. Districts A2, C4 and C5. These fringe authorities have not been subjected to enough development pressure to consider it worthwhile formulating policies concerned with retail warehouses, and therefore have not passed through the interest and evaluation stages. These districts have tended to adopt a rather parochial and liberal attitude towards retail warehouses since, as they have no major town centres with which retail warehouse developments would compete, the risks of adoption are low. On the other hand, the advantages are perceived to be high since retail warehouse developments would extend the range of shopping facilities available to the local residents and provide valuable rates income and employment. Generally, any form of investment is welcomed by these districts, especially by District A2 which has a particularly depressed local economy.

The liberal attitude of the fringe authorities towards retail warehouses is reflected in the fact that they have been quite prepared to waive the industrial zoning of land in order to approve such developments. This disregard for industrial zoning has been particularly evident in Districts C4 and C5, which have both allowed retail warehouse developments to take place near their respective boundaries with District C3.

These fringe authorities are the exception, however, in the case of most of the authorities several years elapsed after the initial awareness of retail warehouses, before any evaluation was undertaken, let alone an adoption decision made. As already noted, as regards county councils this time lag is partly attributable to the lengthy statutory process of structure plan preparation and approval. Statutory procedures are also at least partially to blame for the delayed response of district authorities since until 1980 district councils were not allowed to prepare local plans until the respective structure plan was approved. But the time which elapsed between awareness and evaluation is perhaps primarily a reflection of the inherent conservatism of planning. This conservatism is evident in the influence of the conventional wisdom of retail planning when the local authorities have finally embarked upon an evaluation of the innovation. The policy report on retail warehouses prepared by District A3, for instance, emphasised the need for balance: ‘The aim of a revised policy on retail warehouses must be to achieve for the community the benefits which such outlets can undoubtedly provide, whilst safeguarding against the potential disbenefits.’ The advantages of retail warehouses were listed as: consumer satisfaction; improved range of shopping facilities; visual attraction; employment; ‘spin-offs’ to the local economy. The disadvantages, on the other hand, were perceived to be: possible impact on investment confidence and on the marketing of the latest redevelopment scheme; unfair competition with conventional shops; poor quality buildings; loss of industrial land; traffic generation.

Furthermore, the views of the planning officers revealed by the case study interviews generally conformed to the conventional wisdom. Thus they generally acknowledged the service which new forms of retailing provide for the public, but considered that such outlets should be directed towards existing centres or planned locations in order to be accessible to all sections of the community. Of course there were exceptions to this general rule. For instance, the Development Control Officer in District Al argued


“we must not ossify traditional shopping”. He argued that planners should be ‘accomodators’ rather than ‘judges’ of retail innovations. Another notable exception was the County Planning Officer in County B, who gave little weight to the concept of the retail hierarchy, and was conscious of the dynamism of retailing, in which he felt planners should not interfere: “No planning powers in the world can turn the clock back or even stop it, nor should they.” This particular officer presumably had an important influence on the liberal Structure Plan policy submitted by this County.

7.3. INTEREST AND EVALUATION

Most of the case study authorities were finally prompted to proceed to the interest and evaluation stages of the adoption process by the receipt of particular planning applications or by an appeal decision. The county councils of both Counties A and C proceeded to the interest and evaluation stages when it became evident that their approved Structure Plan policies were inadequate as a framework for development control decisions. In County A this point was reached when an application for a combined retail warehouse and industrial development was referred by District A2 to the county council for determination as a ‘county matter’ early in 1980. In reporting to the planning committee on this application, the County Planning Officer recommended that a study be undertaken, in association with the District Councils, to determine suitable locations for retail warehouses. In County C, a joint County/District working party was set up to consider the issues raised by retail warehouses, following a number of appeals.

In both cases, these county council initiatives in turn prompted one of the respective district councils to proceed to formulate policies of their own for retail warehouses, and thus undertake their own independent evaluation of the innovation. Inevitably, as these cases illustrate, the perspective of county and district councils can be rather different. In District A4, the Sub-Committee set up to consider the county report and the issue of retail warehousing in general, paid particular attention to retail warehousing on industrial estates. Their concern about this issue arose from the ‘mushrooming’ of a retail warehouse development on an industrial estate in their area. The development concerned had been extended numerous times both physically and in terms of the goods sold, causing problems both of planning enforcement and traffic congestion. The council of District C3 went further, concluding that the more liberal policies advocated by the County Working Party were inappropriate to their particular District for two reasons: firstly, the shortage of industrial land in the District, and secondly, ‘the commitment to modernisation and improvement within [existing] centres, particularly with regard to the town centre’. Furthermore, it was felt that in the light of the limited population growth expected, there was little scope for additional retail floorspace in the borough. Consequently the Council approved policies which were rather more restrictive than those recommended by the County Working Party.

In the interest stage the local authority seeks further information about the


innovation and possible planning responses to it. Thus, the policy reports produced by several of the case study authorities refer to research undertaken by the Unit for Retail Planning Information in relation to retail warehouses, and several councils had drawn on the experience of other local authorities. In the report prepared by County A, for instance, the policy responses of other local authorities were reviewed and, in particular, a rough estimate of the demand for retail warehouses within the County was made on the basis of a method employed by Tyne and Wear County Council. As suggested in Chapter 6, such exchange of information between organisations appears to have resulted in a general concensus as regards the appropriate planning response to retail warehouses.

Since the adoption process took place concurrently with the diffusion process, by the time the evaluation stage was reached by the majority of local authorities, it was facilitated by the greater amount of information available on the nature of retail warehouses, freeing local authorities from their initial dependence on central government advice. Nevertheless the evaluation which authorities undertake cannot be truly rational since it is subject to the constraints of the conventional wisdom of retailing. Thus in assessing the merits of the retail warehouse, County Councils A and C reaffirmed at the outset their commitment to the protection of town centres as advocated in their respective structure plans. Reflecting the discussion in Chapter 2, whilst recognising that it is ‘not the role of planning to obstruct new forms of retailing or to prevent competition between new and established retailers’, County C justified their stance as follows: ‘In view of their responsibility to safeguard the interests of the community, planning authorities are justified in being cautious of new forms of retailing until it is proven that the undesirable consequences do not outweigh the benefits.’

At the district level, the desire to protect the town centre has assumed even greater importance, particularly amongst those authorities whose jurisdiction comprises a medium-sized town, such as Districts Al and Cl. The desire of District Al to protect their town centre can be readily understood, since the redevelopment scheme which totals 600,000 sq. ft and virtually forms the entire town centre here, was funded by the local authority. The strong preference for the centralisation of retail facilities in District Cl is evident in the disadvantages of decentralisation listed in the shopping topic report of the Town Centre District Plan, viz.: diversion of investment away from the town centre with a consequent reduction in the quality and range of shopping facilities, inaccessibility by non-car owning or non-local people, and traffic and environmental problems in areas not designed for retailing. As already indicated, similar arguments against off-centre retailing have been put forward by many of the other case study authorities.

It is interesting to note that where the evaluation stage has been omitted from the adoption process, as in District B 1, rejection has resulted. The more liberal Structure Plan policy submitted by County B, allowing certain types of retail warehouse outside existing centres, clearly illustrates the importance of the evaluation stage to the policy response. The County B policy was apparently based on a more detailed evaluation than that undertaken by the other two counties. The conclusion of this evaluation was as follows:

Retail innovation and Planning 5 1

‘On balance, therefore, it is considered that the need to make better use of resources and investment in existing centres, together with the estimated limited growth in consumer expenditure, precludes the development of significant off-centre shopping floorspace which might undermine or duplicate shopping investment in district centre, whether existing or planned However, there are types of stores which might be located outside existing shopping centres without necessarily affecting them adversely. These could include DIY stores, showrooms, and secondhand stores.’

This is again in line with the national survey, in which it was found that the more detailed evaluation undertaken in relation to non-statutory policies tended to lead to the adoption of more liberal policies.

7.4. TRIAL STAGE

As anticipated in Chapter 4, the trial stage of the adoption process is often omitted due to the difficulty of testing the innovation on a limited basis. Where authorities have attempted to go through this stage, developers have generally found the sites offered unacceptable. In District A3, for instance the authority allocated a number of sites for retail warehousing, but only three of the fifteen enquiries subsequently received from developers were translated into bids for sites, one of which was granted planning permission. Take-up of the other allocated sites has been slow, leading the Council to feel that they have ‘missed the boat’ in relation to retail warehouse development, failing to respond positively to retail warehouse development when the local economy was in a more favourable condition and developer interest was high.

Arising from their commitment to town centre retailing, the response of both Districts Al and Cl to retail warehouses has been to allocate areas on the fringe of the town centre for such uses, but neither Council has been able to provide suitable sites ready for development at the right time. District Al faced two appeals arising from their refusal to grant planning permission to retail warehouse developments outside the area which they had allocated. At the first inquiry, the Inspector supported the Council’s aim of improving the substantially derelict area which had been allocated for retail warehouse use, but he did not consider this to be a proper reason for refusing planning permission for suitable development elsewhere. The second Inspector also agreed that the proposed use would be more appropriately located in the town centre fringe, but was not satisfied that a suitable site was immediately available in the allocated area.

Similarly District Cl have been unable to provide serviced sites ready for development at the appropriate time within the area which they have allocated for retail warehouse use. In this case the development of the area concerned is dependent upon the provision of road access to the site which neither prospective developers nor the highway authority seem prepared to undertake. Moreover, two applicants have argued that the proposed site is unsuitable on the grounds of the level of the rents likely to be payable. This, the local authority argue, is not a planning issue.


7.5. ADOPTION

The final stage in the process is generally marked by the approval of policies accepting or rejecting the new form of retailing. Adoption does not necessarily involve the approval of a formal policy, however. Indeed, as already outlined, fringe authorities in particular may adopt retail warehouses without passing through any of the foregoing stages.

The case studies confirm the national tendency to favour partial adoption whereby certain types of retail warehouse are favoured and/or a compromise is reached in terms of the direction of retail warehouses to fringe locations. Thus local authorities attempt to minimise the risk of adoption by mitigating the impact of the retail warehouse on existing retail outlets. As a result of their studies of retail warehousing, the county councils of Counties A and C both concluded that certain types of retail warehouse were more acceptable than others. Both counties acknowledged that there was a case for locating DIY stores outside established shopping centres. County A concluded that the fringe of the town centre was an appropriate location for DIY stores as well as self-assembly furniture and leisure uses on the grounds that such stores would not compete directly with town centre shops. Although in County C there was considered to be a case for all furniture stores to be located outside established centres, it was concluded that the limited growth which was likely in the furniture sector in the immediate future would probably increase the impact of retail warehouses on town centre outlets and for this reason permissions in this sector should be limited. Several of the other case study authorities favoured such partial adoption with the DIY store being the most widely accepted exception to the established pattern of retailing.

Of course the adoption decision is not taken in a vacuum, it is influenced by the socio-economic and politico-organisational framework within which the local authority works.

In several cases, economic necessity has prompted the approval of retail warehouse developments. In District B2, for example, an application for a mixed retail warehouse and industrial scheme was approved, despite being clearly contrary to Structure Plan policy, on the grounds of the economic necessity of releasing further industrial land and securing its development. Several of the case study authorities have similarly approved mixed retail warehouse and industrial developments. Reference is made to such developments in the policy report prepared by District A4: ‘There have (also) been a number of approaches made to the Council by prospective developers that if planning consent were forthcoming for a retail warehouse development, this would make commercially viable proposals for the development of adjoining land for industry.’ The committee felt that the advantages of such developments in terms of employment would outweigh the disadvantages in terms of loss of trade in town centres, and subsequently approved a report explicitly evaluating sites in terms of the planning gain which could be reaped.

Furthermore, adoption is often motivated by the fear that if retail warehouses are not accepted within the local authority’s own jurisdiction then they would be developed in neighbouring authorities with a detrimental effect on retail outlets in the


first local authority’s area. Parochial attitudes have often prompted local councillors to express this fear, but it has also been stated in policy documents presented by officers to committee for approval, perhaps in order to encourage members to approve more liberal policies. In the discussion of the marketing of sites for retail warehousing in District A3, for example, it was considered that retail warehousing on the estate ‘would ensure that such uses were represented in [the] town centre rather than peripheral town or local locations which would tend to reduce the potential for shoppers being attracted to [the town]‘. Similarly, the 1976 policy review in District B2 states: ‘if the uses are not accommodated in [the town] they will be met in authorities outside and then take trade outside the Borough’. Finally in the supporting statement of the Structure Plan covering District Al: ‘In any other location there would be no benefit to the town centre, and to refuse such development completely would lead to trade being lost to centres outside [the town].’

In line with the national trends identified in Chapter 2, members tend to adopt a rather parochial attitude, their prime concern being the promotion of the local economy. The implications of this stance for their response to retail warehouses has varied according to the character of their district. In the districts centred on medium and large towns, the desire to protect established outlets has resulted in a very conservative attitude towards retail warehouses. In County C, for instance, members expressed concern about the proposed relaxation of the Structure Plan policy resulting from the deliberations of the Working Party. In particular, they sought reassurance from the Working Party with regard to four issues: the control of items sold, employment implications, traffic generation, and impact on existing outlets. But, as already noted, where there are no large scale town centre developments to protect, as in fringe authorities, members have responded rather more positively to retail warehouses. Indeed, at a more general level, a more positive approach has been encouraged by the recession which has prompted the northern authorities in particular to accept virtually any proposed development, resulting in inter-district competition for development and sometimes, as in County A, county/district conflict.

Not surprisingly, conservative local authority policies tend to be supported by the local Chambers of Trade and Commerce. In County A, for instance, in commenting on the County Council’s report on retail warehousing, the Chamber of Trade and Commerce expressed their support for the original Structure Plan policy by emphasising the need to promote the development of the sub-regional centre and concluding that local authority actions which did not do this would be ‘directly benefitting our competitors in neighbouring cities.’ But where local authority attitudes are more liberal, established retailers are more likely to intervene to influence the outcome, and thus inhibit adoption. This is illustrated by a particular development control decision in County B. The proposal comprised a 70,000 sq. ft DIY store and garden centre on an industrial estate owned by the County Council, adjacent to a motorway junction. In line with the submitted Structure Plan, the Officer recommended approval subject to a Section 52 agreement restricting the sales to DIY goods and garden products. The Committee accepted this recommendation but asked that a further report be submitted to the area sub-committee in the event of any objections being received. Twenty-two letters of objection from local traders were


subsequently received and the sub-committee therefore re-considered the matter. The original decision was then reversed and the application was refused on the grounds of the location of the development on an industrial estate, and the precedent which could be set by accepting a retail development outside an established retail centre.

The case study evidence confirms the ambiguous nature of central government guidance on the planning response to retail warehouses with, on the one hand, the Secretary of State favouring more restrictive policies and, on the other hand, the Inspectorate tending to favour a more liberal response. The Structure Plan policy submitted by County B indicated conditional adoption of retail warehouses:

‘Development outside existing or planned centres may be acceptable where: I. the type of trading proposed would make traditional town centre location inappropriate, 2. the scale of development would not undermine retail investment in existing centres and thereby

waste economic resources.’

This policy was questioned at the subsequent Examination in Public. In particular, ‘strong doubts’ were expressed about the ‘adequacy of these criteria as a means of control’. Thus in line with the national trends identified in Chapter 6, the Secretary of State amalgamated the above policy with other policies in the submitted Structure Plan to produce a general policy concerning the location of major new shopping floorspace. This amendment was not received very favourably by the County Council. When interviewed, the County Planning Officer argued that the approved policy was not positive enough and that it failed to give applicants sufficient guidance as to the type of applications which might be considered favourably.

In contrast, adoption may be encouraged by recommendations of the Inspectorate. In District Cl, for instance, the Inspector at one appeal concluded that the council’s shopping policies had been ‘too strictly applied in the Council’s consideration of the development proposed’. A second appeal was also upheld, largely on the grounds of the bulkiness of the goods to be retailed. The Council have not bent to pressure, however, on the contrary, since the second appeal decision they have reaffirmed their policy and protested to the Secretary of State about the decision. When interviewed, the policy officer of this district said: “I’m horrified at the views of the Inspectorate and their failure to appreciate the importance of retailing in the town centre . . . I’m totally astounded that the Inspectors believe the claims of the operators that they are in some way unique, that they have special operating characteristics.”

Finally, conflict between county and district authorities can inhibit adoption. When interviewed, the Chairman of the Planning Committee of County A made frequent references to the ‘parochial attitude’ of district councillors and its negative effect on decision making. The potential for conflict in this county was first created by local government reorganisation as a result of which County A was created from the amalgamation of two former county boroughs and several urban districts from adjacent shire counties. Each of the four new constituent districts has at least 12 members who also sit on the County Council. Altogether at the time of the study 64% of the County A councillors were also members of one of the constituent district councils.

County/district conflict is particularly acute between District A2 and County A. The main difficulty appears to lie in the split of the planning function between county


and district councils. Thus whilst the county council are more likely to have the resources to undertake research into new forms of retailing as a basis for the formulation of policies, it is the district councils who are responsible for detailed local planning, such as the selection of sites, and for the implementation of policies through development control decisions. The council of District A2 are fiercely protective of their autonomy. Thus they made the following resolution in response to the county council report on retail warehousing which included guidelines on the identification of potential sites:

‘that the County Council be informed that in the opinion of this Council, the County Council’s function is to provide strategic guidance which is acceptable to the Districts, and that subsequent identification of sites is a District function.’

In order to avoid such conflict in County C the initial discussion paper was prepared mainly by the county council, but the resultant policy recommendations were the subject of county/district discussions.

The problem in County A is exacerbated by the fact that the exceptionally depressed nature of the local economy in District A2 prompts the council to be particularly aggressive in their bid to attract investment and employment to the area. This is reflected in the reasons the council put forward for recommending approval of the mixed retail warehousing and industrial development which initially prompted the County Council to prepare a report on retail warehousing. The reasons were:

(a) the provision of a local service; (b) the residents of the District should not have to travel to another District for

this type of facility; (c) the development is not suitable for a town centre site; (d) the development would use a large vacant building with a semi-derelict

appearance; (e) the development would amount to a significant increase in local employment.

The County planning committee perceived the merits of the application rather differently and subsequently refused permission for the development on the following grounds:

(a) it was contrary to Structure Plan policy on the location of retail outlets; (b) it was contrary to Structure Plan policy on retailing on industrial estates; (c) servicing and parking arrangements were inadequate; (d) it would set a precedent for further departures; (e) it would necessitate substantial off-site highway improvements.

7.6. CONCLUSION

The case study evidence shows that the adoption process may not be a linear, one- off process, but rather an iterative or cyclical one. Furthermore, it is not undertaken in isolation, but within the philosophical framework of the conventional wisdom of retail


planning and subject to external pressures and constraints of a socio-economic and politico-organisational nature.

Firstly, not all authorities proceed right through the adoption process. In some cases the process may be aborted after the awareness stage in which case the local authority will continue to deal with applications an ad hoc basis. Such authorities remaim potential adopters and may proceed through the adoption process at a later time. This response is commonly found amongst authorities which have been subject only to limited development pressure, such as Districts C6 and B3, although there is one notable exception to this rule amongst the case study authorities. Ironically, it is partly because of their rather ad hoc response to retail warehouses, that District C2 has been subjected to so much development pressure. The first application for a retail warehouse in this District was received in 1971; several more applications were submitted and approved over the next six years, but it was not until 1977 that the Council considered it necessary to formulate a policy to control such development.

Secondly, although most authorities will only go through the adoption process once, in the case of District B2, the adoption process has been cyclical rather than linear. The Council have vacillated several times between adoption and rejection, each renewal of development pressure leading to a reassessment of policy. This vacillation can perhaps be explained by the fact that a positive approach to retail warehouses was first adopted by the District in 1976, well ahead of national opinion, and therefore a great deal of development pressure was subsequently attracted to the area. This pressure in turn resulted in further policy reviews, as the council attempted to maintain control over retail warehouse development. The District Council presumably consider policy modifications preferable to exceptions to policy, in the belief that decisions conforming to policy are more likely to be upheld on appeal and are generally more readily justified. In a study of the relationship between development control and policy formulation, Underwood (198 1) referred to the ‘fundamental conflict between the desire for certainty on policy frameworks . . . and the need to maintain flexibility in order to respond to changes in the economic climate, in development pressures, or in the structure of activities in the area’. This particular District Council have responded perhaps too readily to such changes and it must be questionable whether they have retained any power of control or, indeed, any credibility in their policy. The officers of the council are aware of this breakdown in control: “Once let somebody in without total and utter control in some way, you have a difficult job enforcing, keeping tracks as to what’s happening, its only after many months perhaps you find out that subtly the thing’s changed . . . the goods have been extended and it is then thrown up as precedent in every other case.”

A similar loss of credibility and control has occurred in District C2 as a result of the ad hoc response of the council to retail warehouse development and the belated

adoption of a council policy. The Chief Planning Officer of the council admitted in approving their policy for retail warehouses they were “locking the stable door after the horse had bolted”. Similarly, the policy officer admitted that the Council “should have recognised this earlier . . . What has happened is entirely by default.“; this officer concluded “We’ve been lucky in [this town] in the sense that we have decentralised a lot of shops not as a planned decentralisation, more as a decentralisation that’s been


thrust upon us and we’ve grudgingly accepted it. Fortunately the geographic spread of the decentralisation has been fortuitous . . . so we’ve got away with it. If you combined all those sites I think you would then be more seriously competing with the town centre than I think we are at the moment.”

Most local planning authorities have thus taken several years to move through the adoption process in relation to retail warehouses, and it is likely that such would be their response to any retail innovation. This time lag is due partly to the inherent conservatism of planning and partly to the statutory planning process itself.

The experience in the three case study counties indicates the inadequacy of the statutory development plan system in dealing with the development pressures arising from institutional innovation in retailing. Firstly, the inherent delays in the statutory procedure mean that by the time the policies are formerly approved they are no longer appropriate, since in the meantime the innovation which they seek to control has changed. In County A, for instance, three of the four county structure plans were approved in 1977, but they reflect the thinking of the early ‘seventies. Secondly, the modifications made to the County B Structure Plan, which the national review suggests are not unusual, show that the Secretary of State is generally not prepared to accept structure plan policies which deal in detail with specific types of retailing.

Drawing from the empirical analysis presented in this chapter and the previous one, the concluding chapter considers the factors which determine whether a local authority is likely to adopt an innovation at an early or late stage in the diffusion process, and the implications of the research for dealing with future retail innovations.

CHAPTER 8

Conclusion

From the empirical evidence presented in Chapters 6 and 7, it is possible to identify the factors which determine whether a local planning authority is likely, in Roger’s terms, to be an ‘early adopter’, one of the ‘early’ or ‘late majority’, a ‘laggard’ or, indeed, will remain a potential adopter who never actually adopts the innovation in question. Although this characterisation is derived from a study of local authorities’ adoption of a specific institutional innovation in retailing, the retail warehouse, there is evidence to suggest that it is also applicable not just to the adoption of other retail innovations by planning authorities, but to other types of innovation as well, such as the adoption of new methods and techniques studied by Jefferson (1973).

In the initial stages of the diffusion process and the introductory stage of the innovation life cycle, few authorities will be prepared to take the risk of adopting the innovation. The way in which local authorities perceive this risk is largely determined by the traditional ideology of the profession. Thus in relation to new forms of retailing, the risk is generally measured by the authorities in terms of the potential impact of the new outlet on established forms of retailing, and the precedent set by approval of this new form of development, which may well be contrary to approved planning policies.

Only those authorities for whom the relative advantages are high will be prepared to take these risks and adopt the innovation at an early stage. In relation to retail warehouses, authorities on the urban fringe are the most obvious examples of such early adopters. These authorities generally do not have major shopping centres to protect from the potential impact of retail warehouses and so the risk of adoption was relatively low. Furthermore, the relative advantages were high in terms of the provision of employment, rates income and an additional service to the public. These advantages can be seen as a form of ‘adoption rent’, the relative value of which declined as an increasing number of local authorities adopted the innovation. The case study evidence shows that the main factor which inhibited or delayed early adoption by these authorities was conflict with the adjacent urban authorities or respective county authorities for whom the relative advantages were lower and the risks higher.

Similarly, in relation to the adoption of new methods and techniques by local planning authorities, Jefferson (op.cit.) found that the early adopters were those for whom the relative advantages were high and the risks low. In this case, the relative

58


advantages were found to be highest for those authorities who were facing difficult or

complex problems and/or a changing socio-economic environment, whilst the risks were lowest for authorities who had ample resources and large numbers of staff.

However, for the majority of authorities, at least initially, the relative advantages of adoption will be fewer and the perceived risks higher than for the ‘early adopters’. It is generally only after some time that the perceived advantages outweigh the risks associated with adoption. Both in this study and the one undertaken by Jefferson (op.cit.), the increased availability of information on the characteristics of the innovation played an important part in the reduction of the perceived risk. In the case of the adoption of new methods and techniques studied by Jefferson, the information was often transmitted via planning consultants, whilst in relation to the adoption of the retail warehouse, the information generally came either from other planning authorities or from the Unit for Retail Planning Information. In relation to retail warehouses, the perceived risks were further reduced by the increasing sophistication of the innovation itself and, simultaneoulsy, the perceived social and economic advantages of adoption carried more weight with the onset of the recession.

The empirical evidence presented in Chapters 6 and 7 shows that the advantages outweighed the potential risks for authorities in the north before those in the south. Thus broadly speaking, in Roger’s terms, the northern authorities constituted the ‘early majority’ of adopters and the southern authorities constituted the ‘late majority’. Arising from this generally north to south drift of diffusion, the ‘laggards’ in relation to the adoption of retail warehouses are mainly to be found in the London area. Here development pressure is now considerable, and yet some authorities still have no policies at all for retail warehouses and those that do maintain a persistently conservative attitude.

Some of the authorities who have not yet adopted retail warehouses may never do so, continuing to deal with applications on an ad hoc basis until saturation is reached in their area, perhaps through the development of retail warehouses in adjoining jurisdictions. Most authorities in this category will simply not have been subjected to enough development pressure to warrant a conscious decision as to whether or not to adopt the innovation, as is the case with the rural case study authorities. Other authorities, however, like District C2, may be taken over by the dynamism of retailing and not have a chance to make a conscious decision on the matter.

The empirical evidence suggests that the retail warehouse cannot just be considered as one innovation. In fact each retail warehouse trading in a different type of goods should be considered separately since many local authorities have adopted one or two forms of retail warehouse, typically those trading in DIY or self assembly goods, and rejected the other forms. Local authorities have differentiated in this way on the grounds of the varying degree of risk or potential advantage perceived in the adoption of the various forms of retail warehouse.

The case study research indicates that the political and organisational framework within which the local authority has taken the adoption decision has been the dominant influence as regards the precise time of adoption of the retail warehouse, although other local factors including the degree of development pressure and the nature of the socio-economic environment, have also been influential. Similarly,


Jefferson found that local political and organisational factors strongly influenced the speed with which authorities adopted innovatory methods or techniques.

However, these local factors do not entirely account for the fact that most local authorities took several years to adopt the retail warehouse. This time lag resulted partly from the traditionally conservative outlook of most local authorities in relation to retailing, but as regards county councils, it is also partially attributable to the inherent delays in the preparation of structure plans. Both the results of the national survey reported in Chapter 6 and the experience in the case study authorities, suggest that because of these inevitable delays the statutory development plan system is not an appropriate vehicle for responding to the dynamism of retailing.

As a result of the time lag, some authorities, such as case study District A3, have adopted the innovation of the retail warehouse at a time when demand is falling and have thus missed the chance of reaping the advantages which the retail warehouse has to offer both to the consumer and to the local economy. In other cases local authorities have adopted apparently positive policies for retail warehouses, directing such outlets towards fringe areas, and yet been unable to provide appropriate sites at the right time, with the result that retail warehouse developments have been approved on appeal elsewhere in the town on sites which the local authority regard as far less suitable.

At a more general level, at a time when most local authorities have only just adopted positive policies for retail warehouses, there are signs that the retail warehouse phenomenon is changing direction, with a movement away from the development of individual stores towards the development of retail warehouse ‘parks’. The policies which local authorities have adopted in relation to individual retail warehouses may well be inappropriate to such grouped developments, suggesting that local authorities will have to go through the adoption process again in relation to this new form.

Nevertheless, partly because of the time lag between the introduction of the retail warehouse and its adoption, local planning authorities have had an impact on the location of the retail warehouse, and the speed and direction of its diffusion.

Arguably the greatest impact of the local authorities’ response, in conjunction with that of established retailers, has been to curtail the life of the electrical retail warehouse. This now only seems likely to survive as a concessionary within retail warehouses of goods sectors which have been more readily accepted by local planning authorities.

As regards development in the other goods sectors, the persistently negative attitude of the authorities in the south to all forms of off-centre retailing is largely responsible for the north-south direction of diffusion of the retail warehouse.

Thus the impact of local planning authorities on the diffusion of the retail warehouse has been almost entirely negative, and yet planning authorities could use their powers in a much more positive and beneficial way to influence the development of retail innovations, at least in terms of their location. In many areas, the final outcome of the adoption process relating to retail warehouses has been a compromise reached between the retailers and the planners whereby such outlets have been directed to locations on the fringe of the town centre. It is interesting to note that a similar

Retail Innovation and Planning 6 1

compromise has been reached between retailers and local planning authorities in relation to superstore developments. In this case the compromise takes the form of the development of superstores within established centres and as the focus of new district centres. Such compromises have been made by local authorities with the aim of reducing the risks and increasing the advantages associated with adoption; they can be seen as part of the adaptation to the market which Izreali’s theory suggests each innovation makes. Izreali, however, was referring to the process of mutual adaptation which takes place between the innovative and established forms of trading; this suggests that the innovation would have modified over time without planning intervention. However the fact remains that planning authorities have the power to potentially influence the nature of this modification and they should take advantage of this fact.

If planners fail to respond swiftly to retail innovation and fail to negotiate with the innovative retailers at an early stage to achieve a mutually satisfying compromise, then new forms of retailing will continue to be located unsatisfactorily and the conflict between the retail system and the planning system will persist. Planners must recognise that by imposing restrictive policies on innovative forms of retailing, they will not ‘kill’ the innovation at the beginning of its life cycle. The ‘wheel of retailing’ will inevitably continue to turn, it is up to planners to turn it in their direction.

APPENDIX

Interview Schedule

SECTIONB-RETAILPLANNING

1. How important do you think retail planning is relative to planning for other land uses? Why?

2. How important do you think the concept of a retail hierarchy is in determining the location and level of provision of retail services? Why?

3. On what grounds do you think the local authority are justified in intervening in retail development? Why?

4. Please describe what you understand by the terms ‘superstore’; ‘hypermarket’; ‘retail warehouse’. 5. Do you think there is a place for such new forms of retailing in (this county/district)?

Why/why not? 6. Do you think local planning authorities should designate sites for such new forms of retailing?

Why/why not?

SECTION C - COUNCIL POLICY

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12. 13.

Was the Council policy the subject of much discussion within the Committee prior to approval? If so, what were the main points raised? Was the debate along party lines? If not, on what basis did people group? Do you think the approved/draft (Structure Plan) policy is adequate for guiding the development of large new stores/retail warehouses? Why/why not? What form of alternative policy would you prefer? Do you think County and District policies complement or contradict each other? If they contradict, in what way? Did the views of any individual or group of elected members influence directly or indirectly the policy recommendations you made? What views did they express? Why? Did the views of any individual or group of officers influence directly or indirectly the policy recommendations you made? What views did they express? Why? How did the Structure Plan/District Council policies influence your original recommendations? (a) Do you think the new division of responsibilities between county and district councils introduced

in the 1980 Local Government, Planning and Land Act will be detrimental to the implementation of county retailing policy? If yes, in what way? If no, why not?

62


(b) Do you think the new division of responsibilities between county and district councils introduced in the 1980 Local Government, Planning and Land Act will make policy formulation and development control decision making easier? If yes, in what way? If no, why not?

SECTION D - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

How would you describe the relationship between policy and development control decisions in retail planning in (this county)? Did any particular development control decisions taken in your county/district influence the policy recommendation made to the committee? Which? Why? Do you think the policy stance taken by the Council has affected the number and type of applications received by the Council? Do you think a more detailed policy would help or hinder development control decisions? (only asked in County C and District Al). In what way? (a) Are there any particular circumstances in which you think the Committee would be prepared to

comment favourably on/approve an application contrary to council policy? (b) Are there any particular circumstances in which you would be prepared to recommend approval

of an application contrary to council policy? (In the past) when applications for new forms of retailing are/were considered by the Committee are/were the Officer’s recommendations generally accepted without discussion or do/did such applications usually prompt some debate? If so, what issues are/were most frequently raised? Is/was the debate generally along party lines? If not, on what basis do people tend to group? Do any particular cases stand out in your mind because of the degree of debate they prompted in Committee? Why? What are the principal factors which you take into consideration when assessing an application for a retail warehouse? Have you found DCPN’s 13 and 14 helpful in assessing applications? Why/why not?

SECTION E - MISCELLANEOUS

23. Do any individuals or groups within the Planning Committee take a particular interest in retail planning matters? What kind of views do they express? Is their stance a party political one? If not, what are their views based upon?

24. Have any particular groups or individuals outside the Council influenced in any way the policy or development control decisions taken in relation to retail planning? What kind of views do they generally express?

25. Have the Chambers of Trade and Commerce ever commented on applications for large new stores? What views do they generally express?

26. Are there any other issues concerning retail planning in general or the development of large new stores in particular which you would like to comment upon?


The following table indicates which of the above questions was asked of each of the respondents.

Section/ Question

Respondent* County District

CPO PO DC Ch Mem CPO PO DC Ch Mem

Section B 1 2 3 4 5 6

Section C 7 8 9

10 11 12 13a 13b Section D 14 15 16 17 18a 18b 19 20 21 22 Section E 23 24 25 26

* * * * * * * * * *

* * *

* *

* * * *

* * * * *

* * * * * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* * * * *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* *

* * * *

* * * *

* * * * *

* * (County C and District Al only)

* * *

* * * * * *

* *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

*CPO, Chief Planning Officer; PO, Policy Officer; DC, Development Control Officer; Ch, Chairman of the Planning Committee; Mem, Member of the Planning Committee.

Bibliography

AGERGARD, E., OLSEN, P. A. and ALLPASS, J. (1968) ‘The Interaction between Retailing and Urban Centre Structure: A Theory of Spiral Movement’. Institute for Centre Planning, Lyngby.

BARRAS, R. and BROADBENT, T. A. (1982) A review of operational methods in structure planning. Progress in Planning. 11, (2/3), 55-268.

BARRETT, S. and FUDGE, C. (eds) (1981) Policy and Action: Essays on the Implementation of Public Policy. Methuen, New York.

BENNISON, D. J. and DAVIES, R. L. (1980) The impact of town centre shopping schemes. Progress in Planning, 14, l-104.

BERKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (1980), ‘Position Statement on Retail Warehouses in Berkshire’, Vol. 2. Reading.

BERNARD THORPE AND PARTNERS (1985) Retail Warehouse Parks: An Approach CO Planned Development. London.

BERRY, B. J. L. (1962) The Commercial Structure of American Cities: A Review. Community Renewal Program, Chicago.

BERRY, B. J. L. and PRED, A. (1961) Central place studies: a bibliography of theory and applications. University of Pennsylvania Regional Science Research Institute, Bibliographic Series I (Supplement 1965).

BLOWERS, A. T. (1980) The Limits of Power: the Politics of Local Planning Policy. Pergamon Press, Oxford. BROWN, L. A. (1981) Innovation Diffusion: A New Perspective. Methuen, New York. BURNS, W. (1959) British Shopping Centres. Leonard Hill, London. BUXTON, R. (1974) Planning in the new local government world. Journal of Planning and Environmental

Law, 60-72. CARTER, H. (1975) The Study of Urban Geography, 2nd edn. Edward Arnold, London. CASSELLS, S. C. (1980) Retail competition and planning, unpublished M.Phil. thesis. University College,

London. CHRISTALLER, W. (1966) Central Places in Southern Germany, C. W. Baskin (trans.). Prentice Hall,

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. COX, R. (1965) Distribution in a High-Level Economy. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. COX, W. H. (1976) Cities: The Public Dimension. Penguin, Harmondsworth. CURHAN, R. C. (1969) The diffusion of innovation among consumers and in retail distribution,

unpublished working paper. Harvard Business School. DAVIES, J. G. (1972) The Evangelistic Bureaucrat. Tavistock Publications, London. DAWSON, J. and KIRBY, D. A. (1980) in Herbert &Johnston (1980) op. cit. DUNLEAVY, P. (1981) Professions and policy change: Notes towards a model of ideological corporatism.

Public Administration BulIetin, 36, August, 3-16. EARNSHAW HAES & SONS (1980) The DIY/Home Improvement Trade, London. EIU (1981a) Special Report No. 1: Furniture: Trends in the furniture market. RetailBusiness, 275, January,

25-33. EIU (1981b) Retail Trade Review: Furniture shops. RetailBusiness, 276, February, pp. 3-10. EIU (1983) Special Report No. 1: DIY Part 4, Self assembly furniture and carpentry materials. Retail

Business, 302, 19-24. FALUDI, A. (ed.) (1973) A Reader in PIanning Theory. Pergamon Press, Oxford. FOLEY, D. (1960) Town planning: One ideology or three?, reproduced in Faludi, A., (op.cit.), pp. 69-73. GIBBS, A. (1981) An analysis of retail warehouse planning inquiries. URPIReport U22, Unit for Retail

Planning Information Limited, Reading. GIBBS, A. (1982) Local authority policies for retail warehouses. URPI Informarion Brief 82/4, Reading.

65


GIBBS, A. (1986a) The Retail Warehouse: a hybrid form of development. Land Developmenr Srudies, 3, pp. 45-58.

GIBBS, A. (1986b) Retail warehouse planning inquiries 1981-1985. URPI Repot-1 c/28. Unit for Retail Planning Information Limited, Reading, September 1986. GLASS, R. (1959) The Evaluation of Planning: some sociological considerations, reproduced in Faludi

(op.cit.), pp. 45-67. GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (1984) Out-of-centre superstore. Report fo /he Plannrng (‘ommittee,

P1441,20/10/84. GREATER MANCHESTER COUNCIL (1980) DIY Centres. Report to DECOG C’ommirtee, l/8/80. GUY, C. (1980) Rerail Location andRetail Planning in Britain. Gower Publishing. Farnborough. HERBERT, D. T. and JOHNSTON, R. J. (1980) Geography and the Urban Environment: Progress m

Research and Applications, Vol.3. Wiley, London. HMSO (1981), Planning Gain. Property Advisory Group. IZREALI, D. (1973) The Three Wheels of Retailing: a theoretical note, European Journal ofMarkering, 7,

(I), 70-74. JEFFERSON, R. (1973) Planning and the innovation process. Progress in Planning, Vol. 1, Part 3. Pergamon

Press, Oxford. JORDANS (1986), The British DIYIndustry. London. JOWELL, J. (1977) Bargaining in development control. Journal of Planning andEnvironmental Law, July,

414-433. JOWELL, J. and NOBLE, D. (1981) Structure plans as instruments of social and economic policy. Journal

of Planning and Environmental Law, July, pp. 466-480. KIVELL, P. T. and SHAW, G (1980) The study of retail location, in Dawson (1980), pp. 95-155. LEACH, S. (1980) Organisational interests and inter-organisational behaviour in town planning. Town

Planning Review, July, pp. 286-299. LEACH, S. and MOORE, N. (1979) County/districts relations in shire and metropolitan counties in the

field of town and country planning. Policy and Politics, 7, (2) pp. 165-179. LOUGHLIN, M. (1980) The scope and importance of material considerations. Urban Law & Policy, 3,

171-192. McAUSLAN, P. (1980) The Ideologies of Planning Law. Pergamon Press, Oxford. MCCLELLAND, W. G. (1963) Studies in Retailing. Basil Blackwell, Oxford. McNAIR, M. P. (1957) Significant trends and developments in the post-war period. In: A. B. Smith (ed.),

Comparable Distribution in 4 Free, High Level Economy and Iis Implications for the University. University of Pittsburg Press.

MANSFIELD, E. (1968) Industrial Research and Technological Innovation. W. W. Norton & Co. Inc., New York.

NED0 (1970) Urban models in shopping studies. London. NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL (1980) Discount and retail warehouse selling - Policy interpretation.

17th December. NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (1981) DIY centres/retail warehouses. Report of the City Planning

Officer to Planning Commitfee, 16th July. NIELSON, 0. (1966) Developments in Retailing. In: M. Kjaer-Hansen (ed.) Readings in the Danish Theory

ofMarketing, pp. 101-l 15. North-Holland, Amsterdam. NIESCHLAG, R. (1959) Binnenhandel und binnenhandelspolitik. In: A. Weber, Volkwirfschuftslehre, IV,

148-160. PROUDFOOT, M. J. (1937) City Retail Structure. Economic Geographer, 13, 425-428. RICHARDS, P. G. (1975) The Local Government Act, 1972: Problems of Implementation. George Allen &

Unwin, London. ROBERTSON, T. S. (1971) Innovative Behaviour and Communication. Holt, Rcinhart & Winston Inc., New

York. ROGERS, E. M. (1962) Diffusion of Innovations. The Free Press, New York. SCHILLER, R. and LAMBERT, S. (1977) The quantity of major shopping development in Britain since

1965. Estates Gazette, 242, 30th April, 359-363. SCHILLER, R. (1979) The responsibilities of retail planning. In: R. Davies (ed.), Retail Planning in the

EEC, Saxon House. SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL (1981) Policy on retail warehousing. Department of Planning and Design,

December. SHETH, J. N. (1971) Word of mouth communication in low risk innovations. Journal of Advertising

Research, 11, June, 15-18. SIMMIE. J. (1974) Citizens in Conflict. Hutchinson, London.


STACEY, N. A. H. and WILSON, A. (1958) The Changing Pattern of Distribution. Pergamon Press, Oxford. Revised and Enlarged Edition, 1965.

STAR, A. D. (1969) Adoption of Innovations by Large Retail Firms. Unpublished PhD thesis, Northwestern University.

SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL (1979) Retailing Application at Newcombe Road, Lowestoft, Appendix - Shopping on Industrial Estates, Report by County Planning Officer, 4th September.

SUMNER, J. and DAVIES, K. (1978) Hypermarkets and superstores: What do the planning authorities really think?. Retail and Distribution Management, July/August, 6, (4), 8-15.

TYNE & WEAR COUNTY COUNCIL (198 1) Bulky Goods Retailing in Tyne and Wear. Draft Report, November.

UNDERWOOD, J. (1981) Development control: A review of research & current issues. Progress in Planning, 16, (3). Pergamon Press, Oxford.

URPI (1985), List of UK hypermarkets and superstores. Pl, 12th edn. Reading. URPI (1984) Turnover to outlet ratios of selected retail companies. Information Brief 84/6. Reading. WEBSTER, F. E. Jr. (1969) New product adoption in industrial markets: A framework for analysis. Journal

of Marketing, 33, July, 35-39. WEST YORKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (1980) Policy on large DIY stores. Report of Executive

Director of Planning to Strategic Planning Sub-Committee, 18th December. WHITEFIELD, E. (1983) Trying to keep the customers satisfied . . Estates Times, May 6th, pp. 8-9,

edited version of speech given at ICSC Conference, Monte Carlo, 1983. WILSON, J. (1984) Retail warehousing in Greater London. Estates Gazette, 272,244-246.

Retail innovation and planning

Documents

Transcript of Retail innovation and planning