HollisVincent Report - Denso and Eaton Sites Birmingham - Final Report 1st March 2012

DENSO AND EATON SITES, BIRMINGHAM
Audit of the Retail Policy Aspects of the Applicants Support Material Application References: 2011/06776/PA and 2011/08182/PA
Birmingham City Council March 2012

FINAL REPORT
Denso and Eaton Sites, Birmingham - Audit of the Retail Policy Aspects of the Applicants Support Material: Application References: 2011/06776/PA and 2011/08182/PA
CONTENTS
1 INSTRUCTIONS AND OUTLINE OF REPORT 1 Instructions ................................................................................................................................. 1 The Application Proposals .......................................................................................................... 2 Scope of Instructions .................................................................................................................. 3 Outline of Report......................................................................................................................... 4 THE REQUIREMENTS OF NATIONAL POLICY FOR TOWN CENTRES AND SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 5 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 5 PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth.................................................................... 5 Development Management Policies ........................................................................................... 5 PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development (February 2005) ................................................... 6 Conclusions in Relation to National Policy Requirements ......................................................... 8 Recent and Emerging Government Policy ................................................................................. 9 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development ............................................................... 11 Draft National Planning Policy Framework............................................................................... 11 Conclusion in Relation to Emerging National Policy ................................................................ 12 APPRAISAL OF THE APPLICATIONS AGAINST THE RETAIL POLICY ASPECTS OF THE CURRENT AND EMERGING DEVELOPMENT PLAN 14 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 14 West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Phase 1 Revision (January 2008) ......................... 15 Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (October 2005) .......................................................... 16 Conclusions in Relation to the Retail Policy Aspects of the Development Plan ...................... 19 The Emerging Core Strategy .................................................................................................... 20 The Emerging Shopping and Local Centres SPD .................................................................... 20 QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE NEED 22 The Relationship Between Need, Impact and the Sequential Approach ................................. 22 Methodology for Assessing Need............................................................................................. 23 Birmingham Retail Needs Assessment .................................................................................... 24 hollissvincent Assessment of Quantitative Retail Need ........................................................... 26 Qualitative Retail Need ............................................................................................................. 28 Overall Conclusions in Relation to Retail Need ....................................................................... 30 THE SEQUENTIAL TEST 31 Requirements of PPS4 ............................................................................................................. 31 The Sequential Location Categories of the Application Sites .................................................. 32 Our Appraisal ............................................................................................................................ 33 Conclusions in Relation to Sequential Test.............................................................................. 38 The Eaton Application .............................................................................................................. 38 THE IMPACT TESTS 40 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 40 EC16.1.a Impact on Committed and Planned Investment ....................................................... 40 EC16.1.b Impact on Town Centre Vitality and Viability and EC16.1.d Impact on In-centre Trade and Turnover ........................................................................................................................... 43 EC16.1.c Impact on Allocated Sites Outside Town Centres Being Developed in Accordance with the Development Plan ............................................................................................................. 53 EC16.1.e If Located In, or on the Edge of a Town Centre, Whether the Proposal is of an Appropriate Scale .................................................................................................................... 54
HV040 | March 2012 FINAL REPORT
EC16.1.f Any Locally Important Impacts .................................................................................. 54 Conclusions in Relation to Policy EC16.1 Impacts .................................................................. 55 7 CONCLUSIONS 57 The Policy EC17 Framework .................................................................................................... 57 EC17.1.a The Sequential Test (Policy EC15) .......................................................................... 58 EC17.1.b The Policy EC16 Impact Tests ................................................................................. 59 EC17.2 Balancing Exercise ...................................................................................................... 60
APPENDICES (SEPARATELY BOUND) Appendix 1 Methodology for Assessing Quantitative Retail Need and Cumulative Impact Appendix 2 Capacity and Impact Spreadsheets in the Convenience and Comparison Sectors
1
1.1
INSTRUCTIONS AND OUTLINE OF REPORT

Instructions
In January 2012, Birmingham City Council instructed hollissvincent to undertake an audit of the retail policy aspects of two separate applications, as follows: an application submitted by RPS, in October 2011, on behalf of Shaftmoor Properties at Shaftmoor Lane, Birmingham (ref 2011/06776/PA); and
Limited Partnership (SPLP), for the mixed-use redevelopment of the former Denso site an application submitted by Marrons, in November 2011, on behalf of A & J Mucklow (Halesowen) Limited and Helical Retail Limited, for the mixed-use redevelopment of land at Olton Boulevard/Reddings Lane/Battery Way, hereafter referred to as the Eaton site in Tyseley, although this application site covers a much wider area things, the relocation of Eaton Electrics (ref 2011/08182/PA). 1.2 including the site known as Signal Point, which would provide for, amongst other In undertaking our audit of both applications, we have reviewed the following material: the planning application forms and accompanying site plans associated with both applications; the RPS Retail Statement of October 2011 and the Marrons PPS4 Retail Assessment of November 2011; the RPS Planning Statement of October 2011 and the Marrons Planning Policy Statement of November 2011; the Marrons Economic Assessment of November 2011; additional correspondence from RPS relating to the issue of cumulative impact, dated 5th January 2012; and the Birmingham Retail Needs Assessment (BRNA), of October 2009, prepared by Roger Tym and Partners, on behalf of the City Council.
The Application Proposals The Denso Site

1.3 The full planning application submitted by RPS, on behalf of SPLP, comprises two components, as follows: A food superstore, to be operated by Wm Morrison, with a gross floorspace of 6,547 sq.m and a net sales are of 3,530 sq.m, of which 75 per cent, or 2,647 sq.m, will be used for the sale of convenience goods.
An Extra Care retirement village comprising 278 units, together with support facilities including recreation rooms, workshops and activities areas. 1.4 Thus, the focus of our report in respect of the RPS submission is the first component, superstore. The proposed Wm Morrison store is located within 300 metres of Olton centre location, for the purposes of the definitions set out in Annex B of PPS4.
which seeks the redevelopment of the northern part of the former Denso site for a food Boulevard Neighbourhood Centre, and can be considered, therefore, to be in an edge of
The Eaton Site

1.5 The outline application submitted by Marrons proposes a mix of uses, including a food superstore to be operated by ASDA, with a gross floorspace of up to 6,658 sq.m and a net sales area of 3,716 sq.m, of which 57 per cent, or 2,133 sq.m, will be used for the sale of convenience goods. The application also proposes 6,870 sq.m gross (5,152 sq.m net) of
additional comparison units of varying size, a six pump petrol filling station, up to 27,880 public open space, together with on-site and off-site highway improvements. Marrons seek, therefore, to promote the application as a new neighbourhood centre for the through the Core Strategy process. 1.6 Tyseley area, but we note at the outset that such a proposal has not been promoted The Eaton site is located approximately 500 metres to the south of Tyseley Neighbourhood Centre, and approximately 1 kilometre to the northwest of Olton Boulevard Neighbourhood Centre and the proposed Wm Morrison at the Denso Site.
sq.m of B1/B2/B8 development, residential development (of approximately 70 units) and
Thus, the Eaton application site is considered to be in an out of centre location for the purposes of the definitions set out in Annex B of PPS4.
Scope of Instructions
1.7 Both applications involve the redevelopment of previously developed land and are likely to promote substantial regeneration and employment benefits. Thus, although the focus of our instructions relates to the retail policy aspects of the applications, we do provide some commentary in relation to employment and regeneration benefits in the final outside the scope of our instructions to comment on the implications of a loss of or B8 uses are proposed. 1.8 section of our report under the PPS4 Policy EC17.2 balancing exercise. However, it is employment land, which applies particularly to the Denso application for which no B1, B2 Moreover, both applications would yield public sector benefits, such as new highways the retirement village component of the Denso application. It is important to note,
infrastructure in respect of the Eaton application, and a proportion of affordable units in however, that neither of the applications is being promoted as enabling development,
which is development that would be unacceptable in planning terms, but for the fact that it would bring public benefits sufficient to justify it being carried out, and which could not otherwise be achieved. 1.9
Enabling development is not a statutory term, but was confirmed as a legitimate planning tool in 1988, when the Court of Appeal, in R v Westminster City Council ex parte Monahan, upheld the validity of a planning permission authorising office development, unobtainable by other means, to improve the Royal Opera House.
even though contrary to the development plan, on the basis that it would provide funds, 1.10 Thus, the retail components of both applications are being promoted as a basis for cross
funding, rather than enabling development, with both applicants asserting that the retail components are policy compliant. We are not instructed, therefore, to comment on the quantum of retail development required to secure the cross funding, and note that no viability evidence is presented in either case.
1.11
As a final point of introduction in relation to the scope of our instructions we should state that the Council has recognised the different methodologies employed in the applicants the Birmingham Retail Needs Assessment). As a consequence, we have been instructed to undertake our own assessment of cumulative retail impact, taking account of support material (although both draw on the patterns of retail expenditure established by
expenditure capacity in the catchment area of the two proposals in the next five years, as required by Policy EC16.1d of PPS4. Thus, a key aspect of our instructions was to address the issue of whether there is scope for two new food superstores in this area having regard to the sequential and impact tests set out in Polices EC15 and EC16 of PPS4.
Outline of Report
1.12 The remainder of our report is structured as follows: national policy for town centres and sustainable economic development; aspects of the current and emerging development plan; Section 2 provides a brief resume of the requirements of current and emerging Section 3 provides our appraisal of both applications in relation to the retail policy Section 4 deals with the quantitative and qualitative need for further food superstore provision in the southeast Birmingham area, over and above existing commitments, of PPS4, but recognising, also, that need informs the application of the sequential recognising that need is no longer a development management test for the purposes approach, scale and the likelihood or otherwise of adverse impacts on town centres; set out in Policy EC15 of PPS4; in Policy EC16.1 of PPS4; and Section 7 provides our overall conclusions in relation to retail policy issues, set within the context of Policy EC17 of PPS4. Section 5 provides our appraisal of both applications in relation to the sequential test, Section 6 provides our appraisal of both applications against the impact tests set out
THE REQUIREMENTS OF NATIONAL POLICY FOR TOWN CENTRES AND SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Introduction
2.1
Current national policy, insofar as it relates to town centres and the delivery of
sustainable economic growth and development is set, in the main, in PPS4 and PPS1. We provide a brief overview, also, of emerging national policy, as set out in HM Treasurys 2011 and in the Draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Plan for Growth, Mr Clarks written ministerial statements of 23 March 2011 and 15 June
PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth

2.2 The Governments overarching objective is sustainable economic growth, so that one of do this, the Government wants: its main objectives for planning is to promote the vitality and viability of town centres. To new economic growth and development of main town centre uses to be focused in (our emphasis);
existing centres, with the aim of offering a wide range of services to communities competition between retailers and enhanced consumer choice through the provision of innovative and efficient shopping, leisure, tourism and local services in town centres (our emphasis); and conservation of the historic, archaeological and architectural heritage of town centres.
Development Management Policies

2.3 Policy EC10.1 advises that LPAs should adopt a positive and constructive approach that secure sustainable economic growth should be treated favourably. 2.4 towards planning applications for economic development and that planning applications All planning applications for economic development should be assessed against the five impact considerations set out in Policy EC10.2 of PPS4. These relate to climate change,
accessibility, design, impact on economic and physical regeneration (including impact on social inclusion objectives) and impact on local employment. In forming a conclusion in positive and negative impacts of the application proposals on economic and social EC10.2. 2.5 relation to the framework set by Policy EC17 of PPS4, we have given weight to the likely inclusion objectives and on local employment, as identified in tests d. and e. of Policy Policy EC14.3 sets out the requirements for supporting evidence for planning applications for main town centre uses, and advises that a sequential assessment under EC15 is accordance with an up to date development plan. Thus, given the edge of centre required for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in location of the Denso site and the out-of-centre location of the Eaton application site and the fact neither site is identified for retail purposes in the development plan, the applicants must demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the sequential approach. 2.6
Policy EC14.4 requires that an assessment addressing the impacts in Policy EC16.1 is
undertaken for retail and leisure development over 2,500 sq.m gross floorspace (or any with an up to date development plan. The Denso site is located 210 metres from the
locally set floorspace threshold) which is not in an existing centre and not in accordance boundary of the Olton Boulevard Neighbourhood Centre Primary Shopping Area (PSA), and is thus in an edge of centre site, as acknowledged by RPS in its letter to the Council of nearest defined centre of Tyseley, and is therefore considered to be an out of centre site. tests set out in Policy EC16.1, as discussed in Section 6. 5th January 2012. In contrast, the ASDA site is located approximately 500 metres from the As a consequence, we consider that it is necessary to assess both applications against the
PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development (February 2005)

2.7 PPS1 sets out the Governments overarching planning policies on the delivery of which are relevant to the consideration of the application proposals. sustainable development through the planning system. There are various aspects of PPS1
2.8
First, we wish to emphasise that two of the Governments four aims for sustainable development relate to social progress and to the maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment. Hence the needs to secure outcomes that promote economic and social objectives as well as environmental and natural resource
objectives. 2.9
Thus, in promoting social cohesion and inclusion, there is recognition, in paragraphs 14 to 16 of PPS1, that: community cohesion means meeting the needs of all people promoting personal
well-being, social cohesion and inclusion and creating equal opportunity for all citizens,
regeneration of the built environment alone cannot deal with poverty, inequality and social exclusion; and that development plans should promote development that creates socially inclusive shops and other community facilities. 2.10
communities and address accessibility for all members of the community to jobs, Paragraph 23 of PPS1 goes on to state that in promoting a strong and productive things, should:
economy that brings jobs and prosperity to all, planning authorities, amongst other recognise that economic development can deliver environmental and social benefits; recognise the wider sub-regional, regional or national benefits of economic development, alongside any adverse local impacts; ensure that suitable locations are available for industrial, commercial, retail, public sector and leisure developments, so that the economy can prosper; provide for improved productivity, choice and competition; recognise that all local economies are subject to change; and identify opportunities for future investment to deliver economic objectives.
2.11
Secondly, we note the provisions of paragraph 27 of PPS1, which requires planning authorities, amongst other things, to:
promote urban and rural regeneration to improve the wellbeing of communities; provide improved access for all to jobs, shops and community facilities by ensuring foot, bicycle or public transport; that new development is located where everyone can access facilities or services by focus developments that attract a large number of people, especially retail, leisure and office development, in existing centres to promote their vitality and viability, social inclusion and more sustainable patterns of development; and promote the more efficient use of land through higher density, mixed use
development and use of suitably located previously developed land and buildings. 2.12 Thirdly, we note the provisions of paragraph 29 of PPS1, which states that: In some circumstances, a planning authority may decide in reaching a decision to give different weight to social, environmental, resource or economic considerations. Where this is the case, the reasons for doing so
should be explicit and the consequences considered 2.13
We draw attention to these aspects of PPS1 because of the weight which we give to the in promoting social inclusion.
positive employment and regeneration impacts of both proposals and their potential role
Conclusions in Relation to National Policy Requirements

2.14 Our overall conclusion in relation to the current national policy context is that the Government intends to give more weight to the social, economic and environmental
impacts of development proposals and move away from more narrowly defined land use policy tests. We note, also, that PPS4 no longer contains a need test in its development management policies, so that the absence of need, on its own, can no longer form a ground for refusal of an application for a main town centre use. 2.15 Nevertheless, Policy EC17.1 is prescriptive in stating that applications should be refused where the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the requirements of the sequential approach, or there is clear evidence that the proposal is likely to lead to
significant adverse impacts in terms of any one of the impacts set out in policies EC10.2
and EC16.1, taking account of the likely cumulative effect of recent permissions, developments under construction and completed developments. (our emphasis). 2.16 Where there is no clear evidence of significant adverse impacts under Policies EC10.2 and EC16.1, Policy EC17.2 advises that applications should be determined by taking account of:
the positive and negative impacts of the proposal in terms of Policies EC10.2 and 16.1, and any other material considerations; and and completed developments. the likely cumulative effect of recent permissions, developments under construction
Recent and Emerging Government Policy

2.17 We turn, now, to a brief resume of recent and emerging Government policy, as set out in HM Treasurys Plan for Growth, the Ministerial Statements of 23rd March 2011 and 15th June 2011 and the Draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
HM Treasury: The Plan for Growth

2.18 HM Treasurys Plan for Growth was published in March 2011 to coincide with the budget. Paragraph 2.9 of the Plan for Growth states that this statement of Government policy is capable of becoming a material consideration in local planning decisions with immediate effect, and local authorities should press ahead, and put in place development plans that are pro-growth (our emphasis). 2.19 Thus, the Plan for Growth already constitutes Government policy, and Action 2 in the new presumption in favour of sustainable development, so that the default answer to Planning section of the document states that the Government will introduce a powerful development is yes. However, paragraph 2.11 of the Plan for Growth introduces an
important caveat in relation to the default position, in stating that the answer should National Planning Policy (our emphasis). A key aspect of sustainable development be yes, except where this would compromise the key sustainable principles set out in
principles contained within PPS4 is to promote the vitality and viability of town and other
centres, so that harm to this objective may be a ground for not taking the default position.
Ministerial Statement of 23 March 2011

2.20 Greg Clarks Written Ministerial Statement of 23rd March 2011 emphasises that: The Governments top priority in reforming the planning system is to promote sustainable economic growth and jobs. Governments clear expectation is that the answer to development and growth should wherever possible be yes, except where this would compromise the key sustainable development principles set out in national policy 2.21
He goes on to state that when deciding whether to grant permission, local authorities should, amongst other things: consider the range of likely economic, environmental and social benefits of
proposals; including long term or indirect benefits such as increased consumer
where relevant, include matters such as job creation and business productivity.) 2.22 He is careful to explain, however, that: have regard to all relevant considerations. They should ensure that they give In determining planning applications, local planning authorities are obliged to
choice, more viable communities and more robust local economies (which may,
appropriate weight to the need to support economic recovery, that applications that they can give clear reasons for their decisions. 2.23
that secure sustainable growth are treated favourably (consistent with PPS4), and
We consider, therefore, that the Ministerial Statement adds little to the presumption in favour of applications that secure sustainable economic growth that is already need for applications to be consistent with PPS4. established by Policy EC10.1 of PPS4. Moreover, we note Mr Clarks reference for the
10
Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

2.24 On 15th June 2011, the Government published draft wording for its commitment to introduce a presumption in favour of sustainable development. However, this draft
wording has been superseded by the draft wording contained in paragraph 14 of the draft is similar to the more recent draft. NPPF, so that little weight needs to be given to the 15th June 2011 wording, albeit that it
Draft National Planning Policy Framework

2.25 Paragraph 14 of the Draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) of July 2011 puts forward the presumption in favour of sustainable development in these terms: At the heart of the planning system is a presumption in favour of sustainable
development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan development, and approve all individual proposals wherever possible. 2.26
making and decision taking. Local Planning Authorities should plan positively for new
Paragraph 14 goes on to urge local authorities to: prepare plans on the basis that objectively assessed development needs should be met; approve proposals that accord or where relevant policies are out of date. Paragraph 14 then concludes with the statement that: All of these policies should apply unless the adverse impacts of allowing assessed against the policies in this framework taken as a whole. with statutory plans; and grant permission where the plan is absent, silent, indeterminate
development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when
2.27
However, although paragraph 9 of the draft NPPF cross refers to the long established fully clear how to translate this definition into the consideration of individual
definition of sustainable development provided by the Brundtland Commission, it is not development proposals in the retail sector. We consider, however, that healthy town centres are of key importance to the sustainability agenda and central to the aim of planning for vibrant and healthy communities of the future.
11
2.28
Thus, although Paragraph 53 of the Draft NPPF states that the primary objective of hinder or prevent development, we note that paragraph 76 of the Draft NPPF requires paragraph 76 states that planning authorities should recognise town centres as the centres. development management is to foster the delivery of sustainable development, not to
positive planning policies that promote competitive town centre environments. Indeed, heart of their communities and pursue policies to support the viability and vitality of town 2.29 Moreover, paragraph 77 of the Draft NPPF requires the application of the sequential
approach to planning applications for retail and leisure uses that are not in an existing requires that in applying the sequential approach, local planning authorities should
centre, and are not in accordance with an up to date Local Plan. Paragraph 78, in turn, ensure that potential sites are assessed for their availability, suitability and viability, and for their ability to meet the full extent of assessed quantitative and qualitative need. 2.30 in paragraph 80 of the draft NPPF to include: investment in a centre; and The impact tests for retail and leisure proposals are proposed to be simplified, as set out the impact of a proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private the impact of a proposal on town centre vitality and viability, up to ten years from the time the application is made.
Conclusion in Relation to Emerging National Policy

2.31 The Government is clearly determined to prioritise growth and jobs. However, we consider that the recent Ministerial Statements and the emerging NPPF do not materially alter the presumption in favour of applications that secure sustainable economic growth that is already contained in Policy EC10.1 of PPS4. 2.32 We note that the revised advice from the Planning Inspectorate of 8th September 2011 material consideration, although the weight to be given to it will be a matter for the states that the draft NPPF is subject to potential amendment. It is capable of being a
decision maker in each particular case. As a consequence, we consider that more weight
12
should be given to the policy tests set out in PPS4, together with the guidance on sustainable development that is given in PPS1.
13
APPRAISAL OF THE APPLICATIONS AGAINST THE RETAIL POLICY ASPECTS OF THE CURRENT AND EMERGING DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Introduction
3.1
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides that: determination to be made under the planning acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. if regard is to be had to the Development Plan for the purpose of any
3.2
the context of Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In his judgment of 31 July 2000 (R v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Milne), Mr Justice Sullivan concluded as follows: I regard as untenable the proposition that if there is a breach of any one
with the plan, which is a phrase that has been the subject of debate in the High Court in
The first test, and the statutory starting point is whether the application is in accordance
Policy in a development plan a proposed development cannot be said to be in accordance with the plan For the purposes of Section 54A, it is enough that the proposal accords with the development plan considered as a whole. It does not have to accord with each and every policy therein. 3.3 This Rochdale judgment is applicable to the interpretation of S38(6) of the 2004 Act and the Council must reach a decision, therefore, as to whether the application is in accordance with the development plan when it is considered as a whole. 3.4
The Development Plan for Birmingham comprises the West Midlands Regional Spatial
Strategy (Phase 1 Revision, January 2008) and the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan
(UDP, October 2005). We consider that the emerging Core Strategy is not at a sufficiently
14
advanced stage to be attributed significant weight, having only reached the stage of Consultation Draft (consultation ending in March 2011).
West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Phase 1 Revision (January 2008)

3.5 The Spatial Strategy for the region is set out in Chapter 3 of the RSS and its major focus is to seek to reverse the dispersal of population and economic activity from the Major Urban Areas (MUAs) of Birmingham/Solihull, the Black Country, Coventry and North
balanced network of vital and vibrant town and city centres as the strategic focus for aim. 3.6 3.7
Staffordshire. Thus, the MUAs are to be the focus of investment, and the creation of a
major retail, leisure and office developments is seen as a vital component in meeting this Policy UR1 seeks to assist in implementing the urban renaissance of the MUAs by,
amongst other things, rejuvenating the urban centres to act as a focus for regeneration. Policy UR3 seeks to enhance the role of city, town and district centres so that they play a leading role in urban renaissance programmes and as drivers of economic growth. For the reasons explained in Section 6 of this report, we consider that there will be some degree of adverse cumulative impact, taking account of existing commitments, on Acocks Green District Centre. As a consequence, we consider that both applications cause some degree of conflict with Policy UR3 of the RSS.
3.8
However, for the reasons set out in Section 7 of our report, we consider that there will be a substantial net employment gain as a result of both application proposals, with a significant degree of take-up of the net job gain by local residents (subject to suitable
conditions and/or 106 agreements). As a consequence, we consider that both application proposals would assist in meeting some of the objectives of Policy PA1 of the RSS, which seeks prosperity for all. 3.9 The RSS does not seek to provide a strategy for the distribution of convenience goods floorspace, and it is acknowledged that the allocation of such needs should be determined on a local basis through the preparation of local development framework respect of the Denso application, which has a limited comparison goods component.
documents. As a consequence, the RSS is of limited assistance to the decision maker in
15
3.10
In contrast, the Eaton application includes comparison goods retail floorspace amounting to 9,730 sq.m gross (6,870 sq.m gross in non-food units and 2,860 sq.m gross in ASDA). However, this is just below the 10,000 sq.m gross threshold incorporated in Policies PA11 and PA13 of the RSS. Policy PA11 states that the network of 25 strategic centres should floorspace devoted to convenience goods. be the focus of major retail developments of more than 10,000 sq.m gross, but excluding
3.11
Policy PA13 sets a presumption against out of centre retail development of more than
10,000 sq.m gross during the lifetime of the RSS. Although it is not absolutely clear as to whether convenience goods floorspace is excluded within this threshold, as is the case under Policy PA11, we assume that it must do, given that the RSS is clear that convenience retailing is a local matter and not for the RSS to consider.
3.12
Thus, given that the total non-food comparison goods retail floorspace in the Eaton
application amounts to 9,730 sq.m gross (2,860 sq.m in ASDA and 6,870 sq.m of non-food units), we consider that this application does not conflict with Policy PA13 of the RSS. Nevertheless, for reasons explained in Section 5 in relation to the sequential test, the City as to assess whether any part of the non- food unit floorspace can be accommodated on sites and in vacant premises in sequentially preferable locations. This is particularly so since the current total quantum of retail floorspace proposed in this out-of-centre location amounts to 13,528 sq.m gross. Indeed, unless there is compelling viability
3.13
Council will wish to ensure that the principle of disaggregation has been fully explored, so
evidence to the contrary, there would seem to be no justification in terms of quantitative and qualitative need for the quantum of retail floorspace associated with the non-food units, as discussed in Section 4.
Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (October 2005)

3.14 The revised Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (UDP) was adopted in October 2005, with the intention of guiding development in the city region up to October 2008. the Core Strategy DPD. However, all but three of the UDP policies have since been saved, pending completion of
16
Retail Policies
3.15 Chapter 2 of the adopted UDP requires that Birmingham City Centres role as the regional shopping centre should be maintained and enhanced through the promotion of quality and specialist retailing. 3.16 Chapter 7 of the UDP sets out the policies in relation to town centres and retailing. The general policy statement for the chapter is set out at paragraph 7.13, and states that town centres first principle is reflected subsequently in paragraph 7.27 of the UDP, which requires that: wherever possible, proposals for new retail development, including large foodstores and retail warehouses, should be accommodated in centres existing centres will continue to be the main focus for new retail development. This
3.17
In the convenience goods sector, the UDP recognises that significant growth is unlikely,
but paragraph 7.16D acknowledges that access to supermarkets varies across the city, so food shops is poor.
that the Councils priority is to provide for improved food shopping, where local access to 3.18 The UDP seeks to accommodate as much retail development as possible within existing centres, but paragraphs 7.27 and 7.28 set out criteria for the evaluation of proposals in development, provided that: edge and out of centre locations. Thus, paragraph 7.27 allows for edge and out of centre a need for the proposal has been clearly demonstrated; and the principles of the sequential approach have been followed; 3.19 Paragraph 7.28 goes on to state that where these circumstances apply, the following tests must be met: there is no major impact on the vitality and viability and viability of an existing centre as a whole; investment in existing centres will not be deterred; there would be no loss of industrial land;
17
there would be no major loss of non-retail employment land; and that the site is widely accessible by public transport. 3.20 Most of these criteria, with the exception of need and loss of employment land, reflect the more recent tests set out in Policies EC10, EC15 and EC16 of PPS4, so that our reflect the subsequent sections of our report in which we conclude that: a) assessment of the applications against the retail policy aspects of the development plan There is a quantitative and qualitative need that is sufficient to support the food superstore components of both applications. However, there is insufficient comparison goods expenditure capacity within the primary catchment area to fully support the quantum of non-food floorspace which is proposed as part of the application for the Eaton site. b) There are no sites in sequentially preferable locations which are available, suitable and viable in relation to the food superstore components of both applications. by vacant premises within Acocks Green District Centre and within the various However, part of the non-food floorspace at the Eaton site could be accommodated neighbourhood centres. Thus, there would need to be some degree reduction in the quantum of non-food units proposed in the Eaton application for it to fully accord with the sequential test. c)
There would be an adverse cumulative impact on Acocks Green District Centre, under a two store scenario and together with existing commitments, but there is no within the terms of the tests set out in Policy EC16 of PPS4. clear evidence that this cumulative impact would have significant adverse effects
3.21
As a consequence, we consider that the Eaton application may cause some degree of
conflict with the shopping policies of the Birmingham UDP, but it would take a relatively small amendment to make the scheme compliant in terms of the retail aspects of the UDP. The Denso application is in accord with the retail policy aspects of the UDP.
18
Economy Policies
3.22 We are not instructed in relation to policies relating to the supply of industrial land. We note merely that the policy statement in paragraph 4.13 of the UDP sets two broad objectives, as follows: d) e)
To ensure that the land use policies and proposals maximise opportunities for economic revitalisation and urban renewal. To ensure that the benefits of economic revitalisation are spread as widely as community. possible amongst the Citys residents and especially disadvantaged sections of the
3.23
We note, further, that paragraph 4.18 of the UDP concludes that the quality rather than
the quantity of industrial land is the most pressing issue and that the quality of the Citys
portfolio of industrial sites has deteriorated, aggravated in part by the loss to other uses, the UDP governing the release of industrial land.
particularly to retailing, and hence the need for the principles set out in paragraph 4.19 of
Conclusions in Relation to the Retail Policy Aspects of the Development Plan

3.24 For the reasons explained in Section 5, we consider that the applicant for the Denso site has correctly applied the sequential approach as set out in Policy EC15 of PPS4. Furthermore, we accept that there are no sites in sequentially preferable locations which meet the availability, suitability and viability components of the test in relation to the food superstore component of the Eaton application. However, we consider that some of the floorspace proposed in the non-food units at the Eaton site can be, and should be, accommodated in some of the larger vacant units which exist in Acocks Green District suggesting that there should be a reduction in floorspace in the non-food units at the Eaton site if it is to fully accord with the sequential aspects of the UDP retail policies. 3.25 Whilst there is some adverse cumulative impact on Acocks Green District Centre,
Centre and in the various nearby neighbourhood centres. Therefore, there is a case for
following implementation of all the commitments and both application proposals, this
centre is amongst the healthiest of Birminghams District Centres. Moreover, for reasons
19
explained in Section 6, we have found no clear evidence that the cumulative impacts on Acocks Green will be significantly adverse. As a consequence, we consider that both applications accord with those development plan policies that relate to trade impact.
The Emerging Core Strategy

3.26 Consultation on the Birmingham Core Strategy Preferred Options document took place between December 2010 and March 2011. The retail and town centre policies in the (BRNA), prepared by Roger Tym and Partners in October 2009, and we note that: consultation document have been informed by the Birmingham Retail Needs Assessment Policy SP17 identifies the network and hierarchy of centres, with Acocks Green
identified as one of 16 District Centres, alongside Small Heath, the Swan Shopping and Sparkhill identified as a Neighbourhood Centres;
Centre and Kings Heath, and with Tyseley, Springfield, Hall Green, Olton Boulevard Policy SP18 identifies the scale of comparison goods floorspace envisaged in the centres at different levels of the hierarchy, with district centres, such as Acocks Green, being given a maximum of 5,000 sq.m gross in the period up to 2021; and that Policy SP19 identifies a number of gap areas where convenience retailing is deficient including Birmingham City Centre South, where proposals aimed at meeting a local deficiency which are of appropriate scale will be supported. 3.27
The emerging Core Strategy identifies the Denso site as being in a Core Employment Area for which Policy SP12 envisages retention in employment use, so that these areas will be the focus for economic regeneration, a term which excludes retailing. The Signal Point part of the application by A & J Mucklow and Helical Retail is also defined as a Core
Employment Area. However, the designation of the Denso site has a Core Employment Area has been subject to objections and the implications for the Core Employment Areas are outside the scope of our instructions.
The Emerging Shopping and Local Centres SPD

3.28 The City Council has recently published a draft Shopping and Local Centres SPD for consultation. This SPD identifies boundaries and primary shopping areas for all the
20
centres contained in the emerging Core Strategy hierarchy. It also contains policies for the control of non-retail uses in these centres.
21
4
4.1
QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE NEED

The Relationship Between Need, Impact and the Sequential Approach
The assessment of expenditure capacity, or need, is no longer a development management test in PPS4, and the absence of sufficient need, on its own, can no longer form a ground for refusal of an application for a town centre use development. However, the PPS4 Practice Guidance makes it clear that an assessment of need informs the consideration of the sequential approach and impact, both of which are requirements, under Policy EC14 of PPS4, for applications for main town centre uses that Thus, in the remainder of this introductory section, we draw attention to the linkages made in the Practice Guidance between need, impact and the sequential approach.
4.2
are not in an existing centre and not in accordance with an up-to-date development plan.
Need and the Sequential Approach

4.3 In a recent Report to the Secretary of State in respect of a call-in Inquiry concerning a Inspector concluded that: in assessing the availability, suitability and viability of potential sequential sites, regard should be had to the nature of the need, the urgency and timescales of the need, and whether sites are suitable to accommodate the need. It is therefore proposed development aims to meet. (IR paragraph 422) 4.4 Tesco proposal at the West One Retail Park in Eccles (ref: APP/U4230/V/10/2131671), the
appropriate to address in considering the sequential approach the need which the
The Inspectors conclusions were endorsed by the Secretary of State in paragraph 12 of the Practice Guidance makes it clear that need remains an important consideration of the sequential approach. Moreover, need is mentioned on more than a dozen occasions in Part 6 of the Practice Guidance, which deals with sequential site assessments. his decision letter of 19th May 2011. This is hardly surprising, because paragraph 1.6 of
when developing robust town centre strategies, and to the understanding and application
22
4.5
Of particular importance is paragraph 6.37 of the Practice Guidance, which confirms that need is relevant to each of the availability, suitability and viability components of the urgency of the need, with suitability having regard to the need which the proposal is timescale over which it is to be met. We note, also, that the scale and form of under paragraph 6.52 of the Practice Guidance. sequential test incorporated in Policy EC15 of PPS4, with availability having regard to the intended to meet, and with viability also depending on the nature of the need, and the development needed forms the first item on the sequential approach checklist set out
Need and Impact

4.6 In assessing the impact of a proposal on in-centre trade and turnover, test d. of Policy EC16.1 of PPS4 requires an assessment of current and future consumer expenditure capacity in the catchment area up to five years from the time the application is made; that is up to 2016. Moreover, as is the case with its advice on the sequential approach, need is referred to on several occasions in Part 7 of the Practice Guidance, which concerns the assessment of impact. 4.7
We note, in particular, paragraph 7.19, which states that Many of the factors relevant to need assessments will also have a bearing on the effects of new proposals on committed/planned investment. Similarly, we note that the advice given in the box
under paragraph 7.21 in relation to how to assess effects on planned investment includes a third bullet point which asks whether there is sufficient need for both, and a fourth 4.8 bullet point which asks whether they are competing for the same market opportunity. Finally, we note the provisions on paragraph 7.35 of the Practice Guidance, which states that An indicator of the appropriateness of a proposals scale is whether there is a demonstrable need based upon current/forecast expenditure and current market shares.
Methodology for Assessing Need

4.9 Section 3 and Appendix B of the Practice Guidance, which accompanies PPS4, provides advice on the assessment of quantitative and qualitative need. We note, however, that the Practice Guidance states that it does not seek to prescribe a single methodology
23
and that alternative approaches may be equally acceptable, provided they are and robustly evidenced (paragraph 1.22, our emphasis). 4.10 compliant with national policy objectives and clearly justified, transparently presented
We accept, also, the advice given in paragraph B3 to the effect that forecasts of retail need should not be regarded as prescriptive and that they inevitably involve judgments and ultimately policy choices.
4.11
The full methodology we have employed in assessing quantitative retail need in the
convenience and comparison goods sectors is set out in Appendix 1 of our report, and the associated spreadsheets are contained within Appendix 2. We turn, first however, to the findings of the Birmingham Retail Needs Assessment (BRNA) undertaken by Roger Tym and Partners (RTP) in 2009, since this forms an input into the evidence base for the purposes of appraising these applications.
emerging Core Strategy. We then turn to our own up to date assessment of need for the
Birmingham Retail Needs Assessment

4.12 The BRNA is an independent study and forms part of the evidence base which is informing the preparation of the Councils Core Strategy DPD. This study also informs the assessment of impact undertaken by both applicants, in that both RPS and Marrons draw upon the patterns of retail expenditure revealed by the NEMS survey of households. 4.13 In assessing capacity, the BRNA has a forward time horizon to 2026. For the purposes of this report, however, we focus on the period up to 2016, given the PPS4 Policy EC16.1.d is made. 4.14 requirement to assess expenditure capacity up to five years from the time the application The BRNA found that there was a negative residual convenience goods need from 2008 to 2016 across the whole of the Birmingham catchment, amounting to minus 42,000 sq.m gross under a static retention scenario (Table 5.7 of the BRNA). The large negative is as a result of the low forecast rate of expenditure growth in the convenience sector, and the BRNA (which included the redevelopment of the Swan Shopping Centre, the
substantial claims on residual expenditure made by extant permissions at the time of the
24
redevelopment of Fox and Goose District Centre and a major food superstore at Attwood Green). 4.15 Nevertheless, despite the absence of quantitative need for convenience floorspace across the catchment area as a whole, the BRNA identifies several areas of localised deficiencies in convenience goods provision, or gap areas. Appendix 4 of the RPS Retail Statement illustrates the proximity of the Wm Morrison application site (and, given their proximity BRNA. 4.16
to one another, the ASDA application site also) to one of the gap areas identified in the We note, also, that the PPS4 Practice Guidance recognises that overtrading can also be an indicator of a quantitative need and lack of consumer choice. However, we consider that this indicator should only be given significant weight where there is clear evidence that by evidence such as overcrowding and congestion in stores. 4.17
such overtrading is causing customer discomfort, and where the overtrading is backed up In this context, we note that a number of stores located within the primary catchment particular, we note that the results of the NEMS household survey, as summarised in
area of the application proposals (Zones 25 and 26) are displaying signs of overtrading. In Spreadsheets 2 and 3 of Appendix 2 and summarised in Table A1.1 of Appendix 1, reveal that the ASDA at Small Heath is overtrading by approximately 48.5m in 2011, and the J Sainsbury at Acocks Green is overtrading by approximately 21.5m in 2011.
4.18
Whilst these figures most likely over-estimate the actual level of overtrading which is
occurring, we acknowledge, from our own visits, that both stores are displaying signs of
over-trading in the form of queues at checkouts, busy aisles and full car parks. Thus, on assessment of quantitative and qualitative need. 4.19
this basis, we give some weight to the issue of overtrading in undertaking our subsequent In the comparison goods sector, Table 5.6 of the BRNA reveals that under the
recommended significant increase in retention scenario, there is a requirement for an additional 17,000 sq.m gross of comparison goods floorspace throughout the overall catchment area (OCA) in the period 2008 to 2016. Figures 7.1 and 7.2 of the BRNA
distribute the overall need to 2026 throughout the administrative area of Birmingham,
25
allocating between 6,000 sq.m gross and 9,000 sq.m gross to the remaining centres in aggregate (i.e. those that are not identified as strategic or district centres). 4.20 In addition to the comparison element of both superstores, Marrons is seeking an additional 6,870 sq.m gross of comparison retail floorspace at the Eaton Electrics site.
This represents a large proportion of the total comparison floorspace need identified by the BRNA for the remaining centres to 2026, which suggest that careful consideration should be given to the potential impact that this level of comparison floorspace could have on existing in-centre facilities.
hollissvincent Assessment of Quantitative Retail Need

4.21 Neither applicant has undertaken their own assessment of quantitative retail need, BRNA. Whilst we have no criticism of this approach, we have undertaken our own incorporate updated forecasts of expenditure and population growth, any recent relying, instead, on the results of the quantitative need assessment which informed the assessment of quantitative need in the convenience and comparison sectors so as to commitments since the time of the BRNA, and to enable us to assess capacity on a more localised basis, within the Primary Catchment Area (PCA) of the application proposals 25, 26, 28 and 29 of the BRNA). 4.22 (Zones 25 and 26 of the BRNA) and in the Overall Catchment Area (Zones 16, 21, 22, 24, The full methodology we have employed in assessing quantitative retail need is set out in 2. 4.23
Appendix 1 of our report, and the associated spreadsheets are contained within Appendix We should state, at the outset, that a substantial proportion of the quantitative need which arises in the convenience goods sector is as a result of a substantial level of aggregate overtrading, both in the PCA of the application proposals (approximately
111m), and in the OCA of the application proposals (approximately 166m). Thus, two thirds of the aggregate level of overtrading arises within the PCA, in the Wm Morrison in Acocks Green. Such a level of aggregate overtrading confirms our subsequent observations in relation to gap areas and qualitative need.
and ASDA stores in Small Heath, in the Tesco store in Sheldon and in the J Sainsbury store
26
4.24
Given the large scale of additional comparison floorspace that is proposed as part of the application at the Eaton site, we have undertaken an assessment of quantitative need in in Spreadsheets 4a, 4b, 4c and 4d of Appendix 2 for the convenience sector, and in Spreadsheets 24a, 24b, 24c and 24d of Appendix 2 for the comparison sector. both the convenience and comparison sectors. The results of our assessment are set out
Convenience Goods
4.25 Table 4.1 summarises the results of our assessment of capacity in the convenience sector under a static retention scenario and under an uplift in retention scenario. The retention uplift is based on our subsequent impact work, and represents the retention uplift that would occur following the implementation of the commitments and both application proposals. In addition to providing an assessment of capacity based on the overall
catchment area (that is Zones 16, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28 and 29 of the BRNA), we have also assessed capacity within the Primary Catchment Area (PCA), that is Zones 25 and 26.
Table 4.1 Summary of hollissvincent Assessment of Capacity in the Convenience Sector
Overall Catchment Area Static Retention 2011-2016 74.3m Retention Uplift 110.9m Primary Catchment Area Static Retention 76.8m Retention Uplift 88.7m
4.26
The proposed Wm Morrison and ASDA stores have a combined convenience turnover
Source: Spreadsheets 4a, 4b, 4c and 4d of Appendix 2
derived from the OCA in 2016 of 39.1m, so that even under the static retention scenario, there is more than sufficient capacity within the OCA to accommodate the convenience turnover requirements of both foodstores by 2016.
4.27
Similarly, there is sufficient capacity within the PCA under a static retention scenario to support the convenience turnover requirements of both application proposals that is drawn from residents of the PCA; that is 27.4m in 2016.
Comparison Goods
4.28 Table 4.2 summarises the results of our assessment of capacity in the comparison goods sector. Again, we have undertaken this exercise for the OCA and the PCA, and under a static retention and uplift in retention scenario.
27
Table 4.2 Summary of hollissvincent Assessment of Capacity in the Comparison Sector

Overall Catchment Area Static Retention 2011-2016 - 19.2m Retention Uplift 78.9m Primary Catchment Area Static Retention - 37.6m Retention Uplift 15.4m
4.29
Thus, within the OCA under a static retention scenario, there is insufficient residual capacity to support the comparison goods turnover requirements of either of the applications; indeed, the residual is a negative 19.2m. However, under the uplift in
Source: Spreadsheets 24a, 24b, 24c and 24d of Appendix 2
retention scenario, there is more than sufficient capacity within the OCA to support the in 2016). 4.30
comparison goods turnover requirements of both applications (which amounts to 35.6m Within the PCA, there is insufficient capacity to support, fully, the comparison goods PCA, under either of the retention scenarios. 4.31 Under the uplift scenario, however, there would be sufficient residual expenditure within PCA to both of the foodstores on their own (12.8m, excluding the non-food units). the PCA (15.4m) to support the comparison goods turnover drawn from residents of the However, there is not sufficient capacity to support, fully, the total comparison goods of the PCA of 25.0m (derived from Spreadsheet 25b in Appendix 2). 4.32
turnover that is expected to be drawn to both application proposals from residents of the
turnover at the two application sites (including the non-food units) drawn from residents As we have previously emphasised, an absence of sufficient capacity is no longer
determinative. However, whilst the shortfall in comparison goods expenditure capacity in the PCA is not significant (a shortfall of approximately 10m when the turnover requirements of both schemes are considered cumulatively), the existence of a shortfall should both schemes be implemented as proposed.
indicates that some adverse impacts on existing comparison facilities in the PCA are likely
Qualitative Retail Need

4.33 We acknowledge that food superstore provision within a 5 minute drivetime catchment in existing stores, such as the ASDA at Small Heath and the J Sainsbury at Acocks Green.
of both application sites is limited, and this is reflected in the overtrading that is occurring
28
Moreover, we have already noted that both application sites are located adjacent to the Birmingham City Centre South gap area, as identified in the BRNA and in the emerging improved convenience provision. However, we are doubtful as to whether there is a qualitative need for two new superstores in such close proximity. 4.34 Core Strategy, and it is in such areas that the Council has identified a qualitative need for
We note that Marrons has sought to make a case for the Eaton application based on the need it has identified for a new local centre in the Tyseley area. This is based on the observation, at paragraph 3.4 of its Retail Statement, that Tyseley is bereft of local
shopping facilities and poorly served in terms of access to a local shopping centre. We consider, however, that the proper course of action for promoting a new local centre Centres SPD, setting out their case for a new local centre at the Eaton site. 4.35 would have been for Marrons to make representations on the Core Strategy and the Local Moreover, the emerging Masterplan for the public consultations of 11th and 12th of
November displays some retail park characteristics, so that we give little weight to in Tyseley.
Marrons argument for qualitative need based on the requirement for a new local centre 4.36 Nevertheless, existing comparison facilities in the Tyseley area are limited to a large
number of furniture retailers located in Tyseley District Centre itself, and a concentration of comparison BME retailing in Small Heath District Centre. A more diverse range of the comparison expenditure which is currently leaking to destinations beyond the comparison uses would enable facilities within this area (Zone 25) to re-capture some of catchment such as Sears/Solihull Gate Retail Park. Indeed, Spreadsheet 23a of Appendix 2 reveals that 20.2m of comparison expenditure currently leaks from residents of the PCA to this out of centre retail park.
4.37
Whilst we acknowledge that edge and out of centre facilities with the PCA should not be competing with the higher order centres such as Birmingham City Centre, we note that Zone 25, in which both application proposals are located, currently has a localised
comparison goods retention rate of just 7.2 per cent (Spreadsheet 22 of Appendix 2), so provision of better quality, purpose built retail units.
that we consider there is some scope for the improvement of this retention through the
29
Overall Conclusions in Relation to Retail Need

4.38 Our overall conclusions in relation to quantitative need are as follows: there is more than sufficient expenditure capacity to support the convenience goods turnovers of both application proposals; there is sufficient expenditure capacity in the primary catchment area to support the comparison goods turnovers of both of the food superstores; but there is insufficient expenditure capacity to support, fully, the total comparison food units proposed in the Eaton application. 4.39
turnover of both application proposals when account is taken of the additional nonThus, although need is no longer a development management test for the purposes of PPS4, our findings suggest that there is a case for the Council to seek to negotiate a reduction in the amount of floorspace associated with the non-food units at the Eaton a reduction would reduce the risk of unacceptable impacts on nearby centres. 4.40
site, particularly given the out of centre retail park feel of the emerging masterplan. Such So far as qualitative need is concerned, we note the levels of overtrading that currently
exist in foodstores located within the PCA of the application proposals, and we note that
part of the catchment falls within a gap area in the emerging Core Strategy. Thus, there are doubtful as to whether there is a qualitative need for two new superstores in such close proximity. 4.41
is a clear qualitative need for one further food superstore within the Tyseley area, but we
So far as qualitative need in the comparison goods sector is concerned, we accept that a more diverse range of comparison uses would enable facilities within this area to recapture some of the comparison expenditure which is currently leaking to destinations beyond the catchment, in particular out of centre facilities such as Sears/Solihull Gate Retail Park, thereby reducing the need for residents to travel beyond the PCA. We have some concern, however, regarding the quantum of floorspace associated with the nonfood units at the out of centre Eaton site.
30
5
5.1
THE SEQUENTIAL TEST

Requirements of PPS4
In planning for their centres, Policy EC5 of the PPS4 requires that LPAs should identify an appropriate range of sites to accommodate the identified need; such sites should be identified through a sequential approach to site selection, identifying sites that are
suitable, available and viable. Importantly, when considering sites with similar locational areas. 5.2 sites:
characteristics, LPAs should give preference to sites that best serve the needs of deprived For retail purposes, Policy EC5.2 identifies the following order for considering sequential a) locations in appropriate existing centres; b) edge of centre locations, with preference given to sites that are, or will be, well connected to the centre; and c) out-of-centre sites, with preference given to sites which are, or will be, well served by a choice of means of transport, and which are closest to the centre. 5.3 So far as development management is concerned, Policy EC15 sets out the requirements for the consideration of sequential assessments for planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in a centre, and not in accordance with an up-to-date should: a) ensure that sites are assessed for their availability, suitability and viability; b) ensure that all in-centre options have been thoroughly assessed before less central sites are considered; c) ensure that where it has been demonstrated that there are no town centre sites to accommodate the proposed development, preference is given to edge of centre sites that are well connected to the centre by means of easy pedestrian access; and
development plan. The policy requires that in considering sequential assessments, LPAs
31
d)
ensure that in considering sites in or on the edge of existing centres, developers and operators have demonstrated flexibility in terms of: scale: reducing the floorspace of their development; format: more innovative site layouts and store configurations such as multistorey developments with smaller footprints; car parking provision: reduced or re-configured car parking areas; and the scope for disaggregating specific parts of a retail or leisure development.
5.4
In respect of the latter, the policy advises that LPAs should not seek arbitrary sub-
should take into account any genuine difficulties which the applicant can demonstrate are likely to occur in operating the proposed business model from a sequentially preferable site 5.5 Thus, in applying the sequential approach in the context of development management, the onus is firmly on the applicant to demonstrate to the LPA that all in-centre options have been thoroughly investigated, having applied the necessary flexibility.
division of proposals and, in considering whether flexibility has been demonstrated, LPAs
The Sequential Location Categories of the Application Sites

5.6 The Eaton site is clearly in an out-of-centre location for the purposes of PPS4, being located approximately 500 metres from Tyseley Neighbourhood Centre. In contrast, we
consider that the Denso application site is in an edge-of-centre location for the purposes Thus, although we note that RPSs Retail Statement suggests that the Denso site is in an 2012, in which the site is described as being edge of centre.
of PPS4, being located just over 200 metres from Olton Boulevard Neighbourhood Centre. out of centre location, this stance was changed in RPSs letter to the Council of 5th January 5.7 The consequence of the differing location categories means that the applicant for the
Eaton site has to consider the Denso site, but in the context of a quantitative need for
two new superstores within the primary catchment areas of the application proposals.
32
Our Appraisal
5.8 We should state, at the outset, that Acocks Green District Centre is the most appropriate centre for the purposes of the sequential approach, given the scale of the retail development which is proposed in both applications. However, the Birmingham Retail Needs Assessment of October 2009 forms a useful starting point, given the conclusion reached in paragraph 1.142 of Volume 3, that: our own observations of Acocks Green indicate that there is little physical consider that the seven vacant units in Acocks Green represent the most either individually or in conglomeration 5.9 Thus, with this preliminary point in mind, we turn to our appraisal of the support material of the respective applicants.
capacity for further development within or around the town centrerather we appropriate development/reoccupation opportunities within the town centre,
RPS on Behalf of SPLP

5.10 RPS has undertaken the sequential approach, applying a limited degree of flexibility on the ground that there is a critical mass or size of foodstore that must be achieved if it is to compete with and offer a realistic alternative to the other main foodstores (paragraph that could not accommodate a foodstore of a similar scale to that being proposed by the current application. We give some weight to this argument, given the gap area which exists within the catchment area of the Denso application, and given the overtrading 5.11 We have some sympathy with RPSs approach, but note the PPS4 requirement for
3.11 of its Retail Statement). Thus, having regard to site suitability, RPS disregard any site
which exists at existing large food superstores located at the periphery of the catchment. flexibility, so that sites that would meet the available, suitable and viable tests in relation to a medium sized supermarket should not be discounted. On this basis, the two sites which have the most potential for accommodating a medium sized foodstore are: the existing J Sainsbury site and adjacent public house in Acocks Green; and the Acocks Green bus depot, Summer Road.
33
5.12
The existing J Sainsbury site is owned by Wm Morrison and the adjacent public house in Acocks Green is under the ownership of J Sainsbury. RPS states that Wm Morrison intends to sell its interest in the J Sainsbury site to J Sainsbury, if a permission for its
proposed store on the Denso site is granted. This would allow J Sainsbury to extend its Acocks Green store, utilising the land currently occupied by the vacant public house. 5.13 Although the expanded Sainsbury site, including the public house, is unlikely to be which states that:
available to Morrisons, we note the provisions of paragraph 6.41 of Practice Guidance, When promoting a proposal on a less sequentially preferable site, it will not on the basis that it is not available to the developer / retailer in question.
be appropriate for a developer or retailer to dismiss a more central location
5.14
Nevertheless, the expanded site is unlikely to deliver a significant expansion of sales area at the Sainsbury store, although it will allow for a reconfiguration of the car parking. The existing convenience goods sales area in the Sainsbury store is 1,230 sq.m, and although an expansion in sales area to more than around 1,500 sq.m. In contrast, the food sq.m will be used for the sale of convenience goods.
no planning application for redevelopment has yet been submitted, we do not anticipate superstore proposed at the Denso site has a total sales area of 3,530 sq.m, of which 2,647 5.15 Thus, we consider that it would require a degree of flexibility that goes beyond what is expected by Policy EC15.1 of PPS4 for the Sainsbury site in Acocks Green to be considered suitable and viable for the application store at the Denso site. 5.16 The Acocks Green bus depot is located in an accessible edge of centre location,
approximately 200 metres from the boundary of Olton Boulevard Neighbourhood Centre. The site is in active use as a bus depot and relocation of the existing bus facilities would be expensive, so there is no evidence to suggest that the site will be available within a
reasonable period of time. Moreover, the site (1.4ha) is approximately half of the size of the application store proposal (2.7ha), and would require a degree of flexibility that goes beyond the requirements of PPS4. As a consequence, the bus depot site also fails the suitable and viable components of the sequential test.
34
5.17
Thus, there is no site within the catchment area of the Denso application proposal which meets each of the availability, suitability and viability criteria set out in Policy EC15 of PPS4. We consider, therefore, that the applicant for the Denso site has satisfied the regard to the need which the application is intended to meet. requirements of the sequential test, having applied an appropriate level of flexibility, with
Marrons on Behalf of A & J Mucklow and Helical Retail

5.18 In defining an area of search for sequential sites, the applicant for the redevelopment of the Eaton site asserts that, given the nature of the proposal as a new local centre for the not enable the development to in PPS4 terms satisfactorily meet the need the Tyseley area, the location of the proposed development on a site outside of Tyseley would proposal is intended to serve (paragraph 6.11 of Marrons PPS4 Retail Statement). 5.19 However, as stated in Section 4, we consider that any attempt to promote a new local centre should have been through the Core Strategy process. Moreover, the emerging masterplan gives the impression of an out of centre retail park, rather than a genuine new local centre. As a consequence, we give little weight to Marrons local centre argument. 5.20 On this basis, we consider that a robust approach would be to consider sequentially primary catchment area of the application proposal. Indeed, we note that preferable sites that are located within, or on the edge of, centres located within the notwithstanding the applicants view that the only site which is capable of meeting the located within, or on the edge of the nearby centres of Olton Boulevard, Hall Green, Springfield, Sparkhill and Tyseley. 5.21
intended need is the application site, a sequential search has been undertaken for sites
So far as flexibility is concerned, the applicants argument flows from the case it has made for a new local centre in the Tyseley area. That is, that if a site is not within the Tyseley is redundant; for the reasons given above, we dismiss this argument. area, it cannot be considered to be suitable, and therefore the consideration of flexibility
5.22
Nevertheless, as is the case with the Denso application, we consider that in order to provide a foodstore of sufficient scale to compete with the larger food superstores
35
located within the catchment area that are currently overtrading - such as the ASDA at Small Heath it would be appropriate to focus on sites which can at least provide for a medium-sized supermarket. 5.23 In addition to the sites considered by SPLP, which we have already found do not meet each of the availability, suitability and viability criteria, the Eaton applicant has also assessed the potential of the Denso site to accommodate the proposed ASDA. out-of-centre, thereby discounting it as a sequentially preferable option. 5.24
Incorrectly, however, the applicant for the Eaton site has classed the Denso site as being The Denso site, which is in edge-of-centre for the purposes of PPS4, is sequentially
preferable to the Eaton site, and is clearly available, suitable and viable for a medium sized food superstore, as part of mixed-use development. Nevertheless, given that we have identified sufficient residual expenditure capacity to support the convenience and comparison turnover of both foodstores1, and in the absence of any other sequentially preferable site within the PCA that meets each of the available, suitable and viable tests, we are satisfied that the foodstore element of the Eaton application proposal passes the requirements of the EC15 sequential test.
5.25
So far as the non-food units are concerned, our assessment of quantitative need has found that within the Primary Catchment Area (PCA), there is insufficient residual capacity to support, fully, the comparison goods turnover requirements of both the Denso and Eaton applications. There is, however, sufficient capacity for the comparison goods components of both of the food superstores.
5.26
Whilst the shortfall in comparison goods expenditure capacity in the PCA is not
determinative, the existence of a shortfall indicates that there is a need for the Eaton applicant to apply a high degree of flexibility in seeking to provide for the non-food comparison goods units in sequentially preferable locations. Thus, the City Council will
wish to ensure that the principle of disaggregation has been applied in seeking to assess
i.e. However, there is insufficient residual capacity to fully support the total comparison goods turnover of the non-food units associated with the Eaton application.
36
the feasibility of accommodating some of the non-food unit floorspace proposed for the Eaton site in sequentially preferable locations. However, we do not consider it necessary of the Eaton and Denso application proposals, because this would represent an arbitrary sub-division, within the terms of Policy EC15.d iv of PPS4. 5.27 The non-food units at the Eaton application site range in size from between to explore the disaggregation of the comparison floorspace within the foodstore element
approximately 100 sq.m gross to 3,475 sq.m gross (paragraph 3.6 of the Marrons PPS4
Retail Statement). Indeed, the emerging masterplan suggests that there will be one large non-food unit of 3,475 sq.m gross; three to six medium non-food units with an aggregate floorspace of 2,820 sq.m gross; and three to six small non-food units with an aggregate floorspace of 575 sq.m gross. 5.28 Thus, some of the smaller units could potentially be accommodated within vacant floorspace that currently exists in the nearby centres, which include: 8 vacant units in Acocks Green, the largest of which is 400 sq.m gross; 14 vacant units in Hall Green, none of which are in excess of 300 sq.m gross; 6 vacant units in Olton Boulevard Neighbourhood Centre, none of which are in excess of 300 sq.m gross; units; 4 vacant units in Springfield Neighbourhood Centre, all of which are small, lock-up a small number of units in Sparkhill, some of which are in the process of refurbishment for their re-occupation; and the Swan Centre. 5.29 a number of new non-food units being provided as a result of the redevelopment of However, we note that many of the vacant units are small in scale and dispersed
throughout each of the centres, so that there is little scope for vacant units to be 400 sq.m gross.
amalgamated so as to create opportunities for accommodating any non-food units over 5.30 Moreover, we acknowledge that the retail components of the Eaton scheme are intended to cross fund the delivery of the non-retail elements of the scheme, such as the Battery
37
Way link road and the relocation of the Eaton Electrics offices and training centre. Thus, we accept that some level of provision of non-food units at the Eaton site is likely to be necessary, although the applicant does not appear to have run an enabling case compliant, but are necessary to enable the delivery of wider benefits. whereby there is an acceptance that components of the application may not be policy
Conclusions in Relation to Sequential Test The Denso Application

5.31 The Denso application, which is in an edge of centre location for the purposes of PPS4, centre site, that meets each of the available, suitable and viable tests incorporated in Policy EC15 of PPS4, having applied the necessary degree of flexibility. passes the sequential test because there is no in-centre site, or better connected edge-of-
The Eaton Application

5.32 The Eaton application site is out of centre for the purposes of PPS4, so that the Denso site is in a sequentially preferable location. However, given that our assessment of expenditure capacity has identified sufficient expenditure residual to support the
convenience and comparison goods turnover requirements of both superstores, and in and viable criteria, we can conclude that the food superstore element of the Eaton Policy EC15 of PPS4. 5.33
the absence of a second edge-of-centre site which meets each of the available, suitable application proposal also satisfies the requirements of the sequential approach set out in However, our analysis has shown that there is insufficient comparison goods expenditure the Eaton site. The emerging masterplan indicates that three to six of the units will be that it is necessary for the applicant to be flexible and apply the principle of
potential to support, in full, the additional turnover associated with the non-food units at small, and that a further three to six units will be of medium size. We consider, therefore, disaggregation since some of the occupiers for the smaller units could potentially be the various nearby neighbourhood centres.
accommodated in the vacant units which exist within Acocks Green District Centre, and in
38
5.34
The City Council will wish to assure itself that the principle of disaggregation has been explored to the full. We accept, however, that it is only the very small units in the application proposal that could potentially be accommodated by the vacant units in
sequentially preferable locations, since none of these vacant units are over 400 sq.m
gross. Thus, the medium sized units in the Denso application, which will have a mean are provided) are unlikely to be able to be accommodated in sequentially preferable locations.
floorspace in the range 470 sq.m gross to 970 sq.m gross (depending on how many units
39
6
6.1
THE IMPACT TESTS

Introduction
Policy EC16.1 sets out the six impact tests which planning applications for town centre uses must be assessed against; these are: the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local offer;
consumer choice and the range and quality of the comparison and convenience retail the impact of the proposal on allocated sites outside town centres being developed in accordance with the development plan; the impact of the proposal on in-centre trade and turnover and on trade in the wider area, taking account of current and future expenditure capacity in the catchment area; whether the proposal, if located in, or on the edge of a town centre, is of an and its role in the hierarchy of centres; and
appropriate scale (in terms of gross floorspace) in relation to the size of the centre any local important impacts on centres under Policy EC3.1.e.
EC16.1.a Impact on Committed and Planned Investment

6.2 Both applicants emphasise that both of the proposed schemes will themselves bring about a substantial level of investment within the south east Birmingham area. Nevertheless, the impact of both proposals on in-centre investment must be considered. Thus, within the primary catchment area of both application proposals, key existing, committed and planned investments include: the ongoing redevelopment of the Swan Centre, Yardley, which is anchored by a Tesco Extra food superstore; and
40
the proposed extension of the J Sainsbury store in Acocks Green onto the adjacent former public house site. 6.3 So far as redevelopment of the Swan Centre is concerned, we consider that neither application proposal on its own, nor both proposals when considered cumulatively, would have an adverse effect on the future success of this investment. Indeed, construction of further units currently under offer. Moreover, once the anchor Tesco store is open for 6.4 the scheme is well underway and several of the comparison units have now been let, with trading (scheduled to open in early 2012), there is likely to be a further boost to lettings. Our assessment of convenience impact in Spreadsheet 16c reveals a diversion of 5.0m from the Tesco commitment at Swan Yardley in 2016 under a two store scenario (i.e. if Tesco superstore at Swan Yardley, we consider that such an impact would not have a both the ASDA and Wm Morrison proposals are permitted). Given the large scale of the materially adverse impact on the trading viability of this store (which would continue to anchors. 6.5
trade close to the company benchmark level), nor the redeveloped Swan Centre which it In comparison terms, the absolute diversion from the redeveloped Swan Centre and the 4 per cent. Again, we do not consider that such an impact would prejudice the future viability of this investment. 6.6
Tesco commitment is just 1.3m under a two store scenario, which is marginally less than
In Acocks Green, J Sainsbury has secured an interest in the adjacent former public house, with the intention of extending their existing store, which is identified to be substantially from the Council on 23rd January 2012), J Sainsbury confirms its commitment to overtrading. Indeed, in a letter from J Sainsbury to the Council (received by hollissvincent maintaining our representation in the centre and that it will continue to develop and
enhance the store in a way that best responds to the needs of our customers in an increasingly competitive market place. 6.7
The letter from J Sainsbury also confirms that having reviewed the Denso application,
they do not raise an objection to the proposed new foodstore on this particular site [the
Denso site]. Thus, given that the convenience impacts of both application proposals are
41
very similar, we are confident that the implementation of either one of the application proposals on a solus basis would not prejudice the investment proposed by J Sainsbury in their Acocks Green store2. 6.8 Indeed, RPS points out, in paragraph 4.31 of its Retail Statement, that following a successful permission at the Denso site, Wm Morrison would be willing to sell its extension of the store. 6.9 controlling interest in the J Sainsbury site, so as to allow J Sainsbury to invest in an Under a two scenario, the incremental convenience diversions from the J Sainsbury store (on top of the existing commitments) would be slightly greater (2.7m in 2016) than household survey evidence suggests that the J Sainsbury store would continue to under a one store scenario (1.4m for Wm Morrison, 1.3m for ASDA). Nevertheless, the overtrade following such an impact. Indeed, even if we take a cautious stance in which the estimate of the existing level of overtrading is halved (i.e. 10.8m of overtrading in more or less in line with the company average, following the cumulative diversion of 11.7m that would arise as a result of implementation of commitments and both 2011, as opposed to the survey derived estimate of 21.5m3), the store would be trading
application proposals in 2016. Thus, on this basis, we consider that the implementation investment by J Sainsbury in its Acocks Green store. 6.10
of both application proposals would not have a significant adverse impact on the planned Indeed, given that J Sainsbury is considering expansion of its Acocks Green store in full knowledge of the existing commitments located within the catchment area, and given that it supports the Denso application, we consider it unlikely that an additional its proposed investment in Acocks Green.
convenience trade diversion of 1.3m as a result of the Eaton application would prejudice
Indeed, we note that the Wm Morrison store has a slightly higher convenience turnover than the ASDA proposal. Thus, the convenience impacts of the Wm Morrison propsal on the J Sainsbury in Acocks Green are slightly higher than the ASDA proposal (compare Spreadsheets 16a and 16b of Appendix 2). 3 See Table A1.1 of Appendix 1 for the full table of overtrading.
42
6.11
Thus, our overall conclusion in relation to Policy EC16.1.a is that there is no clear evidence of any significant adverse impact on investment, even if both application proposals are implemented.
EC16.1.b Impact on Town Centre Vitality and Viability and EC16.1.d Impact on In-centre Trade and Turnover
6.12 6.13 We consider that tests b. and d. of Policy EC16.1 are closely inter-related, and so we consider them together. Paragraph D.7 of the PPS4 Practice Guidance advises that in undertaking assessments of
quantitative impact it may be relevant to judge the cumulative effect of other proposals, particularly where there is a choice between two competing proposals and the combined impact of both needs to be considered. Whilst the Council has requested that both proposals, only the Denso applicant has acceded to such a request. Moreover, the no allowance for commitments to impact on each other. applicants consider undertaking a cumulative assessment which takes into account both analysis provided by RPS is described as being very much a worst case scenario, with Thus, we have undertaken our own assessment of cumulative impact, drawing on the findings of the household survey which informed the Birmingham Retail Needs Assessment, and information submitted by both applicants in relation to their respective applications. The methodology we have employed is set out in full in Appendix 1.
6.14
Convenience Impact
6.15 Table 6.1 and 6.2 summarise the results of trade diversions in the convenience sector associated with the Denso and Eaton applications respectively. The tables focus on Acocks Green District Centre and six other large foodstores which together account for about two thirds of the convenience goods trade diversion associated with each of the two columns setting out the impact of existing planning commitments in absolute and two application proposals. The structure of Tables 6.1 and 6.2 is the same, with the first percentage terms, with the third and fourth columns setting out the incremental impact commitments and the application proposal.
of the application proposal, and columns five and six setting out the cumulative impact of
43
6.16
Table 6.3 is in the same format, but with the incremental columns showing the impact both application proposals and the cumulative columns showing the position for commitments together with both of the current applications.
6.17
Tables 6.1 and 6.2 show that the impact of the commitments accounts for approximately 87 per cent of the cumulative impact associated with each application proposal. Importantly, the incremental convenience impacts of the Denso store are very similar to the incremental convenience impacts of the Eaton store, so that there is no material comparative advantage between the two proposals in the convenience sector. In both at approximately 4m in each case, or 6 per cent, followed by the impact on the Tesco respect of the Wm Morrison store and 2.4m in respect of the ASDA store.
cases the highest incremental diversions are from the out of centre ASDA at Small Heath, Extra store being developed at Swan Yardley, where the incremental impact is 2.7m in 6.18 However, the ASDA store at Small Heath is in an out of centre location, and does not enjoy any policy protection. In any event, this store is estimated to be overtrading Swan Yardley is concerned, we have noted already, in the context of impact on company benchmark. 6.19 significantly, and will continue to do so post impact. So far as the impact on Tesco at investment, that the Tesco store would continue to trade at a healthy level, close to the So far as the cumulative effects of commitments and Wm Morrison is concerned, Table 6.1 shows that the highest percentage impacts are on the Wm Morrison and ASDA stores at Small Heath, the J Sainsbury store in Acocks Green and the Tesco in Sheldon, all at around 30 per cent. However, each of these four stores would continue to overtrade
following implementation of the commitments, and both of the application proposals, let alone just one of them. So although these 30 per cent impacts might seem high, they area, so that significant adverse impacts are unlikely, because of the degree of overtrading which currently exists. reflect the underprovision of food superstore floorspace within the primary catchment
44
Table 6.1 Summary of Convenience Trade Diversions at 2016 to Wm Morrison, Denso Site
Destination Commitments m Wm Morrison, Small Heath ASDA, Small Heath Wm Morrison, Sheldon J Sainsbury, Acocks Green Other stores, Acocks Green SUB-TOTAL for Acocks Green Tesco, Sheldon Tesco Extra, Swan Yardley Waitrose, Hall Green* Sub-Total for Main Destinations
Source: Spreadsheet 16b of Appendix 2 Destinations in italics denote commitments
Wm Morrison Incremental % m 1.9 4.0 1.7 1.4 0.3 1.7 0.9 2.7 0.2 13.1 % 4.9 6.3 5.5 5.2 2.8 4.6 3.5 6.5 1.7 -
Cumulative for Commitments and Wm Morrison m 16.0 27.4 10.5 1.9 12.4 10.2 1.6 67.6 % 30.8 31.6 29.0 16.6 26.2 28.4 14.2 -
14.2 23.5 9.1 1.6 10.7 9.3 1.4 59.1
27.3 27.0 25.1 14.2 22.6 25.8 12.7 -
* This store is located within the Highfield Road portion of Hall Green Neighbourhood Centre
6.20
Table 6.2 shows that a similar situation arises as a result of the implementation of the
commitments, together with the ASDA proposal at Eaton, and the final columns of Table 6.2 almost exactly mirror Table 6.1, with convenience impacts of around 30 per cent on the same four stores.
45
Table 6.2 Summary of Convenience Trade Diversions at 2016 to ASDA, Eaton Site
Source: Spreadsheet 16a of Appendix 2
ASDA Incremental % m 1.8 3.9 1.5 1.3 0.2 1.5 0.8 2.4 0.2 12.1 % 4.9 6.1 4.8 4.7 2.5 4.1 3.0 5.8 1.6 -
Cumulative for Commitments and ASDA m 16.0 27.3 10.3 1.9 12.2 10.1 1.6 67.2 % 30.8 31.5 28.7 16.4 25.7 28.0 14.1
14.2 23.5 9.1 1.6 10.7 9.3 1.4 59.1
27.3 27.0 25.1 14.2 22.6 25.8 12.7 -
Destinations in italics denote commitments
6.21
Table 6.3 summarises the convenience goods diversions following implementation of existing commitments, together with both of the application stores at the Denso and Eaton sites. Of crucial importance are the facts that:
commitments continue to account for 78 per cent of the cumulative convenience 75.8m); and
goods impact on the stores most affected (59.1m out of an aggregate diversion of the cumulative percentage impacts shown in the final column of Table 6.3 are typically between 3 or 4 percentage points higher than the cumulative impacts shown in Tables 6.1 and 6.2 for each application store on its own. 6.22 Consequently, the additional effects in the convenience sector of permitting both stores is limited, in part because they will impact on each other, in part because they are moderately sized superstores compared to nearby facilities such as ASDA at Small Heath,
46
Tesco at Swan Yardley and Wm Morrison at Sheldon and in part because the commitments account for such a high proportion of the overall diversion.
Table 6.3 Summary of Convenience Trade Diversions at 2016 to Wm Morrison and ASDA
Source: Spreadsheet 16c of Appendix 2
Two Store Incremental % m 3.7 7.9 3.2 2.7 0.5 3.2 1.7 5.0 0.3 25.0 % 9.8 12.4 10.3 9.9 5.3 8.7 6.5 12.3 3.4 -
Cumulative for Commitments and Both Applications m 17.9 31.3 11.7 2.1 13.8 11.0 1.8 75.8 % 34.4 36.1 32.5 18.8 29.1 30.6 15.7 -
14.2 23.5 9.1 1.6 10.7 9.3 1.4 59.1
27.3 27.0 25.1 14.2 22.6 25.8 12.7 -
Destinations in italics denote commitments
6.23
Nevertheless, even though the additional cumulative impact in the convenience sector associated with permissions for both of the live applications is limited to 3 or 4 percentage points, we still need to address whether the outcome for any nearby district or neighbourhood centre is significantly adverse. Our own assessment of cumulative impact in the convenience sector has shown that there is no material level of diversion of trade from any of the neighbourhood centres, and within the primary catchment area, District Centres. the main sources of trade diversion are the large stores in Acocks Green and Small Heath
6.24
So far as Small Heath is concerned, most of the cumulative diversion is from the ASDA
and Wm Morrison stores, but both of these stores will continue to trade above company benchmark levels following the cumulative impact of existing commitments and the two
47
application proposals, as shown in the final column of Table 6.4. Moreover, Small Heath is a vibrant district centre, with strong representation in the convenience and comparison local needs, and are highly unlikely to be materially affected by the application proposals.
Table 6.4 Overtrading At Main Destinations in the Catchment Area Following Implementation of Commitments and Both Application Foodstores
Zone Store convenience Convenience sales sales area density in 2016 sq.m net per sq.m net 1,681 10,634 1,440 10,915 1,969 10,634 2,878 10,634 2,986 12,261 1,355 10,811 1,230 10,915 2,776 10,915 1,431 10,915 proportion of benchmark turnover convenience derived from turnover in catchment 2016 area m % 17.9 85 15.7 90 20.9 70 30.6 95 36.6 95 14.6 95 13.4 95 30.3 75 15.6 75 benchmark 2016 post turnover impact survey level of derived from derived undertrading catchment turnover from / overtrading area catchment m m m 15.2 21.7 6.5 14.1 18.6 4.4 14.7 16.4 1.8 29.1 34.1 5.1 34.8 55.5 20.7 13.9 24.9 11.0 12.8 24.3 11.6 22.7 27.7 5.0 11.7 18.9 7.1 73.1
sectors, and the centre is dominated by independent and BME retailers that cater well for
16 16 22 25 25 26 26 29 29
Morrisons, Warwick Road, Solihull Sainsbury's, Poplar Way, Solihull Morrisons, Chester Road, Castle Bromwich Morrisons, Coventry Road, Small Heath Asda, Coventry Road, Small Heath Tesco, Coventry Road, Sheldon Sainsbury's, Warwick Road, Acocks Green Sainsbury's, Alcester Road, Maypole Sainsbury's, Alcester Road, Kings Heath TOTAL
6.25
So far as Acocks Green is concerned, most of the cumulative diversion falls on the
Sainsbury store, for which the predicted convenience goods impact is 32.5 per cent (Table 6.3). However, even at this level of impact, the store will continue to trade well above the company average benchmark (Table 6.4). Furthermore, the Acocks Green health reveals that at the time Acocks Green was a
check, undertaken by RTP for the Birmingham Retail Needs Assessment (BRNA) in 2009, generally pleasant, vibrant and stable town centre. This is evidenced by the (including clothing retailers) and the large proportion of representation from
town centres healthy convenience retail offer; the range of comparison retailers operators in the restaurants, cafs , coffee bars, fast food and take-aways sub also healthy indicators.
category. Improving yields, high pedestrian flows and the low vacancy rates are
6.26
Having re-visited Acocks Green in January 2012, and found that the centre remains busy, with few vacancies, we support the view set out in the BRNA that Acocks Green is a vital and viable centre. In this context, whilst we acknowledge that there is a risk of some adverse impact under the two store cumulative scenario, we consider that the direct
48
cumulative diversion of 2.1m from other stores in Acocks Green would not have a significant adverse impact on the ongoing vitality and viability of the centre. 6.27 Elsewhere in the catchment area of both proposals, neighbourhood centres of potential concern include The Parade (Hall Green Neighbourhood Centre) and Olton Boulevard Neighbourhood Centre. Neither of these centres were picked up in the BRNA household survey. However, having visited both centres in January 2012, we are of the view that neither of the application proposals whether considered on a solus or two store basis or Olton Boulevard. In both cases existing facilities are limited in scale (Co-op and Lidl
would have a material adverse impact on existing facilities within The Parade (Hall Green) respectively), and serve a predominantly top-function to a largely walk-in catchment. On this basis, we consider that the trade diversions from existing facilities in both of these centres will be limited.
Comparison Impact
6.28 Table 6.5 and 6.6 summarise the results of trade diversions in the comparison sector centres and stores which together account for most of the comparison goods trade associated with the Denso and Eaton applications respectively. The tables focus on those diversion associated with each of the two application proposals. The structure of Tables 6.5 and 6.6 is the same, with the first two columns setting out the impact of existing planning commitments in absolute and percentage terms, with the third and fourth
columns setting out the incremental impact of the application proposal, and columns five and six setting out the cumulative impact of commitments and the application proposal. 6.29 Table 6.7 is in the same format, but with the incremental columns showing the impact both application proposals and the cumulative columns showing the position for commitments together with both of the current applications. 6.30
Table 6.5 shows that the commitments account for the overwhelming proportion of the the Denso site are limited, and there will be no material adverse impact on the comparison goods sectors of Acocks Green, Kings Heath and the Swan Centre.
cumulative trade diversion, and that the incremental effects of the Wm Morrison store at
49
Table 6.5 Summary of Comparison Trade Diversions at 2016 to Wm Morrison Destination Wm Morrison Commitments Incremental
m Solihull Town Centre Acocks Green District Centre Tesco Extra and Swan Centre Kings Heath District Centre Birmingham City Centre Sub-Total for Main Destinations
Source: Spreadsheet 36b of Appendix 2 Destinations in italics denote commitments
% 5.4 5.7 3.0 -
m 1.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 3.8 5.6
% 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 -
Commitments & Wm Morrison Cumulative m 2.7 2.0 64.4 89.5 20.4
19.2 2.5 1.9 60.6 84.2
5.8 6.2 3.2 -
6.31
Similarly, Table 6.6 reveals that commitments account for the overwhelming proportion
of the cumulative comparison diversions associated with the Eaton application. However, the incremental impacts are marginally higher than for the Denso application because of comparison goods impacts of 7.9 per cent on Acocks Green and 4.0 per cent on Kings these centres.
Table 6.6 Summary of Comparison Trade Diversions at 2016 to ASDA and Non-Food Units Destination Commitments & ASDA & Non-Food Commitments ASDA & Non-Food Incremental Cumulative
m 2.5 1.9 60.6 84.2 % m 4.6 1.0 1.1 0.6 15.7 23.0 % m 3.4 2.5 76.3 106.0 Solihull Town Centre Acocks Green District Centre Tesco Extra and Swan Centre Kings Heath District Centre Birmingham City Centre Sub-Total for Main Destinations
Source: Spreadsheet 36a of Appendix 2 Destinations in italics denote commitments
the inclusion of the non-food units in the Eaton application. Nevertheless, the cumulative Heath are unlikely to cause significant adverse effects given the overall good health of
19.2
5.4 5.7 3.0 -
1.4 2.3 3.0 1.0 -
23.8
6.7 7.9 4.0 -
50
6.32
Table 6.7 sets out the overall cumulative position following the implementation of the commitments and both of the live application proposals. Comparison with Table 6.5 reveals that the two application scenario causes cumulative impacts which are only marginally worse than the position that would arise if only the Denso scheme was implemented.
Table 6.7 Summary of Comparison Trade Diversions at 2016 to Wm Morrison and ASDA and Non-Food Units Destination Commitments, Two Store Wm Morrison, Commitments Incremental ASDA & Non-Food Cumulative
m 2.5 1.9 60.6 84.2 % m 5.8 1.2 1.3 0.7 19.5 28.5 % m 3.7 2.6 80.1 111.4 Solihull Town Centre Acocks Green District Centre Tesco Extra and Swan Centre Kings Heath District Centre Birmingham City Centre Sub-Total for Main Destinations
Source: Spreadsheet 36c of Appendix 2 Destinations in italics denote commitments
19.2
5.4 5.7 3.0 -
1.7 2.9 3.6 1.2 -
25.0
7.1 8.4 4.2 -
6.33
Moreover, the highest incremental comparison diversions, as would be expected, are
from Birmingham City Centre, with a total cumulative diversion of 80.1m under a two store scenario. However, three quarters of the cumulative diversion from Birmingham City Centres comparison goods turnover is estimated at 6 per cent, assuming that all commitments are implemented. Moreover, such an impact would be masked by the planned investment in the City Centre. City Centre is as a result of the commitments, and the overall cumulative impact on the
effects of expenditure growth (even at the lower rates now forecast), and by ongoing and 6.34 Smaller centres within the catchment area of the proposals, such as Hall Green, Tyseley
and Olton Neighbourhood Centres, do not have a strong comparison role, so that impact function as a centre of furniture retailing. In the case of Olton Boulevard, we consider
on these centres is likely to be limited. Indeed, Tyseley serves a predominantly specialist
51
that there is strong likelihood that linked trips would occur between the edge-of-centre Denso application site and existing facilities located in Olton Boulevard; this would help to increase footfall in Olton Boulevard, and could contribute towards offsetting any trade diversions that might occur.
Combined Convenience and Comparison Goods Impact

6.35 Our analysis of the separate convenience and comparison trade impacts has confirmed that the main centre of relevance to our conclusions is Acocks Green. As a consequence, we have assessed the combined convenience and comparison goods diversion from this centre, as set out in Table 6.8, which shows that: there is no material difference in the incremental impacts associated with the two application proposals, although the Denso application has a marginal advantage (1.9m diversion for the Denso application, compared to 2.5m for the Eaton application);
the commitments account for three quarters of the combined cumulative diversion from Acocks Green (13.1m out of 17.5m); of the total cumulative combined convenience and comparison goods trade
diversion from Acocks Green District Centre, of 17.5m, some 11.7m is attributable the incremental effects of the two application proposals combined; that to trade diversion from the Sainsburys store4, but of this only 2.7m results from
the incremental impact of the two applications combined is just 4.8 per cent; and the overall cumulative impact on Acocks Green District Centre is 19.3 per cent.
See Spreadsheet 16c.
52
Table 6.8 Combined Convenience and Comparison Impact on Acocks Green in 2016
Combined No Development Turnover (m) Commitments and Both Proposals Acocks Green District Centre Both Proposals Incremental Commitments Only Acocks Green District Centre Acocks Green District Centre Acocks Green District Centre Wm Morrison Incremental Acocks Green District Centre 91.0 91.0 91.0 91.0 91.0
Combined Diversion (m)
Combined Percentage Impact (%) -19.3 -4.8 -14.4 -2.7 -2.1
17.5 4.4 13.1 2.5 1.9
ASDA & Non-Food Units Incremental
Turnover for Acocks Green includes J Sainsbury
6.36
In some circumstances, an impact on in-centre trade of 19.3 per cent would give rise to concern. However, given that Acocks Green was identified by the BRNA as one of the Citys most healthy District Centres, and given that our field visit for the purposes of this commission revealed that the centre continues to enjoy very good health, despite the level of in-centre trade diversion is likely to cause a significant adverse effect on the centres overall vitality and viability. effects of the recession, we conclude that there is no clear evidence to suggest that this
6.37
However, it is clear that there will be some adverse impact on Acocks Green, mainly as a this negative impact will need to be taken account by the City Council in the balancing exercise it needs to undertake under the provisions of Policy EC17.2 of PPS4.
result of existing commitments, but also as a result of the two application proposals, and
EC16.1.c Impact on Allocated Sites Outside Town Centres Being Developed in Accordance with the Development Plan
6.38 Neither of the application sites is formally allocated for industrial use within the development plan, although paragraph 4.31 of the UDP seeks to resist the loss of
industrial land to retail or other non-industrial uses, except where the site is in a nonHV040 | March 2012 FINAL REPORT
53
conforming use. Nor are there any allocations for development outside Acocks Green District Centre, or outside any of the neighbourhood centres. Thus, test EC16.1c does not apply. 6.39 However, we note that the Denso site and the Signal Point part of the Tyseley application site are proposed to be Core Employment Areas in the emerging Core Strategy, under Policy SP12. However, the applicant for the Denso site has objected to its proposed
inclusion in a Core Employment Area, so that little weight can be given to this aspect of the consultation draft of the Core Strategy. We note, also, that the applicant for the Employment Area. Eaton site makes the point that its proposal will assist in delivering the Signal Point Core
EC16.1.e If Located In, or on the Edge of a Town Centre, Whether the Proposal is of an Appropriate Scale
6.40 Given that this policy test does not apply to out-of-centre proposals, this test is only applicable to the application proposal at the Denso site, which is located on the edge of Olton Boulevard Neighbourhood Centre. The proposed Wm Morrison foodstore has a total retail sales area of 3,530 sq.m; whilst this is much larger than any of the existing dominate the existing centre. 6.41
facilities within Olton Boulevard, we do not consider that it is of a scale that would overly Moreover, the comparison element of the store totals just 883 sq.m sales area; this is store to be used as a one stop shop.
limited compared to other recent commitments5, and will reduce the propensity for the
EC16.1.f Any Locally Important Impacts

6.42 Given that the Core Strategy is still in the relatively early stages of preparation, no locally important impacts have yet been identified which are applicable to the consideration of either of the application proposals; this policy test is therefore not relevant in this case.
See Spreadsheet 25a of Appendix 2
54
Conclusions in Relation to Policy EC16.1 Impacts

6.43 Given the high level of aggregate overtrading that exists in the stores located in the primary catchment area of the application proposals and the fact that we have identified levels of residual expenditure which are more than sufficient to support the turnover of have found no clear evidence of significant adverse impacts in relation to any of the six tests set out in Policy EC16.1 of PPS4. 6.44 the food superstore components of both applications, it is perhaps not surprising that we
Our analysis of the separate convenience and comparison trade impacts has confirmed
that the main centre of relevance to our conclusions is Acocks Green. As a consequence, we have assessed the combined convenience and comparison goods diversion from this centre, as set out in Table 6.8, which shows that: there is no material difference in the incremental impacts associated with the two application proposals, although the Denso application has a marginal advantage (1.9m diversion for the Denso application, compared to 2.5m for the Eaton application);
diversion of 17.5m, some 11.7m is attributable to trade diversion from the two application proposals combined;
Sainsburys store, but of this only 2.7m results from the incremental effects of the the incremental impact of the two applications combined is just 4.8 per cent; and that the overall cumulative impact on Acocks Green District Centre is 19.3 per cent. 6.45 In some circumstances, an impact on in-centre trade of 19.3 per cent would give rise to concern. However, given that Acocks Green was identified by the BRNA as one of the Citys most healthy District Centres, and given that our field visit for the purposes of this commission revealed that the centre continues to enjoy very good health, despite the effects of the recession, we conclude that there is no clear evidence to suggest that this
55
level of in-centre trade diversion is likely to cause a significant adverse effect on the centres overall vitality and viability. 6.46 However, it is clear that there will be some adverse impact on Acocks Green, mainly as a this negative impact will need to be taken account by the City Council in the balancing exercise it needs to undertake under the provisions of Policy EC17.2 of PPS4. result of existing commitments, but also as a result of the two application proposals, and
56
7
7.1
CONCLUSIONS
The Policy EC17 Framework
Policy EC17 of PPS4 sets out the Governments guidelines for considering planning applications for town centre uses. Paragraph EC17.1 explains that applications for main date development plan should be refused planning permission where: sequential approach (Policy EC15); or
town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and not in accordance with an up-toa) the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the requirements of the b) there is clear evidence that the proposal is likely to lead to significant adverse impact assessment), taking account of the likely cumulative effect of recent emphasis). 7.2
impacts in terms of any one of the impacts set out in Policies EC10.2 and EC16.1 (the permissions, developments under construction and completed developments (our
Where no significant adverse impacts have been identified under Policies EC10.2 and taking account of:
EC16.1, Policy EC17.2 of PPS4 advises that planning applications should be determined by a) the positive and negative impacts of the proposal in terms of Policies EC10.2 and 16.1, and any other material considerations; and and completed developments. b) the likely cumulative effect of recent permissions, developments under construction
7.3
Finally, Policy EC17.3 states that, judgements about the extent and significance of any impacts should be informed by the development plan. Policy EC17.3 also notes that information are also relevant. recent local assessments of the health of town centres and any other published local
57
EC17.1.a The Sequential Test (Policy EC15) The Denso Application

7.4 The Denso application, which is in an edge of centre location for the purposes of PPS4, centre site, that meets each of the available, suitable and viable tests incorporated in Policy EC15 of PPS4, having applied the necessary degree of flexibility. passes the sequential test because there is no in-centre site, or better connected edge-of-

7.5 The Eaton application site is out of centre for the purposes of PPS4, so that the Denso site is in a sequentially preferable location. However, given that our assessment of expenditure capacity has identified sufficient expenditure residual to support the
convenience and comparison goods turnover requirements of both superstores, and in and viable criteria, we can conclude that the food superstore element of the Eaton Policy EC15 of PPS4. 7.6
the absence of a second edge-of-centre site which meets each of the available, suitable application proposal also satisfies the requirements of the sequential approach set out in However, our analysis has shown that there is insufficient comparison goods expenditure potential to support, in full, the additional turnover associated with the non-food units at the Eaton site. The emerging masterplan indicates that three to six of the units will be that it is necessary for the applicant to be flexible and apply the principle of small, and that a further three to six units will be of medium size. We consider, therefore, disaggregation since some of the occupiers for the smaller units could potentially be the various nearby neighbourhood centres. 7.7
accommodated in the vacant units which exist within Acocks Green District Centre, and in The City Council will wish to assure itself that the principle of disaggregation has been explored to the full. We accept, however, that it is only the very small units in the application proposal that could potentially be accommodated by the vacant units in sequentially preferable locations, since none of these vacant units are over 400 sq.m gross. Thus, the medium sized units in the Denso application, which will have a mean
58
floorspace in the range 470 sq.m gross to 970 sq.m gross (depending on how many units are provided) are unlikely to be able to be accommodated in sequentially preferable locations.
EC17.1.b The Policy EC16 Impact Tests

7.8 Given the high level of aggregate overtrading that exists in the stores located in the primary catchment area of the application proposals and the fact that we have identified levels of residual expenditure which are more than sufficient to support the turnover of have found no clear evidence of significant adverse impacts in relation to any of the six tests set out in Policy EC16.1 of PPS4. 7.9 the food superstore components of both applications, it is perhaps not surprising that we
Our analysis of the separate convenience and comparison trade impacts has confirmed
that the main centre of relevance to our conclusions is Acocks Green. As a consequence, we have assessed the combined convenience and comparison goods diversion from this centre, as set out in Table 6.8, which shows that: there is no material difference in the incremental impacts associated with the two application proposals, although the Denso application has a marginal advantage (1.9m diversion for the Denso application, compared to 2.5m for the Eaton application);
diversion from Acocks Green District Centre, of 17.5m, some 11.7m is attributable to trade diversion from the Sainsburys store, but of this only 2.7m results from the incremental effects of the two application proposals combined; the incremental impact of the two applications combined is just 4.8 per cent; and that the overall cumulative impact on Acocks Green District Centre is 19.3 per cent. 7.10 In some circumstances, an impact on in-centre trade of 19.3 per cent would give rise to concern. However, given that Acocks Green was identified by the BRNA as one of the
59
Citys most healthy District Centres, and given that our field visit for the purposes of this commission revealed that the centre continues to enjoy very good health, despite the level of in-centre trade diversion is likely to cause a significant adverse effect on the centres overall vitality and viability. 7.11 effects of the recession, we conclude that there is no clear evidence to suggest that this
However, it is clear that there will be some adverse impact on Acocks Green, mainly as a this negative impact will need to be taken account by the City Council in the balancing exercise it needs to undertake under the provisions of Policy EC17.2 of PPS4.
result of existing commitments, but also as a result of the two application proposals, and
EC17.2 Balancing Exercise

7.12 The Denso application passes the Policy EC15 sequential test, and the Eaton application and a reduction in the quantum of non-food unit floorspace is secured through can also be made to be fully compliant with the sequential approach if flexibility is applied negotiation. Thus, given that there is no clear evidence of any significant adverse
impacts in relation to Policy EC16 tests, and assuming that the City Council is satisfied
that there are no significant adverse impacts under any of the policy EC10 tests, then the Council will have to consider both applications within the context of the balancing exercise set out in Policy EC17.2 of PPS4, taking into account positive and negative construction and completed developments. 7.13 impacts and the likely cumulative effects of recent permissions, developments under The most important of the negative impacts in relation to the Policy EC16.1 tests is the negative cumulative impact on Acocks Green District Centre, whereas impacts on the some potential spin-off benefits for Olton Boulevard Neighbourhood Centre. 7.14 Most of the EC10 impacts are outside the scope of our instructions, and we make no consider that there would be a positive net employment impact and economic regeneration impacts in both cases. comment in relation to impact on climate change, accessibility and design. However, we neighbourhoods centres are likely to be negligible; indeed, the Denso application offers
60

7.15 The support material submitted by Marrons in support of the Eaton application suggests that the proposal will create 1,026 full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs on the application site and has calculated this gross employment impact through reference to the English Partnerships Employment Densities Guide (2nd Edition, 2010)6. Whilst this is a robust approach for calculating gross employment benefits, the method does not take account
of deadweight (what would happen on the application site if permission is refused),
leakage (which is the proportion of jobs being taken by those outside the target groups) and displacement (which is likely to include the transfer of jobs from the current Eaton Electric operation, to the new operation at Signal Point and the competitive effects of the application proposal on employment in retail facilities elsewhere in the catchment area). 7.16 Thus, we would estimate a net level of job creation in the application proposals primary which currently suffers from higher than average levels of deprivation and will help to and e, of Policy EC10.2 of PPS4 . 7.17 As a result of the proposed phasing of the redevelopment of the Eaton site, in addition to deliver the following physical and economic benefits: the aforementioned employment and social inclusion benefits, the application would also The delivery of a new link road, which would improve access from Olton Boulevard to Battery Way. The Battery Way access link road is cited in the emerging Core Strategy as being necessary in order to relieve the Weston Lane area and it would also improve access to the Signal Point employment site. It is important to note, also, that this link road would comprise the first phase of the redevelopment of the Eaton site, thereby guaranteeing this benefit should the application be permitted.
catchment area of around 500 to 600 FTEs; this represents a substantial benefit in an area promote social inclusion, so that there is a major positive impact in relation to tests d.
This includes retail jobs only, and does not take account of the jobs that would be created through the employment elements of the scheme.
61
The retention of Eaton Electrics and EEF as local employers and the provision of new facilities for Eaton Electrics. Again, it is relevant to note that this element of the scheme would form the second phase of development, thereby committing the applicant to implementation of this benefit before the retail components are delivered. facilities. 7.18 Environmental improvements and provision of new public realm and parking Moreover, it is anticipated that subsequent phases of the redevelopment of the Eaton
site, following implementation of the foodstore, would provide up to 75 new dwellings.
This would make a contribution towards the Councils housing targets (Policy SP23 of the emerging Core Strategy requires 2,250 dwellings per annum in the period 2011 to 2016). 7.19 Thus, we think it likely that the positive benefits we have identified in relation to employment, physical and economic regeneration, social inclusion and environmental improvements will more than outweigh the adverse retail impacts on Acocks Green. Moreover, we note that the implementation of the retail components of the scheme
cannot take place until the link road has been delivered, and the replacement facilities for Eaton Electrics provided for, thereby ensuring that the positive benefits to which we have given weight, are indeed forthcoming.
The Denso Application

7.20 RPS estimate that approximately 350 new jobs will be created by the food superstore element of the application proposal, and an additional 75 jobs would be created by the but RPS appears to offer no estimate based on full-time equivalents. Thus, taking into
ExtraCare retirement village. Thus, the total gross employment impact is 425 new jobs, account deadweight, displacement and leakage, we would estimate that approximately 200 to 300 new full and part time jobs would be created by the implementation of the application proposal in its entirety. 7.21 Therefore, as is the case with the Eaton application, the Denso proposal will help to and e. of Policy EC10.2 of PPS4.
promote social inclusion and there will be a major positive impacts in relation to tests d.
62
7.22
The ExtraCare retirement village component of the Denso application has the benefit of delivering 55 per cent of the units on an affordable basis. The application proposal will second application for further residential development on the Goodrich/AEC site. also secure environmental improvements and help to facilitate the implementation of a
7.23
Thus, we think it likely that the positive benefits we have identified in relation to
employment, physical and economic regeneration, social inclusion and provision of
affordable retirement homes more than outweigh the adverse retail impacts on Acocks Green District Centre. Moreover, given the edge-of-centre location of Denso site, we consider that there is the potential for linked trip benefits for Olton Boulevard Neighbourhood Centre. In this respect, it is important that the Council ensures that effective linkages are developed between the Denso application site and the adjacent neighbourhood centre. 7.24 The City Council will wish to consider carefully, however, how the full benefits of the
Denso application proposal can be secured. It is important that the ExtraCare retirement village component of the application is delivered so as to secure a genuine mixed-use development on this important previously developed site.
63

HollisVincent Report - Denso and Eaton Sites Birmingham - Final Report 1st March 2012

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

HollisVincent Report - Denso and Eaton Sites Birmingham - Final Report 1st March 2012

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

DENSO AND EATON SITES, BIRMINGHAM

Birmingham City Council March 2012

HV040 | March 2012 FINAL REPORT

HV040 | March 2012 FINAL REPORT

INSTRUCTIONS AND OUTLINE OF REPORT

HV040 | March 2012 FINAL REPORT

The Application Proposals The Denso Site

The Eaton Site

sq.m of B1/B2/B8 development, residential development (of approximately 70 units) and

HV040 | March 2012 FINAL REPORT

HV040 | March 2012 FINAL REPORT

PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth

Development Management Policies

PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development (February 2005)

HV040 | March 2012 FINAL REPORT

should be explicit and the consequences considered 2.13

Conclusions in Relation to National Policy Requirements

HV040 | March 2012 FINAL REPORT

Recent and Emerging Government Policy

HM Treasury: The Plan for Growth

HV040 | March 2012 FINAL REPORT

Ministerial Statement of 23 March 2011

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

HV040 | March 2012 FINAL REPORT

Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Draft National Planning Policy Framework

development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when

HV040 | March 2012 FINAL REPORT

Conclusion in Relation to Emerging National Policy

HV040 | March 2012 FINAL REPORT

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

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

Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (October 2005)

HV040 | March 2012 FINAL REPORT

HV040 | March 2012 FINAL REPORT

Conclusions in Relation to the Retail Policy Aspects of the Development Plan

The Emerging Core Strategy

The Emerging Shopping and Local Centres SPD

HV040 | March 2012 FINAL REPORT

QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE NEED

Need and the Sequential Approach

HV040 | March 2012 FINAL REPORT

Need and Impact

Methodology for Assessing Need

Birmingham Retail Needs Assessment

hollissvincent Assessment of Quantitative Retail Need

Source: Spreadsheets 4a, 4b, 4c and 4d of Appendix 2

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

Source: Spreadsheets 24a, 24b, 24c and 24d of Appendix 2

Qualitative Retail Need

Overall Conclusions in Relation to Retail Need

HV040 | March 2012 FINAL REPORT

THE SEQUENTIAL TEST

HV040 | March 2012 FINAL REPORT

The Sequential Location Categories of the Application Sites

HV040 | March 2012 FINAL REPORT

RPS on Behalf of SPLP

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

Marrons on Behalf of A & J Mucklow and Helical Retail

HV040 | March 2012 FINAL REPORT

Conclusions in Relation to Sequential Test The Denso Application

The Eaton Application

HV040 | March 2012 FINAL REPORT

THE IMPACT TESTS