Draft Black Country Plan

Object

Representation ID: 44916

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Aldi Stores Ltd C/o Turley

Agent: Aldi Stores Ltd C/o Turley

We consider that Policy CEN 6, as proposed, sets out an unduly high bar for proposed edge or out of centre retail development to meet in respect of retail impact considerations.
The national default threshold for the submission of RIA within England, contained in the NPPF, has been set at 2,500 sq m gfa for a number of years. The intention of providing such a threshold is to indicate an appropriate scale of development, over which the government considers may give scope for adverse consequences in terms of retail impact. It has been set at a level that is intended to apply to the full range of planning authorities within England, each with their hierarchy of settlements and within them, retail centres. While it is recognised in the NPPF that LPA’s are able to set their own thresholds, the key word at para 90 of the NPPF is that such locally set thresholds must be “proportionate”. In our view, a Plan area that encompasses more than 1 million inhabitants within four large authority areas containing circa 132 designated shopping centres is the best possible example of why the nationally set threshold should be applied. Essentially it is a microcosm of the typical retail landscape applicable across England and there is no rational reason why it should be considered sufficiently different to warrant such a significant departure from the norm for England as a whole.
The Black Country contains four authorities that wrap around and are intrinsically interlinked with Birmingham City. Birmingham City also has a hierarchy of defined centres and they are not materially different in size or function to those in the Black Country, notwithstanding any differences in nomenclature. They face the same issues and opportunities regarding edge and out of centre development. Nevertheless, Birmingham Council, in the Development Plan, have accepted the NPPF level threshold for submission of RIA. We can see no sound reason for the BCP adopting a different threshold. The adoption of the NPPF threshold in the BCP would provide a consistent basis for assessing retail impact in the conurbation.
There is no evidence based support for imposing such a low threshold for RIA across the Black Country area. There is no evidence available to indicate that imposing a higher threshold would impose a greater threat to the health of designated centres and no evidence to indicate that developments of a scale larger than 280 sq m gfa either have or would harm any centre of any scale and function in the retail hierarchy. It appears that the selection of this figure is arbitrary and unjustified.

Proposed rewording of Policy CEN6

Impact Tests
5) The locally-set floorspace thresholds for edge and out-of-centre retail and leisure proposals to meet the requirements of the Impact Assessment as set out in the latest national guidance is 2,500 sqm (gross) (see Policy CEN1 Table 7). Impact tests should be proportionate to the nature and scale of proposals.
6) Proposals should be informed by the latest available robust evidence.
7) In making planning decisions, further guidance is set out in Local Development Plans.
8) Where planning permissions are granted, effective planning conditions and / or planning obligations will be required to support the regeneration strategy and minimise adverse impacts (Policy CEN1 point 6).

Comment

Representation ID: 44924

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Aldi Stores Ltd C/o Turley

Agent: Aldi Stores Ltd C/o Turley

Comment on the retail policy evidence base:

We note that the consultation process does not invite comment on the supporting evidence base for the emerging Black Country Plan. However, we have concerns about certain aspects of the retail policy evidence base which we consider need to be aired on the basis that the proposed retail policies are directly influenced by the outputs of the Black Country Centres Study (BCCS). We therefore set out our comments below:
Introduction
1. The BCCS seeks to assess the quantitative need for new retail floorspace over the period to 2039 within a geographical area consisting of four LPA areas and containing a population of over 1 million. It is therefore one of the largest, most extensive retail studies of its kind across the UK. Its findings are underpinned by a household shopping survey which sought information on shopping patterns (convenience and comparison goods) from a representative sample of 5,500 households living across the Black Country. The assessment can therefore be fairly characterised as a strategic and high level.
Absence of Qualitative Evidence
2. The BCCS also presents a quantitative assessment of retail needs only, with no analysis of qualitative factors such as, in relation to convenience retail development, the extent to which existing retail facilities are able to meet the needs of existing populations that use them. This qualitative assessment would normally include analysis of such factors as:
• the quality and choice of foodstore provision within different centres or zones;
• whether existing stores are overtrading or undertrading relative to company average turnovers (and if overtrading, the extent to which that undermines store performance); and
• the adequacy of car parking provision for shoppers carrying out a main food shop.
3. There are no questions in the household survey which seek to capture views on the adequacy of the existing retail provision within the BCP area from a qualitative perspective. For retail studies covering a smaller geographical area with a relatively small catchment population, the inclusion of questions within the household shopping survey to elicit data on the qualitative aspects of retail need is standard practice.
4. While the reasons for not delving into such a detailed level of analysis for a retail study covering the whole of the Black Country is understandable, it must be recognised that the study can necessarily only provide an overview of the quantitative retail floorspace needs of that area. Moreover, because there is no recognition in the Study of existing foodstore overtrading, it effectively underestimates the quantitative need for new convenience retail floorspace. This is potentially the case within the Study area as a whole, but almost certainly the case at a local level within the constituent local authority areas. For example, we have evidence to demonstrate that existing convenience provision in three of the four main centres in Walsall (Bloxwich, Brownhills and Aldridge) is trading at levels substantially in excess of company averages for the individual stores within those centres. This gives rise to some of the negative qualitative impacts associated with overtrading such as car parking congestion, crowded shopping aisles and difficulties in terms of restocking.
5. Confirmation that the methodology adopted in the BCCS to assess quantitative need does not include any assessment of overtrading in existing retail stock is set out at para 5.4 of the Vol 1: Main Report (2021 Update). This states that:
“It has necessarily been assumed for the purpose of the capacity assessment that the BCLA’s (convenience and comparison goods) retail market is in ‘equilibrium’ at the base year. In other words we assume that existing centres and stores are broadly trading in line with appropriate ‘benchmark’ turnover levels at the base year and based on adjusted market shares for new store openings. Therefore, any residual expenditure available to support new retail floorspace within the study area over the development plan period is derived from the difference between the forecast growth in ‘current’ (survey-derived) turnover levels; and the growth in ‘benchmark’ turnovers based on applying year-on-year ‘productivity’ (‘efficiency’) growth rates to all existing and new retail floorspace”.
Problems with this Approach
6. The problem of adopting this approach is that any existing overtrading in existing retail stock is simply accommodated into the benchmark figures and it is then assumed that this will continue (and in fact will worsen due to increases in expenditure availability) over the Plan period.
7. The importance of this deficiency of the BCCS is that the approach to the formulation of retail policy in the BCP is heavily influenced by the outputs of the Study and particularly the findings that there is only a very small requirement for new retail floorspace (for both convenience and comparison goods) over the Plan period. This has led to the formulation of policy which sets unduly high hurdles for new edge or out of centre development to achieve, coupled with no policy incentive for LPAs to review and expand their designated centre boundaries to accommodate no new retail development in the second tier development plans. The outcome from such a strategy will be to deter investment from the few retailers still seeking to deliver new retail facilities existing residents, in particular the discount retail sector, which, as acknowledged at paras 2.23 and 2.41 of the Main Report (Vol 1) of the BCCS, are still actively expanding their portfolio of stores.
Resultant Retail Policy Issues
8. Of particular concern regarding the formulation of retail policy in the draft BCP, which we consider is directly influenced by the outputs of the BCCS, is the setting of a local threshold of 280 sq m gfa for the submission of retail impact assessments for all edge or out of centre retail proposals (ref Policy CEN6). We make separate representations on that matter. However, it is pertinent to state here that this very low (and in our view unjustified) threshold is a direct consequence of the view that as there is very little qualitative need for new convenience retail floorspace. Accordingly, virtually any scale of new proposal will necessarily have to draw its trade exclusively from existing retail outlets (rather than from growth in available expenditure) and this could give rise to harmful impacts (see para 8.59 of the BCP). We consider that such a perspective is based on speculation rather than evidence and does not form a sound basis to construct policy.

Object

Representation ID: 44939

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Aldi Stores Ltd C/o Turley

Agent: Aldi Stores Ltd C/o Turley

Objection to proposed Policy EMP4

The explanatory text for Policy EM4 , para 7.37 recognises that there are older employment areas throughout the Black Country that are of relatively poor quality , which may be suitable for redevelopment for alternative uses , with housing specifically referenced. Para 7.38 goes further, suggesting that alternative uses could give rise to “significant regeneration benefits” on such sites.
The text suggests that Policy EMP4 sets out a “flexible policy framework” for consideration of such alternative redevelopment proposals. However the set of criteria included in the draft policy, all of which seemingly have to be complied with, set an almost impossibly high bar for the alternative forms of development to surmount before being considered acceptable. The intention of the policy is clear- it is supportive of appropriate forms of alternative development in principle. However, the application of the policy as written will severely undermine the potential for beneficial alternative development to be permitted.
In addition, the policy as worded under 1), sub section b) refers to only two forms of alternative uses being acceptable- housing and “non-ancillary non industrial employment uses”, with no definition of what the latter types of use might encompass.
We propose an alternative form of wording for Policy EMP4 which more appropriately reflects the intention of the Policy and streamlines the relevant criteria so that they become more proportionate and reasonable for alternative proposals to address. The alternative policy wording also explicitly identifies retail use as an appropriate form of development on such sites in principle (subject to compliance with CEN policies) in view of its employment generating potential and ability to enable/cross fund other forms of appropriate uses on such sites, creating wider regeneration benefits.
We note that the supporting text refers to a requirement for marketing evidence to demonstrate non-viability. Such evidence would still be a requirement for criterion b) of our revised policy, but not in cases where net positive employment/regeneration benefits can be demonstrated under criterion a).
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE WORDING
Policy EMP4 – Other Employment Sites
1) For employment areas that are not designated as either Strategic Employment Areas or Local Employment Areas on the Policies Map, but comprise existing occupied employment land within the BC, development will be supported for:
a) new industrial employment uses or extensions to existing industrial employment uses, or
b) housing, other non-ancillary non-industrial employment or retail uses (subject to compliance with CEN policies).
Development or uses under 1(b) will only be supported where there is robust evidence to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the relevant authority, that:
a) The proposal would give rise to net positive employment or regeneration impacts compared to the existing use; or
b) The site is no longer viable for such uses;
c) The proposed alternative development could be brought forward in a comprehensive manner and would not lead to piecemeal development;
e) The proposed alternative development would not adversely affect the ongoing operation of existing or proposed employment uses on the site or nearby;
f) The proposed alternative development is in accordance with local or national policies relating to these uses.