Leicestershire Parish Councils

TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (AS AMENDED): APPLICATION FOR FULL
PLANNING PERMISSION REF. 0810265/1IPXCS: ERECTION OF SMALL CONVENIENCE
FOOD SUPERMARKET (371 SQUARE METRES GIFA) AND ANCILLARY CUSTOMER
AND STAFF PARKING. TOGETHER WITH CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES TO EXISTING
PUBLIC HOUSE CAR PARK LAYOUT AND TO EXISTING VEHICULAR ACCESS AND
EGRESS: LAND ADJACENT TO THE SHEAKESPEARE INN PUBLIC HOUSE,
BRAUNSTONE LANE. BRAUNSTONE. LEICESTERSHIRE LE3 3AS.
SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION
ADDRESSING PLANNING POLICY ISSUES INCLUDING THE
PROVISIONS OF PLANNING POLICY STATEMENT 6: PLANNING FOR
TOWN CENTRES
1 .0 The Proposed Development
1.1 The Tesco Express format operates as a small (in this case, 371 s.m. gross internal floor area) convenience supermarket, catering for the day-to-day shopping needs of the local population, typically in the form of what is known as ‘top-up’ or ‘basket’ shopping —that is: a low volume of goods purchased, a short duration of visit and a relatively low expenditure per visit. Thus the average spend per visit on both food and non-food items in these stores across the UK is £1 2:00. This figure is very much smaller than the average spend per visit in larger supermarkets and superstores. Express stores have a market share of total convenience expenditure of under 5%.
1.2 These stores are typically located within or adjoining small local or neighbourhood centres; attached to petrol filling stations; or, as free-standing units, such as is proposed at Braunstone Lane. They are always within built-up urban areas with extensive housing nearby.
1.3 Most patronage is drawn from a small localised catchment of about 1 kilometre radius, with, in the case of stores such as that proposed on Braunstone Lane, some additional ‘passing trade’. The majority of shoppers (60% +) travel for under five minutes to reach this type of store. They do not act as a shopping destination in their own right and thus would not attract trips from a wider area than their identified catchment.
1.4 Unlike large supermarkets and superstores, the majority of shoppers using this type of store travel by modes other than the motor car. As the Transport Statement prepared by Mouchels makes clear, typically, of the visits to stores of this type, some 60% are on foot, by bicycle or bus, of which the majority —up to 50% - are on foot and less than 40% of visits are by private motorcar. This reflects the fact that a relatively high proportion of shoppers who use these stores do not have access to a car.
In this particular case, patronage of the store by customers using non-car modes is facilitated by: the location of the store within a densely built-up residential area; by the flat local topography (aiding walking and cycling) and by the scheduled bus services operating along Braunstone Lane and adjoining roads. Some 50% of visits to these stores are part of a linked trip to or from another destination, of which the most frequently occurring are linked to work.
1 .5 The average footfall for an Express Store is 13,000 per week and the majority of customers (in excess of 70%) use the store every day or 2-3 times per week, which reflects the top-up shopping role they fulfil.
2.0 Planning Policy
2.1 The Regional Spatial Strategy for the East Midlands (RSS8) does not contain any policies relevant to this case. The relevant policies in the Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Joint Structure Plan lapsed in March 2008.
2.2 The Application Site is not subject to any site-specific allocation in the saved adopted Blaby District Local Plan.
2.3 Saved Policy S2 —Small Scale Local Shopping is the relevant Local Plan policy in this case. It states that, within the built-up area as identified on the Proposals Map (within which the Application Site clearly lies), planning permission will be granted for “small scale retail development” outside the existing and proposed local shopping centres identified on the Proposals Map, providing that three requirements are met: the development cannot be satisfactorily located in a nearby existing or proposed local shopping centre; the scale of the proposal is appropriate to meet local needs; easy and convenient access is possible by foot and by bicycle.
2.4 All three conditions are met by the proposed development. Thus having regard to the characteristics of the proposed store set out above, the appropriate centres to be assessed in the sequential approach under Clause (ii of the Policy are those lying within a roughly 1 kilometre radius catchment. None of the locations where shops are to be found within this catchment would probably qualify as a ‘Local Centre’ against the criteria in Table 1 of Annex A to PPS6, but they are classified as ‘neighbo urhood centres’ (and, in the case of the then proposed development off Meridian Way at Thorpe Astley, a ‘Local Centre’) on the Proposals Map of the Local Plan.
2.5 In this area the A563, Lubbersthorpe Way, acts as an effective physical barrier to movement in either direction by all modes and the aforementioned Local Centre at Thorpe Astley, which is anchored by a discount supermarket (Aldi), is not readily accessible to people in the northern part of Braunstone Town. Although it lies within a 1 km. radius of the Site, it has therefore been discounted as a potential alternative location for the development in question. In any event, there is no site available in or on edge of that Centre.

2.6 In light of the foregoing, the appropriate ‘centres’ to consider in terms of any sequential assessment under Policy S2 of the Local Plan and PPS6 would be the three defined ‘neighbourhood centres’: at the corner of Bidford Road! Braunstone Lane; on Henley Crescent; on Ayston Road, off Braunstone Lane; and the small free-standing Midlands Co-Operative supermarket adjacent to the Caldecote Schools on Hallam Crescent East, some 500 metres east of the Application Site. The neighbourhood centre at the junction of Edwards Avenue and Turnbull Drive, Braunstone, which contains a small national multiple supermarket, lies just outside the 1 km catchment for the Application Site. There is no convenience provision at all within the Bidford Way!Braunstone Lane group and only a very small independent convenience shop at Henley Crescent and Ayston Road.
2.7 Because of the limited physical extent of the above-listed ‘centres’ and the fact that they are closely contained by mature housing and other development, there are, self evidently, no sites available ‘in or on the edge’ of them and no other sites within the wider area that are sequentially preferable to the Application.
2.8 Apart from the Midlands Co-Op at Hallam Crescent East, there are no modern national multiple supermarkets offering a broader range of day-to-day items anywhere in the northern part of Braunstone east of the A563. The Co-Op is the only convenience shop in the southern part of the ‘Bra unstone Park’ estate which lies within the administrative area of Leicester City Council and which (amongst other manifestations of acute social exclusion) is acknowledged to be seriously under-provided with local shopping facilities —a deficiency that has not so far been met. Given the proposed store’s proximity to the administrative boundary between Blaby DC and Leicester CC, which runs along Braunstone Lane, most of the northern half of its catchment will comprise the aforementioned Braunstone Park Estate.
2.9 So far as Clause (ii) of Local Plan Policy S2 is concerned, it will be evident from the information set out above that the proposed development is ‘small scale’ by reference to the Policy and the scale of the proposal is appropriate to meet local needs.
2.10 Lastly, in relation to Clause (iii), as is demonstrated by the Application Material (notably the Transport Statement), the Application Site enjoys easy and convenient access by foot, bicycle and indeed by public transport.
2.11 The proposed development accords therefore with the relevant provisions of the development plan.
3.0 Guidance in PPS6 —‘Planning for Town Centres
3.1 In light of the foregoing it is considered that the key consideration in applying the guidance in PPS6 to this case is the small scale of the proposal and the intended retail function of the proposed store.
3.2 In addition to the key objectives of planning for the growth and development of existing centres and promoting and enhancing those centres where most new development will be focussed (Paragraph 1 .3 of PPS6), Paragraph 1 .4 of the PPS6 sets out three additional objectives:
• enhancing consumer choice by making provision for a range of shopping, leisure and local services, which allow genuine choice to meet the needs of the entire community, and particularly socially-excluded groups;
• supporting efficient, competitive and innovative retail, leisure, tourism and other sectors, with improving productivity; and
• improving accessibility, ensuring that existing or new development is, or will be, accessible and well served by a choice of means of transport.
The proposed development meets these tests.
3.3 Paragraph 1.5 states that the following of the Government’s wider objectives
insofar as they will not be inconsistent with the key objectives in paragraph 1.3:
• to promote social inclusion, ensuring that communities have access to a range of main town centre uses, and that deficiencies in provision in areas with poor access to facilities are remedied. (This is especially relevant in this case because of the proximity of the Braunstone park estate to the Application Site);
• to encourage investment to regenerate deprived areas, creating additional employment opportunities and an improved physical environment. (Again this is especially relevant in the case of the Appeal Proposals);
•
• to deliver more sustainable patterns of development.. .promoting sustainable transport choices, including reducing the need to travel and providing alternatives to car use. (Again, this is especially relevant in the vicinity of the Appeal Site where there is under provision of shopping provision to meet day- to-day needs —leading to unnecessary travel to meet these needs); and
• to promote high quality and inclusive design, improve the quality of the public realm and open spaces, protect and enhance the architectural and historic heritage of centres, provide a sense of place and focus for the community etc.

3.4 Paragraph 1 .7 goes on to state that it is not the role of the planning system to restrict competition, preserve existing commercial interests or to prevent innovation.
3.5 Under the heading ‘Providing for local shopping and other services’ paragraphs
2.55 to 2.59 of the PPS provide relevant guidance. Paragraph 2.55 says that a network of local centres in an authority’s area is essential to provide “easily accessible shopping to meet people’s day-to-day needs.” Paragraph 2.56 notes that deprived areas often have poor access to local shops and services. To tackle this problem, local the guidance suggests that local authorities should work with the local community and retailers to identify opportunities to remedy any deficiencies in local provision. In this context it is noted that the local centre proposed for Hockley Farm Road, Leicester to serve the Braunstone Park estate has never been implemented.
3.6 Chapter 3 of the PPS sets out the approach to be adopted through development control to regulate new development proposals. It is considered implicit in the guidance at Chapter 3 that it is concerned primarily with assessing the impact of substantial retail development that is, of more than purely neighbourhood significance and which, thus, would have an impact on ‘Local Centres’ and above in the hierarchy set out at Table 1 of Annex A of the PPS (see footnote 1 to this Table in this context)
3.7 Paragraph 3.4 sets out the five criteria that need to considered in determining proposals for new shopping development. These are: the need for the development; that the development is of an appropriate scale; that there is no more central site for the development; that there are no unacceptable impacts on existing centres; that locations are accessible.
3.8 So far as the issue of need is concerned, paragraph 3.9 states that need must be demonstrated for any application for shopping uses which would be outside a defined shopping centre and which is not in accordance with an up-to-date development plan strategy. In this case, it has been demonstrated that the development accords with the relevant saved policy in the Local Plan. It follows that no needs assessment is required. (In this context it should be noted that most local planning authorities, as a matter of course, do not now require the applicant to demonstrate need for this type of small convenience store. This has been the case with recent proposals for Express stores in the neighbouring local planning authorities of Hinckley and Bosworth and Leicester City [in which authority, it is understood, needs tests are not sought for retail proposals of less than 1,000 square metresfi.
3.9 Scale is dealt with at paragraph 3.12 (cross-referred to paragraphs 2.41 to 2.43) of the guidance. The Application Proposal is considered to be of an appropriate scale for this location outside a defined centre (see Section 1.0 above).
3.10 Guidance on the application of the sequential is set out at paragraph 3.13 to
3.19 of the PPS. The sequential approach has already been demonstrated in assessing the development against Policy S2 of the Local Plan above.
3.11 So far as impact is concerned, guidance is set out at paragraphs 3.20 to 3.23 of the PPS. Paragraph 3.20 notes, inter alia, that such assessments need only be undertaken where development is not in accordance with an up-to-date development plan strategy. It has been demonstrated above that the proposed development accords with saved Policy S2 of the Local Plan. In any event, the development will have no demonstrable impact on any defined centre falling within the ambit of Table 1 of Annex A to the PPS.
3.12 Accessibility is addressed at paragraphs 3.24 to 3.27 of the PPS. It has been demonstrated that the proposed development would be accessible by a choice of means of transport, including modes other than the private motor car. Indeed the majority of the target market of this type of store are those who will use modes other than the private motor car and by far the largest proportion of customers (some 50%) will in fact visit the store on foot.
3.13 It is concluded, therefore, that the development accords with the guidance in
PPS6.
3.14 Notwithstanding the above, the Secretary State has now (10 July 2008) published proposed changes to PPS6 for consultation. Although these changes are in draft they are nevertheless directly material to this case. Most notably it is proposed to abolish the ‘need test’ for reasons made clear in the Secretary of State’s ministerial foreword to the document. Thus, amongst other things, Paragraphs 3.4 and 3.8 to 3.12 inclusive of the PPS which have been referred to above are to be deleted. The tests for new development required by the new PPS6 will henceforth involve applying the sequential approach to site selection and demonstrating that there are no acceptable impacts arising from the proposed development, including on existing centres, but only where planning applications are not in accordance with up-to-date development plans. These tests are very similar to the criteria in Policy S2 of the Local Plan, compliance with which has already been demonstrated.
Planning Application 08j0265/1 /PXCS 5 PLANNING (RETAIL) POLICY STATEMENT
Antony Aspbury Associates Limited January 2009