sainsbury’s supermarkets ltd south …€™s supermarkets ltd south oxfordshire core strategy...
TRANSCRIPT
SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS LTD
SOUTH OXFORDSHIRE CORE STRATEGY
MATTER 4: TOWN CENTRES AND SHOPPING
(CHAPTER 8)
TUESDAY 19TH
JULY
JUNE 2011
1
1. Introduction
Scope and Purpose
1.1 This Statement has been prepared on behalf of Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd in
relation to Matter 4 (Town Centres and Shopping) (Chapter 8) of the South
Oxfordshire Core Strategy. Sainsbury’s is a key investor in South Oxfordshire
having stores in both Thame and Didcot and is keen to provide further investment
within the District. In particular, Sainsbury’s is currently preparing a planning
application for a supermarket on the Cattle Market site in Thame town centre.
1.2 The issues that are examined in this Statement reflect the questions asked in the
Pre-hearing Note (31st May 2011), which are considered below.
Question A
1.3 In defining the hierarchy of centres, Policy CST1 identifies these to comprise ‘Major
District Centre’, ‘Minor District Centre’ and ‘Larger Villages’. Such definitions are
inconsistent with the categories of retail centres set out at Annex B of PPS4.
1.4 Accordingly, for the Council to refer to categories of retail centre that are
inconsistent with national planning policy guidance is unsound. Such a policy
introduces ambiguity and makes it more difficult to ensure compliance with the
requirements of PPS4 when assessing proposals for retail development.
1.5 Furthermore, Policy CST1 defines minor district centres as town centres serving a
‘local catchment area’. It is notable that the Council’s own retail study (paragraph
5.12) identifies that Thame has a wide influence on shopping patterns within the
District, which is not dissimilar to Didcot or Henley. Accordingly, there does not
appear to be a clear distinction between major and minor district centres as set out
in the Core Strategy.
1.6 We recommend that the wording of Policy CST1 be amended to reflect categories
of retail centre set out in Annex B to PPS4 and that there is no useful purpose in
distinguishing between major and minor district centres.
Question B
1.7 The quantitative floorspace requirements set out in the Core Strategy (Chapter 8)
outline the amount, type and location of retail and town centre uses in the District
through to 2027 (Class A1 to A5). This has been informed by the South
2
Oxfordshire District Council Retail and Leisure Needs Assessment (RLNA)
completed in February 2009 (CD09/12) and subsequent update in November 2010
(CD09/13).
1.8 In reviewing these documents it is clear that the RLNA fails to provide a robust
evidence base to support this part of the Core Strategy (including the quantitative
aspects in Table 8.1). Therefore, this element of the Core Strategy is not justified.
1.9 Firstly, we do not believe it is appropriate to assume that the current market share
of existing centres within the District will remain constant through to 2027,
particularly given the RLNA acknowledges that significant shopping trips are being
made to competing facilities elsewhere. The Core Strategy (paragraph 4.11, 2009
Study) acknowledges that the retail offer of Henley, Thame and Wallingford is
declining. Therefore, it will be important for policies within the Core Strategy to
seek to address this decline.
1.10 Secondly, in terms of the level of ‘need’ identified (Table 8.1) we have significant
concerns with the broad approach adopted, particularly in terms of the need for
additional convenience goods floorspace.
1.11 When considering the ‘need’ for additional retail floorspace, PPS4 (Policy EC1)
states that local planning authorities should take full account of both quantitative
and qualitative need. Significantly, PPS4 places equal weight on quantitative and
qualitative issues.
1.12 The RLNA ‘need’ assessment places greater weight on quantitative need, with
limited assessment being provided on the qualitative need, despite guidance
contained in PPS4. Indeed, the 2010 Update only assessed quantitative need and
did not provide an updated qualitative assessment.
1.13 In considering qualitative issues, PPS4 (policy EC1.4.d) states that local planning
authorities should:
“assess whether there is provision and distribution of shopping, leisure
and local services, which allow genuine choice to meet the needs of
the whole community [and] take into account the degree to which
shops may be overtrading and whether there is a need to increase
competition and retail mix.” (Our emphasis)
1.14 PPS4 places notable emphasis on local authorities to consider wider qualitative
issues, namely choice, overtrading and competition. Despite this, we believe that
the RLNA (both the 2009 Study and 2010 Update) failed to fully take into account
3
qualitative issues when assessing the need for additional retail floorspace.
Therefore, the need assessment provided does not reflect guidance in PPS4.
1.15 Given this, we outline below our concerns with the approach adopted in the RLNA.
Although we do also have some concerns with the comparison goods needs
assessment, our greater concern relates to the approach undertaken in assessing
need for further convenience floorspace. Therefore, for the purposes of this
Statement our assessment has focused on the need for additional convenience
floorspace.
Allowance for overtrading / Increased Competition and Consumer Choice
1.16 The 2009 RLNA (Paragraph 7.61) acknowledges that overtrading can contribute to
quantitative need. Despite this, although the RLNA does make some reference to
the trading performance of existing stores, the assessment assumes that existing
convenience goods provision throughout the District is trading at equilibrium (i.e.
no allowance for floorspace trading above or below expected levels).
1.17 We question the robustness of this approach given guidance in PPS4. Such an
approach does not assess whether there may be an over or undersupply of
provision within particular parts of the District. For example, when considering the
need for additional convenience goods floorspace in Thame, although the RLNA
identified that the existing Waitrose store dominates shopping patterns, particularly
within the northern part of the District (being the most popular store in the District
and the only main food shopping in Thame) and is trading some 40% (or £10
million) above expected levels, the Study concludes that there is no reason to
address the dominance of this store. Accordingly, the level of ‘need’ identified by
the RLNA for Thame is limited as it is based only on growth in expenditure. This is
despite PPS4 highlighting (paragraph 10) that one of the key objectives of the
Government is for increased competition between retailers and enhanced
consumer choice to meet the needs of the entire community. This is also reflected
in Policy EC4 of PPS4, which states that local planning authorities should
proactively plan to promote town centre environments and provide consumer
choice.
1.18 The approach advocated in the RLNA and subsequently reflected the Core
Strategy does not reflect PPS4 objectives. Instead, the approach set out in the
Core Strategy means that a number of stores within the District will continue to
maintain their dominance at the expense of providing better distribution of facilities
and improved consumer choice in line with the objectives of PPS4.
4
1.19 The survey evidence would suggest that there is a need to improve the
convenience goods offer in Thame in order to provide better competition and
consumer choice. This is also reflected in other centres in the District. However,
the approach adopted in the RLNA means that the floorspace requirements has
not been based on an appropriate ‘need’ assessment that focuses equally on
quantitative and qualitative issues.
1.20 In addition to our concerns with the broad approach adopted, we also question a
number of assumptions that underpin the findings of the RLNA. Given these
concerns, we have undertaken our own assessment of ‘need’ (Appendix 1 to this
Statement).
Revised Retail Need Assessment
1.21 There are key differences between the approaches adopted for the RLNA and our
assessment, which are explained in Appendix 1 and can be summarised as:
The inappropriateness of making an allowance for growth in Special Forms
of Trading within the convenience goods sector (e.g. online shopping).
The best practice of assessing the trading performance of all facilities
within each of the four main centres within the District, rather than only five
stores. Such an approach allows for a better understanding of the trading
performance of existing centres/facilities.
A realistic approach to the level of spend directed to small shops (as
identified by the RLNA household survey), which we consider has been
overstated.
Trading Performance of Existing Convenience Facilities
1.22 Our revised assessment (Table 5 at Appendix 1) demonstrates that the main
facilities within the District are trading much stronger than that suggested by the
RLNA.
1.23 In particular, the existing Waitrose store in Thame is identified to be trading very
strongly. The strong trading performance of this store is reflective of the lack of
competition in this part of the District (as also identified by the RLNA). Our
analysis identifies that of the total convenience goods expenditure currently
directed to facilities within Thame (c. £52 million), almost 70% (or £36 million) is
directed to the Waitrose store. As one of the objectives of PPS4 is to provide
improved consumer choice and competition in the retail sector, we believe this lack
5
of choice should be addressed by the Council as part of their Core Strategy.
Indeed, Policy EC4 of PPS4 states that:
“Local planning authorities should proactively plan to promote
competitive town centre environments and provide consumer choice.”
Retail Need
1.24 Based on our updated assessment, Table 1.1 summarises the quantitative need
for additional convenience floorspace within the District. This is compared to the
findings of the RLNA 2010 Update figures (Table 2.6, Page 7). Importantly, unlike
the RLNA our assessment takes into account over and undertrading of existing
provision and considers fully the market shares and trading performance of all
facilities in each centre.
Table 1.1: Net Quantitative Need for Convenience Floorspace (sq m) - at Existing Market Shares
_________________________________________________________________________
2011 2016 2021 2027 _______________________________________________________________________
Didcot Turley Associates 1,270 2,019 2,919 4,017 RNLA 2010 Update 497 1,285 2,268 3,461
Henley Turley Associates 2,249 2,429 2,675 2,995 RNLA 2010 Update 0 0 145 458 Wallingford Turley Associates 250 472 666 910 RNLA 2010 Update 49 255 453 704 Thame Turley Associates 2,026 2,205 2,358 2,566 RNLA 2010 Update 0 27 255 557 _________________________________________________________________________ Notes: Derived from Appendix 1 & RLNA (2010)
1.25 The approach and methodology adopted in the RLNA (both the 2009 and
subsequent 2010 Update) means that the level of ‘need’ for additional retail
floorspace has been underestimated. Our assessment identifies higher floorspace
requirements than that identified in the RLNA and reflected in the Core Strategy.
1.26 Furthermore, the level of need identified at Table 1.1 is based on existing centres
maintaining current market shares. As previously highlighted, the Core Strategy
identifies that the market share of existing centres is declining, however this has
6
not been addressed. Any increase in market share would also increase the level of
need identified.
1.27 Notably, in considering current shopping patterns it is evident that the survey
evidence suggests that there is scope to reduce the overall distances travelled by
local residents to competing facilities elsewhere. For example, whilst the RLNA
identifies that within Zone 10 (Didcot) existing facilities retain 85% of convenience
spend, the market share reduces to 65% within Zone 2 (Thame) and to 48% in
Zone 9 (Wallingford). PPS4 (Policy EC1) states that local authorities should
ensure that there is appropriate provision and distribution of shopping facilities.
Clearly, the evidence suggests that there is a need to improve retail provision not
only to address growth in expenditure and overtrading but also to provide more
sustainable shopping patterns. However, the approach adopted in the RLNA and
reflected in the Core Strategy is one where this issue has not been satisfactorily
addressed. In this respect, Tables 8A to 8D at Appendix 1 provides a ‘sensitivity
testing’ based on the ‘need’ identified for additional floorspace based on realistic
increases in market share by 2021. Importantly, by allowing for increases in
market share this will address the decline in market share of centres within the
District as identified elsewhere in the Core Strategy.
1.28 Given this, we do not believe the quantitative aspects set out in the Core Strategy
have been informed by robust evidence base that is consistent with PPS4.
1.29 In respect of Thame, it should be noted that the realistic level of convenience retail
capacity identified in this assessment can be partly accommodated at the Cattle
Market site. Redevelopment of this credible town centre site has the opportunity to
redress the shortfall in existing provision, introduce competition and consumer
choice to Thame and thereby meet the aims of objectives of PPS4. As it stands in
Chapter 11 the Council’s position is to prevent this site coming forward for
development for a foodstore, for which we have demonstrated is wholly unjustified
and prevents economic growth within a town centre location. Significantly, PPS4
highlights that local planning authorities should adopt a positive and constructive
approach towards development that will lead to economic development.
1.30 In addition, in considering the future delivery of the Cattle Market Site is important
to note that a draft viability statement undertaken by the DTZ on behalf of the
Council (attached at Appendix 2) demonstrates that the only viable option for the
future delivery of this site is a supermarket. Updated advice we have received
from CBRE confirms the conclusions of the Council’s own draft advice from DTZ
that the only a supermarket is a viable retail option for this site.
7
1.31 Given this, together with the fact that there is a clear need for further convenience
goods floorspace in Thame (as outlined above), we strongly believe that the Core
Strategy position with regard to the Cattle Market site should be revised.
1.32 Importantly, PPS4 (Policy EC3.1) states that local authorities should set: “flexible
policies for their centres which are able to respond to changing economic
circumstances.” Clearly, the approach adopted in the Core Strategy does not
reflect this guidance.
Question C
1.33 The quantitative aspects set out in Chapter 8 of the Core Strategy are unsound.
Therefore, the floorspace figures identified should be revised in line with the
calculations included herein, to better reflect guidance in PPS4.
1.34 As an alternative solution, the detailed floorspace figures in Chapter 8 should be
removed from the Core Strategy to avoid impacting upon the delivery of the
remainder of the Core Strategy. However, this matter will then need to be correctly
addressed in a separate development plan document.
Summary
1.35 Overall, our assessment has demonstrated that the RLNA does not provide a
sound and robust evidence base to inform the Core Strategy. Importantly, its
conclusions fail to reflect guidance contained in PPS4 of taking into account both
the quantitative and qualitative need for additional floorspace.
1.36 We consider the Core Strategy to be inconsistent with national planning policy in
terms of the hierarchy and the quantitative assessment is unjustified being based
on unsound evidence base. Furthermore, the Council’s position with regard to the
Cattle Market site is unjustified and should be revised to take into account
guidance and the objectives of Government policy.
Word count: 2,494
APPENDIX 1: REVISED RETAIL ASSESSMENT
1
APPENDIX 1 – REVISED RETAIL ASSESSMENT
Revised Retail Need Assessment
1.1 There are key differences between the approaches adopted for the RLNA and our
assessment, which are outlined below.
1.2 Firstly, our assessment makes no allowance for growth in Special Forms of
Trading within the convenience goods sector (e.g. online shopping).
1.3 Secondly, our assessment considers the trading performance of all facilities within
each of the four main centres within the District. Such an approach allows for a
better understanding of the trading performance of existing centres/facilities.
1.4 The RLNA assessed the market share and trading performance of only five stores
within the District. The remaining retail destinations not identified were simply
grouped together as ‘stores’ falling in a particular zone within the Study Area (e.g.
‘Stores in Zone 1’). These market shares will include a range of floorspace within
town centres, villages and out-of-centre locations. We question how the RLNA can
accurately assess the needs of the four main centres when their market share or
trading performance has not been identified.
1.5 Furthermore, it is unclear why only a select number of stores have been assessed
as part of the RLNA. The trading performance of the Waitrose stores in
Wallingford and Henley has not been considered despite these stores being similar
in size to the Waitrose store in Thame, which has been considered.
1.6 We believe that the approach adopted in the RLNA is flawed as it fails to identify
the market shares or trading performance of existing facilities/centres within the
District.
1.7 Finally, the level of spend directed to ‘small shops’ (as identified by the RLNA
household survey) has been significantly overstated. The RLNA Update (Table 18
and Table 21 of Appendix 1) has assumed that approximately 31% of all
convenience goods expenditure generated in the Study Area is accounted for by
‘small shops’. This equates to almost £187 million of expenditure in 2007. It is not
clear how this allowance has been derived. Questions within the household survey
relating to what proportion of respondents overall spend is directed to the three
different categories of convenience shopping (Q3 ‘main’, Q5 ‘top-up’ and Q8 ‘small
shops’) identify that on average respondents spend approximately 13% of their
overall grocery spend at ‘small shops’. Clearly, this allowance is lower than that
applied in the RLNA (31%).
2
1.8 The household survey also identified that approximately 60% of respondents
stated that they did not spend money on food and groceries in small shops in town
centre and villages (Q6 of household survey). The fact that over half of
respondents indicated that they do not purchase these types of goods from small
shops further demonstrates that the allowance made for the small shops identified
by the RLNA is overstated. Even an allowance for 13% of spend to small shops
(as assumed for our revised assessment) could be considered an overestimate.
1.9 Importantly, by overstating the level of expenditure directed to small shops, the
RLNA underestimates the level of spend directed to other facilities such as larger
format supermarkets. This leads to the RLNA not accurately reflecting the trading
performance of facilities within the District.
1.10 Given these concerns, we set out below the methodology adopted for our revised
assessment.
Methodology
Study Area
1.11 For consistency purposes and in order to enable the findings of the RLNA
household survey to be utilised, our assessment adopts the same Study Area to
that undertaken as part of the RLNA.
Population and Expenditure
1.12 Again, in order to be consistent with the RLNA, the same population forecasts for
the period 2007 to 2027 for each zone that comprises the Study Area (Table 1).
1.13 Similarly, whilst we do not necessarily agree with the growth rates adopted, growth
in convenience retail expenditure within the Study Area has been based on those
set out in the RLNA Update (2010).
1.14 However, whilst the same growth rates have been applied, unlike the RLNA, no
allowance for growth in Special Forms of Trading within the convenience goods
sector (e.g. online shopping). It is important to note that within this sector most
goods are actually ‘picked’ from stores and contribute to the overall turnover of
existing facilities. This is acknowledged in the RLNA and by Experian (Retail
Planner Briefing Note 8.1, August 2010) the source referred to in the RLNA, who
state that:
3
“Since the non-store retailing figures include supermarkets and other
retailers that source internet goods sales from store space, the share
of non-store retailing is over-stated from the point of view of those
interested in physical retail outlets, particularly for convenience
goods.”
1.15 Given this, making no allowance for growth in Special Forms of Trading is an
appropriate approach to adopt.
1.16 Based on the above approach the level of convenience retail expenditure
generated in the Study Area for 2007, 2011, 2016, 2021 and 2027 for each zone
has been provided (Table 1).
1.17 All expenditure is provided at 2005 prices to be consistent with the RLNA.
Expenditure Split
1.18 In terms of the convenience expenditure split by zone, our assessment has been
based on Questions 3, 5 and 8 of the household survey which sought to identify
what proportion of expenditure is directed to the three types of convenience
shopping destination identified by the household survey (main food, top-up and
small shops). The level of expenditure for each category is summarised at Table
2.
1.19 On this basis, although different for each zone, the average split of expenditure for
each type of convenience goods shopping is as follows:
Main Food Shopping Destination - c. 71% of convenience spend
Top-up Shopping Destination – c. 16% of convenience spend
Small Shops – c. 13% of convenience spend.
Shopping Patterns
1.20 As with the RLNA, the findings of the household survey have been utilised in order
to assess the trading performance of existing centres/facilities.
1.21 As our assessment is looking at the need for additional retail floorspace in each of
the four main centres in the District (Wallingford, Henley, Didcot and Thame) our
assessment of current market shares (Table 3) only takes into account facilities in
these centres (although includes nearby out-of-centre facilities).
4
Centres and Stores Turnover
1.22 The findings of the household survey have been used in order to establish the
trading performance of existing centres and facilities within each of the four main
centres.
1.23 This is then compared to the expected (or benchmark) turnover of existing facilities
based on nationally published data and professional assumptions (Table 5).
Retail Need
1.24 Our analysis (Table 6A to 6D) sets out the capacity for additional floorspace within
each of the four centres based on maintaining existing market shares and taking
into account the trading performance of existing floorspace.
1.25 In addition, we have undertaken a sensitivity test based on allowing for a realistic
increase in market share for each of the four main centres (Table 8A to 8D).
SOUTH OXFORDSHIRE CORE STRATEGY
TABLE 1: POPULATION AND CONVENIENCE GOODS EXPENDITURE WITHIN STUDY AREA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total
2007
Population 22,275 12,815 20,339 41,153 19,534 10,000 53,443 18,483 20,551 33,460 30,601 35,850 318,504
Expenditure per head (£) 1,819 1,923 1,891 1,889 1,924 2,020 1,980 1,857 1,955 1,891 1,792 1,806 -
Total Expenditure (£m) 40.53 24.64 38.47 77.72 37.58 20.20 105.83 34.33 40.18 63.29 54.84 64.73 602.33
2011
Population 21,988 13,245 20,118 41,270 19,457 10,287 52,801 18,353 21,156 36,951 32,486 35,784 323,896
Expenditure per head (£) 1,819 1,923 1,891 1,889 1,924 2,020 1,980 1,857 1,955 1,891 1,792 1,806 -
Total Expenditure (£m) 40.00 25.47 38.05 77.94 37.43 20.78 104.56 34.09 41.36 69.89 58.21 64.61 612.40
2016
Population 21,530 13,690 19,748 41,193 19,263 10,576 51,756 18,102 21,768 40,936 34,574 35,519 328,655
Expenditure per head (£) 1,884 1,991 1,958 1,956 1,992 2,092 2,051 1,923 2,024 1,958 1,855 1,870 -
Total Expenditure (£m) 40.56 27.26 38.66 80.57 38.37 22.13 106.13 34.80 44.06 80.15 64.15 66.42 643.25
2021
Population 21,267 13,839 19,668 41,109 19,302 10,799 51,179 18,065 21,981 45,796 36,855 35,555 335,415
Expenditure per head (£) 1,940 2,051 2,017 2,014 2,052 2,156 2,113 1,981 2,086 2,017 1,912 1,927 -
Total Expenditure (£m) 41.26 28.39 39.68 82.81 39.62 23.28 108.14 35.79 45.84 92.39 70.47 68.50 676.16
2027
Population 21,001 14,035 19,610 41,086 19,382 11,076 50,604 18,056 22,267 51,504 39,562 35,661 343,844
Expenditure per head (£) 2,011 2,127 2,091 2,089 2,128 2,235 2,190 2,053 2,162 2,091 1,982 1,997 -
Total Expenditure (£m) 42.24 29.85 41.01 85.81 41.24 24.75 110.82 37.08 48.13 107.72 78.42 71.21 718.29
Notes:
1. Population and expenditure per head by zone derived from South Oxfordshire Retail and Leisure Needs Assessment Update 2010
2. Allows for Special Forms of Trading at 2.45% in 2007
3. Total expenditure population x expenditure per head
AT 2005 PRICES
Zone
SOUTH OXFORDSHIRE CORE STRATEGY
TABLE 2: CONVENIENCE EXPENDITURE SPLIT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total
2007 Expenditure
Main (£m) 29.26 17.69 26.66 56.04 25.36 14.20 75.14 23.48 26.80 47.09 39.87 43.63 425.22
Top-up (£m) 7.09 4.19 6.85 11.42 6.43 3.17 17.46 6.11 7.19 9.75 8.34 10.62 98.61
Small Shops (£m) 4.17 2.76 4.96 10.26 5.79 2.83 13.23 4.74 6.19 6.46 6.64 10.49 78.50
Total (£m) 40.53 24.64 38.47 77.72 37.58 20.20 105.83 34.33 40.18 63.29 54.84 64.73 602.33
Notes:
1. Total expenditure from Table 1
2. Expenditure split based on findings of South Oxfordshire Retail & Leisure Needs Assessment Survey (February 2008) - Questions 3, 5 and 8
3. Total expenditure population x expenditure per head
AT 2005 PRICES
Zone
SOUTH OXFORDSHIRE CORE STRATEGY
TABLE 3: CONVENIENCE GOODS SHOPPING PATTERNS
Destination
Main Top-up Small Shops Main Top-up Small Shops Main Top-up Small Shops Main Top-up Small Shops Main Top-up Small Shops Main Top-up Small Shops
Within District
Didcot
Tesco, Wallingford Road, Didcot 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Sainsbury's, Orchard Road, Didcot 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.8% 4.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Co-op, Wantage Road, Didcot 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Local Shops, Didcot 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Sub-Total 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.7% 4.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Thame
Waitrose, Greyhound Lane, Thame 34.2% 33.3% 0.0% 39.5% 29.4% 0.0% 15.3% 16.3% 0.0% 16.8% 9.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Co-op, High Street, Thame 2.6% 11.1% 0.0% 18.6% 44.1% 0.0% 1.4% 7.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Sainsbury's Local, Park Street, Thame 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 17.6% 0.0% 1.4% 9.3% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Local Shops, Thame 0.0% 0.0% 16.1% 0.0% 0.0% 85.7% 0.0% 2.3% 18.4% 0.0% 0.0% 14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Sub-Total 36.8% 46.7% 16.1% 58.1% 91.2% 85.7% 18.1% 34.9% 18.4% 16.8% 14.3% 14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Wallingford
Waitrose, St Martins Street, Wallingford 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.6% 4.7% 0.0% 1.7% 2.4% 0.0% 1.7% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Local Shops, Wallingford 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Sub-Total 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.6% 4.7% 2.6% 1.7% 2.4% 2.6% 1.7% 2.1% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Henley
Tesco, Reading Road, Henley-on-Thames 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 31.7% 14.9% 0.0% 57.1% 26.9% 0.0%
Waitrose, Bell Street, Henley-on-Thames 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 43.3% 21.3% 0.0% 34.3% 53.8% 0.0%
Local Shops, Henley-on-Thames 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 25.6% 0.0% 7.7% 91.7%
Sub-Total 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 75.0% 38.3% 25.6% 91.4% 88.5% 91.7%
Destination
Main Top-up Small Shops Main Top-up Small Shops Main Top-up Small Shops Main Top-up Small Shops Main Top-up Small Shops Main Top-up Small Shops
Within District
Didcot
Tesco, Wallingford Road, Didcot 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.1% 2.3% 0.0% 14.1% 3.7% 0.0% 44.9% 30.3% 0.0% 3.1% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Sainsbury's, Orchard Road, Didcot 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 7.8% 3.7% 0.0% 33.1% 37.1% 0.0% 11.5% 6.0% 0.0% 3.0% 3.8% 0.0%
Co-op, Wantage Road, Didcot 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Local Shops, Didcot 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.3% 0.0% 0.0% 52.9% 0.0% 2.0% 4.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Sub-Total 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.8% 2.3% 0.0% 21.9% 7.4% 10.3% 78.0% 79.8% 52.9% 14.6% 12.0% 4.3% 3.0% 3.8% 0.0%
Thame
Waitrose, Greyhound Lane, Thame 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Co-op, High Street, Thame 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Sainsbury's Local, Park Street, Thame 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Local Shops, Thame 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Sub-Total 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Wallingford
Waitrose, St Martins Street, Wallingford 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 18.6% 11.4% 0.0% 39.1% 51.9% 0.0% 3.4% 2.2% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Local Shops, Wallingford 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.3% 0.0% 0.0% 37.9% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Sub-Total 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 18.6% 11.4% 3.3% 39.1% 51.9% 37.9% 3.4% 2.2% 2.9% 1.0% 2.0% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Henley
Tesco, Reading Road, Henley-on-Thames 15.9% 8.3% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Waitrose, Bell Street, Henley-on-Thames 2.5% 6.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Local Shops, Henley-on-Thames 0.0% 0.0% 14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Sub-Total 18.5% 15.0% 14.3% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Notes:
1. Market shares derived from South Oxfordshire Retail & Lesiure Needs Assessment Survey (February 2008)
2. Excludes 'Don't know / varies', 'Internet / delivered' and 'Don't do this type of shopping'
7 8 9 10 11 12
Zone
Zone
1 2 3 4 5 6
SOUTH OXFORDSHIRE CORE STRATEGY
TABLE 4: CONVENIENCE GOODS TURNOVER - 2007
Destination
(£m) (%) (£m) (%) (£m) (%) (£m) (%) (£m) (%) (£m) (%) (£m) (%) (£m) (%) (£m) (%) (£m) (%) (£m) (%) (£m) (%) (£m) (%)
Within District
Didcot
Tesco, Wallingford Road, Didcot 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 1.85 4.8% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 1.33 3.9% 4.03 10.0% 24.11 38.1% 1.58 2.9% 0.00 0.0% 32.90 5.5%
Sainsbury's, Orchard Road, Didcot 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 1.06 2.8% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.40 1.2% 2.36 5.9% 19.18 30.3% 5.07 9.2% 1.70 2.6% 29.76 4.9%
Co-op, Wantage Road, Didcot 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 1.20 1.9% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 1.20 0.2%
Local Shops, Didcot 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.64 1.6% 3.42 5.4% 0.45 0.8% 0.00 0.0% 4.51 0.7%
Sub-Total 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 2.91 7.6% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 1.73 5.0% 7.03 17.5% 47.91 75.7% 7.10 12.9% 1.70 2.6% 68.38 11.4%
Thame
Waitrose, Greyhound Lane, Thame 12.37 30.5% 8.23 33.4% 5.19 13.5% 10.51 13.5% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 36.29 6.0%
Co-op, High Street, Thame 1.56 3.8% 5.14 20.9% 0.85 2.2% 0.27 0.4% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.11 0.2% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 7.93 1.3%
Sainsbury's Local, Park Street, Thame 0.16 0.4% 0.74 3.0% 1.01 2.6% 0.27 0.4% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 2.18 0.4%
Local Shops, Thame 0.67 1.7% 2.37 9.6% 1.07 2.8% 1.47 1.9% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 5.58 0.9%
Sub-Total 14.76 36.4% 16.47 66.8% 8.12 21.1% 12.52 16.1% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.11 0.2% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 51.97 8.6%
Wallingford
Waitrose, St Martins Street, Wallingford 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 1.80 4.7% 1.21 1.6% 0.56 1.5% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 5.07 14.8% 14.20 35.3% 1.82 2.9% 0.58 1.1% 0.00 0.0% 25.24 4.2%
Local Shops, Wallingford 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.13 0.3% 0.27 0.3% 0.15 0.4% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.16 0.5% 2.35 5.8% 0.19 0.3% 0.14 0.3% 0.00 0.0% 3.38 0.6%
Sub-Total 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 1.93 5.0% 1.48 1.9% 0.71 1.9% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 5.23 15.2% 16.54 41.2% 2.01 3.2% 0.72 1.3% 0.00 0.0% 28.62 4.8%
Henley
Tesco, Reading Road, Henley-on-Thames 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.37 1.0% 0.94 1.2% 8.99 23.9% 8.97 44.4% 13.42 12.7% 0.40 1.2% 0.42 1.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 33.51 5.6%
Waitrose, Bell Street, Henley-on-Thames 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.94 1.2% 12.36 32.9% 6.58 32.6% 3.08 2.9% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 22.96 3.8%
Local Shops, Henley-on-Thames 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 1.62 4.3% 2.84 14.0% 1.89 1.8% 0.00 0.0% 0.21 0.5% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 6.56 1.1%
Sub-Total 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.37 1.0% 1.88 2.4% 22.97 61.1% 18.38 91.0% 18.39 17.4% 0.40 1.2% 0.63 1.6% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 63.02 10.5%
Notes:
1. Turnover based on applying market share (Table 3) to available expenditure on a zone-by-zone basis (Table 2)
2. Market share based on overall convenience goods expenditure
AT 2005 PRICES
10 11 12 TOTAL
Zone
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
SOUTH OXFORDSHIRE CORE STRATEGY
TABLE 5: EXISTING CONVENIENCE GOODS FLOORSPACE WITHIN FOUR MAIN CENTRES
Destination Convenience Floorspace Sales Density Benchmark Turnover Actual Turnover
(sq m) (£ per sq m) (£m) from Study Area (£m) (£m) (%)
Within District
Didcot
Tesco, Wallingford Road, Didcot 1,906 13,671 26.06 32.90 6.85 26%
Sainsbury's, Orchard Road, Didcot 2,543 9,343 23.76 29.76 6.00 25%
Co-op, Wantage Road, Didcot 153 6,442 0.99 1.20 0.22 22%
Local Shops, Didcot 1,900 5,000 9.50 4.51 -4.99 -53%
Sub-Total 6,502 - 60.30 68.38 8.08 13%
Thame
Waitrose, Greyhound Lane, Thame 2,079 10,997 22.86 36.29 13.43 59%
Co-op, High Street, Thame 920 6,442 5.93 7.93 2.00 34%
Sainsbury's Local, Park Street, Thame 600 9,343 5.61 2.18 -3.43 -61%
Local Shops, Thame 1,420 5,000 7.10 5.58 -1.52 -21%
Sub-Total 5,019 - 41.50 51.97 10.48 25%
Wallingford
Waitrose, St Martins Street, Wallingford 2,118 10,997 23.29 25.24 1.95 8%
Local Shops, Wallingford 865 5,000 4.32 3.38 -0.94 -22%
Sub-Total 2,982 - 27.61 28.62 1.01 4%
Henley
Tesco, Reading Road, Henley-on-Thames 2,160 13,671 29.53 33.51 3.98 13%
Waitrose, Bell Street, Henley-on-Thames 1,451 10,997 15.96 22.96 7.00 44%
Local Shops, Henley-on-Thames 1,140 5,000 5.70 6.56 0.86 15%
Sub-Total 4,751 - 51.19 63.02 11.83 23%
Notes:
1. Convenience floorspace derived from South Oxfordshire Retail and Leisure Needs Assessment Update (November 2010) where available, or IGD (2011) or Turley Associates' estimates
2. Sales densities derived from South Oxfordshire Retail and Leisure Needs Assessment (November 2010) where available or Verdict Grocery Retailers (2010) or Turley Associates' estimates
3. Actual Turnover from Study Area derived from Table 4
AT 2005 PRICES
Difference
SOUTH OXFORDSHIRE CORE STRATEGY
TABLE 6A: CONVENIENCE GOODS CAPACITY - DIDCOT
2007 2011 2016 2021 2027
1 Total Available Convenience Goods Retail Expenditure (£m) 602.33 612.40 643.25 676.16 718.29
2 Catchment Area Market Share 11.4% 12.1% 12.9% 13.9% 14.9%
2 Actual Convenience Goods Turnover drawn from Study Area (£m) 68.38 73.97 83.11 93.68 106.95
3 Expected Turnover of Existing Convenience Facilities drawn from Study Area (£m) 60.30 61.27 62.51 63.45 64.60
4 Convenience Capacity (£m) 8.08 12.70 20.60 30.23 42.35
Floorspace (sq m net) 2,540 4,038 5,838 8,026
1,270 2,019 2,919 4,017
TABLE 6B: CONVENIENCE GOODS CAPACITY - THAME
2007 2011 2016 2021 2027
1 Total Available Convenience Goods Retail Expenditure (£m) 602.33 612.40 643.25 676.16 718.29
2 Catchment Area Market Share 8.6% 8.5% 8.4% 8.3% 8.1%
2 Actual Convenience Goods Turnover drawn from Study Area (£m) 51.97 52.30 54.26 55.88 58.00
3 Expected Turnover of Existing Convenience Facilities drawn from Study Area (£m) 41.50 42.17 43.02 43.66 44.46
4 Convenience Capacity (£m) 10.48 10.13 11.25 12.21 13.54
Floorspace (sq m net) 2,026 2,205 2,358 2,566
TABLE 6C: CONVENIENCE GOODS CAPACITY - WALLINGFORD
2007 2011 2016 2021 2027
1 Total Available Convenience Goods Retail Expenditure (£m) 602.33 612.40 643.25 676.16 718.29
2 Actual Convenience Goods Turnover drawn from Study Area (£m) 28.62 29.30 31.03 32.50 34.39
3 Expected Turnover of Existing Convenience Facilities drawn from Study Area (£m) 27.61 28.06 28.62 29.05 29.58
4 Convenience Capacity (£m) 1.01 1.25 2.41 3.45 4.80
Floorspace (sq m net) 250 472 666 910
TABLE 6D: CONVENIENCE GOODS CAPACITY - HENLEY
2007 2011 2016 2021 2027
1 Total Available Convenience Goods Retail Expenditure (£m) 602.33 612.40 643.25 676.16 718.29
2 Actual Convenience Goods Turnover drawn from Study Area (£m) 63.02 63.26 65.45 67.71 70.65
3 Expected Turnover of Existing Convenience Facilities drawn from Study Area (£m) 51.19 52.01 53.06 53.86 54.84
4 Convenience Capacity (£m) 11.83 11.24 12.39 13.85 15.81
Floorspace (sq m net) 2,249 2,429 2,675 2,995
Notes:
1. Total available expenditure from Table 1
2. Actual convenience goods turnover drawn from Study Area based on 'rolled' forward current market shares as set out at Table 4
3. Expected turnover of existing facilities taken from Table 5 and allows for increased turnover efficiency of +0.4% per annum between 2007 and 2016 and +0.3% per annum post 2016
as identified by the South Oxfordshire Retail and Leisure Needs Assessment
AT 2005 PRICES
SOUTH OXFORDSHIRE CORE STRATEGY
TABLE 7: INCREASE IN MARKET SHARE ON A ZONE-BY-ZONE BASIS (2021)
Destination
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Within District
Didcot
Current Market Share 0.0% 0.0% 7.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 17.5% 75.7% 12.9% 2.6%
Revised Market Share 0.0% 0.0% 9.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.0% 22.0% 85.0% 15.0% 3.0%
Thame
Current Market Share 36.4% 66.8% 21.1% 16.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0%
Revised Market Share 45.0% 80.0% 25.0% 19.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0%
Wallingford
Current Market Share 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 1.9% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 15.2% 41.2% 3.2% 1.3% 0.0%
Revised Market Share 0.0% 0.0% 8.0% 3.0% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 18.0% 55.0% 4.0% 1.5% 0.0%
Henley
Current Market Share 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.4% 61.1% 91.0% 17.4% 1.2% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Revised Market Share 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 3.0% 68.0% 92.0% 20.0% 1.2% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Notes:
1. Existing market share derived from Table 4
2. Increase in market share based on Turley Associates' assumptions
Survey Zone
SOUTH OXFORDSHIRE CORE STRATEGY
TABLE 8A: CONVENIENCE GOODS CAPACITY - DIDCOT (INCREASED MARKET SHARE)
2007 2021
1 Total Available Convenience Goods Retail Expenditure (£m) 602.33 676.16
2 Catchment Area Market Share 11.4% 15.9%
2 Actual Convenience Goods Turnover drawn from Study Area (£m) 68.38 107.63
3 Expected Turnover of Existing Convenience Facilities drawn from Study Area (£m) 60.30 63.45
4 Convenience Capacity (£m) 8.08 44.18
Floorspace (sq m net) 8,533
4,266
TABLE 8B: CONVENIENCE GOODS CAPACITY - THAME (INCREASED MARKET SHARE)
2007 2021
1 Total Available Convenience Goods Retail Expenditure (£m) 602.33 676.16
2 Catchment Area Market Share 8.6% 9.9%
2 Actual Convenience Goods Turnover drawn from Study Area (£m) 51.97 67.09
3 Expected Turnover of Existing Convenience Facilities drawn from Study Area (£m) 41.50 43.66
4 Convenience Capacity (£m) 10.48 23.43
Floorspace (sq m net) 4,525
TABLE 8C: CONVENIENCE GOODS CAPACITY - WALLINGFORD (INCREASED MARKET SHARE)
2007 2021
1 Total Available Convenience Goods Retail Expenditure (£m) 602.33 676.16
2 Catchment Area Market Share 4.8% 6.4%
2 Actual Convenience Goods Turnover drawn from Study Area (£m) 28.62 43.28
3 Expected Turnover of Existing Convenience Facilities drawn from Study Area (£m) 27.61 29.05
4 Convenience Capacity (£m) 1.01 14.23
Floorspace (sq m net) 2,747
TABLE 8D: CONVENIENCE GOODS CAPACITY - HENLEY (INCREASED MARKET SHARE)
2007 2021
1 Total Available Convenience Goods Retail Expenditure (£m) 602.33 676.16
2 Catchment Area Market Share 10.5% 10.9%
2 Actual Convenience Goods Turnover drawn from Study Area (£m) 63.02 73.99
3 Expected Turnover of Existing Convenience Facilities drawn from Study Area (£m) 51.19 53.86
4 Convenience Capacity (£m) 11.83 20.13
Floorspace (sq m net) 3,887
Notes:
1. Total available expenditure from Table 1
2. Actual convenience goods turnover drawn from Study Area based on 'rolled' forward market shares - increase in market shares derived from Table 7
3. Expected turnover of existing facilities taken from Table 5 and allows for increased turnover efficiency of +0.4% per annum between 2007 and 2016 and +0.3% per annum post 2016
as identified by the South Oxfordshire Retail and Leisure Needs Assessment
AT 2005 PRICES
APPENDIX 2: DRAFT VIABILITY REPORT BY DTZ ON BEHALF
OF SOUTH OXFORDSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL
BELFAST 028 9089 7400
BIRMINGHAM 0121 233 0902
BRISTOL CARDIFF
0117 989 7000 029 2034 4445
EDINBURGH 0131 557 1099
GLASGOW 0141 248 9233
LEEDS 0113 386 3800
LONDON 020 7851 4010
MANCHESTER 0161 831 1300
SOUTHAMPTON 023 8072 4888
www.turleyassociates.co.uk