Islington Retail Study

Transcription

Islington Retail Study Update 2008
For
London Borough of Islington
DTZ
48 Warwick Street
London W1B 5NL
020-7534-5000
September 2008
Report
1
Introduction
2
2
UK National Trends in Retailing and Retail Development
3
3
The Planning Policy Context
13
4
Retailer Demand Update
26
5
Quantitative Need for New Retail Development
31
6
Emerging Policy Issues
46
7
Summary of Principal Findings and Conclusions
51
Appendices
Appendix 1 – Catchment Zones Map
Appendix 2 – Islington RECAP Model 2008
1
1
Introduction
1.1
In December 2005, the Islington Retail Study (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2005 Study’)
was completed by Donaldsons under instructions from the London Borough of Islington.
The 2005 Study is now somewhat out-of-date, and the Borough Council required it to be
updated in preparation for publication of its new Core Strategy. Donaldsons having been
taken over by DTZ in 2007, DTZ was therefore instructed in January 2008 by the London
Borough of Islington to update the 2005 Study. The Study Update was commissioned to
provide part of the evidence supporting the Core Strategy, supplementing and updating
the 2005 Study.
1.2
The Study includes updated quantitative forecasts of the capacity for new retail
floorspace, an assessment of current retailer demand, and updated advice on town
centre designations and policies for local shopping areas. The Study Update is based on
the same Household Interview Survey of shopping patterns as the 2005 Study, because
there have been no significant new retail developments in and around the Borough,
which might have affected shopping patterns.
1.3
In Section 2 of this report, we review national trends in retailing and retail development,
and draw out the implications for retail development in Islington. In Section 3, we review
national planning policies for retail development, and comment on the implications of the
final report of the Competition Commission on the Grocery Stores Inquiry. We also
review the latest GLA Retail Study or Greater London and draw out the policies which will
affect retail development in Islington.
1.4
In Section 4 we set out the results of our updated retailer demand assessment. Section 5
identifies the future quantitative need for new retail floorspace in the Borough. It provides
an updated evidence-based, quantitative need assessment for new floorspace. We have
forecast the amount of new retail floorspace likely to be needed up to 2026. A full
explanation of our method and our retail capacity forecasts are included in Section 5.
Section 6 is our commentary of the designation of town centres, the role of Finsbury
Park, and policies for local shopping centres. The report ends with Section 7, which
summarises our principal findings and conclusions.
1.5
Being based on more up-to-date information than the 2005 Study, the retail capacity
forecasts set out in this report are intended to supersede and replace all previous retail
capacity forecasts for Islington.
2
2
UK National Trends in Retailing and Retail Development
2.1
In this Section, we comment in broad terms on UK national trends in retailing and retail
development, and the lessons for planning policy and development in Islington. They are
described in no particular order of importance.
Continued Growth of Food Retailers – the Battle for Market Share
2.2
The principal food retailers increased their combined floorspace by over 200,000 sq m in
2006, which was more than double the increase in 2005. A substantial part of this was
due to the rush to install mezzanine floors before the new regulations of May 2006
preventing their installation without planning permission. Tesco in particular, followed by
Asda has grown store floorspace aggressively as a means to increase sales and market
share. Further substantial growth occurred in 2007, through store extensions, and
replacement of older stores with larger, more modern versions (most of which are
designed with the internal headroom to accommodate future mezzanine floors).
2.3
The most successful of the food retailers for some years has been Tesco, which has
significantly increased its market share. Over the five years to 2005, Tesco captured just
over half the increase in value of the entire UK grocery sector, and is now the largest
food retailer by a substantial margin. According to Verdict Research Limited (Verdict), in
2006, ‘Tesco’s market share gains over the past five years have amounted to more than
six times those of the rest of the Top Four put together’. The widespread development of
very large ‘Tesco Extra’ format stores, together with continuing rollout of small local
‘Tesco Express’ stores have resulted in substantial floorspace growth.
2.4
More recently, Sainsburys, Asda and Morrisons are offering increased competition for
Tesco. Sainsburys’ recovery is said to be well on track; Morrisons has now digested
Safeway and sold under-performing stores and is potentially looking for expansion
opportunities; and Asda is actively seeking new stores, and looking to press on with
rolling out its ‘Asda Living’ format. Regarding Tesco, in 2008 Verdict comments, ‘While
the retailer extended its lead over its rivals impressively in 2007 for the ninth successive
year, the 0.8 percentage point rise was its smallest market share gain since 2002. It was
the first time for five years that Tesco’s share increase was less than the combined
market share gain of its principal rivals.....the retailer added more space during 2007 than
its three key competitors combined.’
2.5
The growth of superstores (almost all of which are operated by the ‘big four’ – Tesco,
Asda, Sainsburys and Morrisons) has been at the expense of smaller supermarkets, food
specialists, and off-licences and tobacconists. Table 2.1 shows changes in the numbers
3
of outlets and in grocery market sales and over the last 10 years for each of these types
of outlet. It shows the rise of superstores from 1,084 to 1,480 stores since 1997, and
increase in their proportion of grocery market sales. It also shows that this increase in
the superstores have been at the expense of every other type of outlet. Thus superstore
development nationally has been accompanied by impacts on smaller stores and a
decline in their numbers and sales. Put simply, the superstores have taken all of the
growth in expenditure and more. This has put small food stores and shops in the smaller
centres under pressure, although some of these are operated by the principal food
retailers as their local store formats.
Table 2.1: Grocery Market Outlets and Sales by Outlet Type 1997 and 2007
Outlet Type
Superstores (1)
Smaller stores (2)
Food specialists(3)
Off-licences &
tobacconists
1997
No. of Outlets
Proportion of
Total Sales
1,084
46.2%
34,438
39.0%
41,493
7.8%
27,668
7.0%
2007
No. of Outlets
Proportion of
Total Sales
1,480
53.4%
31,958
37.6%
27,123
5.5%
11,760
3.5%
Source: ‘UK Grocery Retailers 2008’, Verdict Research Limited
Notes:
(1) Grocery stores greater than 25,000 sq ft net
(2) Supermarkets, Co-ops and convenience stores less than 25,000 sq ft net
(3) Butchers, bakers, greengrocers fishmongers and other food specialists
2.6
The second tier of food retailers, Waitrose, Somerfield, Marks & Spencer and Co-op are
all trading well. Both Waitrose and Marks & Spencer are aggressively seeking new
space, and the latter is widely rolling out its ‘Simply Food’ format. Somerfield has sold off
the KwikSave chain, and has benefitted as a result. However, Somerfield is potentially
for sale this year – but to date there has been only one bidder. Within their limitations as
local neighbourhood food retailers, the Co-op stores are understood to be trading well.
2.7
In that last year or so, the deep discount food retailers, Aldi, Lidl and Netto appear to
have been less active in developing new stores than for some years; and we are aware
of some planning permissions which have not been implemented. However, very
recently, these operators have enjoyed much greater growth in sales than the other main
food retailers, as the economic slowdown coupled with increased food prices and fuel
costs has put household’s budgets under strain. It has been reported that many
shoppers who in more affluent times would not have considered shopping in the discount
supermarkets are now seeking out their relatively low prices. A resurgence of new store
development by at least Aldi and Lidl is therefore quite likely.
4
2.8
The opportunities for development of new food superstores are diminishing, due to
increasing market saturation, and tightened national planning policies restricting out-ofcentre development (the ‘sequential approach’ of national ‘Planning Policy Statement 6:
Planning for Town Centres’ in England, and similar provisions in Scotland and Wales).
However at least until very recently, food sales have not suffered the recent downturn in
the rate of growth suffered by comparison goods sales. To maintain their growth in food
retailing market share therefore, the major food retailers have moved aggressively into
local convenience goods stores. Both Tesco and Sainsburys have bought existing
chains of such shops and converted them to their own branded formats. Marks &
Spencer is rolling out its ‘Simply Food’ format of small shops and stores, and has bought
and rebranded a number of stores from Iceland. The major food retailers have also
moved into petrol forecourt retailing on a substantial scale, with formats such as Tesco
Express, and Marks & Spencer Simply Food. In addition, the major food retailers have
developed compact store formats for smaller towns, such as market towns; which hitherto
depended on small town centre supermarkets and specialist food shops and markets.
Comparison Goods Sales by Food Retailers
2.9
Whilst convenience goods sales have held up well over the last year or so, in which the
rate of growth in comparison goods expenditure has dropped substantially, over a longer
period convenience goods expenditure growth has come nowhere near the very high
rates of growth in comparison goods expenditure achieved since the mid 1990s. The
main food retailers are therefore increasingly moving into comparison goods sales to
drive company growth. Existing food superstores are being extended wherever possible;
with the great majority of the extension floorspace used for the sale of comparison goods.
This includes new categories of goods such as furniture and DIY goods. The size of new
superstores is also increasing substantially. Thus for example, Tesco is promoting its
Tesco Extra stores, which can be up to twice as large as the largest superstores of a few
years ago. Based on ONS data, Mintel estimated that in 1999, the large grocers
accounted for 35.1% of all retail sales in the UK, and that this had risen to 36.4% by
2004. Further rise has occurred subsequently. Tesco, for example, is now starting to
promote its ‘department store’ concept, although no such stores have yet been
developed. This strong growth by a small handful of retailers could in time threaten
competition, by reducing the number of retailers in the market.
2.10
Asda is now developing non-food only stores to extend the range of its ‘Asda Living’ and
‘George’ branded homewares and clothing respectively. Some of these are in or on the
edge of town centres. This demonstrates that it is not essential for food retailers to
extend their existing superstores or develop ever larger superstores, in order to capture
more of the non-food market. Under the sequential approach, such outlets should
wherever possible be in or on the edge of town centres. Asda’s proposals demonstrate
5
that although less desirable for the superstore operators, such an approach can be made
to work.
Pressures on Small Retailers and Secondary Shopping Areas
2.11
There is a widely held perception that the growth of superstores, and the move into local
food retailing by the major operators has had a serious impact on small retailers, many of
which are independent. This is confirmed by the data set out in Table 2.1 on the growth
of sales in superstores at the expense of smaller supermarkets and specialist food
retailers. The House of Commons All-Party Parliamentary Small Shops Group has
recently enquired into this perceived phenomenon, and published its report, ‘High Street
Britain: 2016’ in 2006. The report concluded, inter alia, ‘Large retailers find it much easier
to offer improved propositions to affluent customers, attracting enough spend away from
small shops to stop them trading, resulting in all consumers, within a specific catchment
to become reliant on the large retailers’. The report also concluded, ‘The biggest losers,
however, will be the consumers. Restricted choice of store brands, restricted choice of
available products restricted choice of shopping locations, higher prices and reduced
customer service are all strong possibilities in 2016. Although some consumers today
may be benefiting from a competitive market this is entirely unsustainable and cannot
continue’.
2.12
The report went on to observe that current trends threaten social inclusion, with
potentially adverse effects for society. A number of recommendations were made to
government, aimed at ameliorating the competitive environment for small retail
businesses. Perhaps partly as a result of the Group’s report, the OFT and the CC
undertook the recently completed Inquiry into the supermarket ‘industry’.
2.13
Research published in November 2004 by the National Retail Planning Forum in the
report ‘The Role and Vitality of Secondary Shopping – A New Direction’ concluded that
over the previous 10 years, there had been a significant change in secondary shopping.
In such locations, the number of retailers had declined, but the number of service
businesses had increased. The result was that in general, shop vacancy rates in
secondary shopping areas had fallen – although there were specific pockets of decline
and high vacancy, usually easily explicable by locational factors; such as being separated
from the remainder of the town centre by a busy access road. The research also
concluded that secondary shopping areas are much more diverse in their composition
than prime retail areas, and are heavily dependent on independent businesses.
2.14
A number of recommendations were put forward for enhancing the prosperity of
secondary shopping areas. In summary, these focused on:
6
•
Creating a coherent pedestrian environment through breaching barriers to easy
pedestrian movement, introducing new pedestrian flow generators, and
improving linkages with the prime retail areas;
•
Managing change to non-retail uses where appropriate;
•
Creating financially viable developments, through introducing new value
generators to form mixed use schemes;
•
Improving the public realm through new investment:
•
Supporting independent businesses by providing low cost business support
services;
•
Applying asset management principles and niche marketing;
•
Using new methods of leasing, so as to improve landlord control of repairs and
maintenance;
•
Obtaining specialist advice on the impact of proposed new retail developments;
•
Evolving more sophisticated planning policies for change of use;
•
Applying town centre management;
•
Ending differential pricing under which the major food retailers charge higher
prices in their small local stores than in their car-accessed superstores;
•
Applying the sequential approach and controlling development;
•
Undertaking further research on a number of related topics.
Growth in Retail Expenditure
2.15
Since the late 1990s, there has been very substantial growth in retail expenditure on
comparison goods. Over the period 1998 to 2006, MapInfo Brief 07/02 indicates that per
capita expenditure on comparison goods in the UK grew at an annual average of 7.2% in
real terms. This is well above the historic long term trend (1978 to 2006) of 4.9% pa, and
the ultra-long term trend (1964 to 2006) of 3.9% pa. For convenience goods, the growth
has been much less, at 1.0% pa over the period 1998 to 2006. Even this is significantly
above the long term trend of 0.4% pa and the ultra-long term trend of 0.1% pa. In
addition, there has been some population growth. Over the period 1971 to 2004, for
example, the UK population grew by almost 7%; and with the recent accession of
7
countries in Eastern Europe to the EU, growth appears to have accelerated as a result of
increased immigration. The combined effect of population growth and growth in per
capita expenditure has been substantial increases in total retail expenditure, and hence
sales, particularly for comparison goods.
2.16
In the last two years there has been a fall in the rate of growth, largely due to rising
interest rates dampening down the debt fuelled ‘boom’ in consumer spending. After
2005, indications are that conditions for retailers have remained challenging, and in the
last 6 months have become significantly worse still. As a result, several well known
retailers have recently gone into administration. We expect that tightening access to
credit as a result of the recent difficulties experienced by banks over sub-prime
mortgages will continue to hold down growth of consumer spending for the next few
years. Since 1998, there has been price deflation in comparison goods, largely owing to
globalisation and outsourcing of manufacturing to China. The MapInfo/OEF price index
for comparison goods in 2006 was 14.7% below its 1998 peak. This has helped to
maintain consumer spending. However, competition for scarce resources as a result of
the rapid growth of the Chinese economy, and those of some other nations, may well end
this trend over the next few years.
Retail Sales Densities
2.17
Since the end of the economic recession in the early 1990s, a substantial amount of new
retail floorspace has been developed. Much of it has been in the form of food
superstores and retail warehouses, located on out-of-centre sites. Town centre
development has been mainly in large and medium sized towns – the top 100 or so retail
centres by size in the country. However, provision of new floorspace has not matched
growth in expenditure, with the result that sales densities have been rising in town
centres, and in retail warehouses. Sunday trading and extended weekday opening hours
have enabled existing floorspace to absorb substantial growth. Sales of higher value
goods as incomes have risen, which do not necessarily need more space for storage,
display and sale (and may need less owing to the trend for miniaturisation), has also
resulted in higher sales densities. In practice, town centre sales densities have proved to
be highly elastic, and the concept of ‘overtrading’ needs to be applied with some caution.
2.18
Convenience goods sales densities in food stores, however, have shown a mixed picture
in recent years. Between the years 2000/01 and 2006/07, Asda has shown a rise in
convenience goods sales density of 14.6%, and Morrisons’ has risen by 7.0%. However
Sainsburys’ has fallen by 14.7% and Tesco by 2.0%. Aldi, Co-ops, Lidl, Iceland, and
Marks & Spencer have all shown falls in their convenience goods sales density, of
between 5.0% (M&S) and 20.8% (Lidl). Somerfield has shown a small rise of 1.9%, and
Waitrose has been virtually stable (with a fall of 0.6%). We consider that these changes
8
are partly the outcome of the battle for market share in which there have been winners
and losers. However, it is also partly a result of the rapid increase in floorspace, over a
period when growth in convenience goods expenditure has been low; and as a result the
overall trend in convenience goods sales density has been slightly downwards.
Shopping Centre Development Pipeline
2.19
As at March 2007, the UK shopping centre development ‘pipeline’ comprising schemes of
over 50,000 sq ft gross with planning permission or under construction totalled 3.62
million sq m. This is higher than has been seen since the early 1990s. The majority of
this is expected to be delivered between 2008 and 2011; and will be in existing town and
city centres. Most of this floorspace is in large schemes in the larger centres. Thus in
Bristol for example, the Cabot Circus development at Broadmead will open in Autumn
2008 with a scheme totalling 136,000 sq m gross, including reconfigured retail floorspace
and some leisure uses. In Leicester City Centre, the High Cross development will shortly
open, in the form of a very large retail scheme anchored by a new John Lewis
department store. In Belfast, the Victoria Square centre has recently opened, anchored
by a large House of Fraser store. There are few schemes committed or under
construction in small town centres and district centres, and it is difficult to make
development financially viable in small centres, owing to low rental values for retail
floorspace there. The apparent surge in short to medium term development is not a new
phenomenon. Lengthy development cycles result in a time lag between favourable
market conditions (the high growth of expenditure since the late 1990s referred to above)
and delivery of new shopping centres.
2.20
Letting prospects for this space are now becoming more difficult. The most sought after
‘anchor’ stores, Debenhams, House of Fraser and John Lewis are still trading reasonably
well, but will only consider acquiring the right stores in the right locations. There are few
other retailers, such as Next, Primark, Top Shop, River Island, H&M, New Look, which
will currently consider acquiring major new ‘secondary anchor’ stores in new town centre
developments. This is putting pressure on developers preparing town centre schemes in
smaller town centres such as Swindon and Bedford, and resulting in downwards pressure
on rents, letting prospects and financial viability. As a result, there are increasing signs of
a slowdown in the town centre retail development market.
2.21
There has been a long term trend towards polarisation of comparison goods retailing into
the largest town and city centres in the country at the relative expense of the smaller
centres. Thus, whereas in 1971 the 200 largest centres in the country accounted for
about 50% of all comparison goods sales, by 1996, this proportion has risen to about
1
75% . There is no evidence since that this trend has halted or been reversed. Indeed,
1
Sources: Census of Distribution 1971, and ‘National Survey of local Shopping Patterns 1996’ Hillier Parker.
9
much of the ‘pipeline’ space for new shopping centres described above is in the larger
centres, eg London suburbs, Plymouth, Exeter, Wolverhampton, Leicester, Bristol, Bath,
Belfast. However, anticipating the policy in PPS6 for growth to be distributed more
evenly, the then President of the British Council of Shopping Centres (BCSC) called in
2003 for a renewed focus on development in smaller centres. He was referring to
centres with prime Zone A shop rental values at that time of around £1,076 per sq m
th
th
(£100 per sq ft) – but these are centres between about 100 and 150 in the national
total of around 1,200 significant town and district centres. In other words, still large town
centres, rather than the centres of small market towns. Only with shop rental values at or
approaching this level is substantial new town centre comparison goods shopping centre
retail development likely to be financially viable. So the polarisation trend described
above is unlikely to be reversed in the foreseeable future. However, mixed use
development including new retail uses, and new food stores, may in principle be possible,
in smaller centres, subject to need and the availability of suitable sites.
Retail Warehouses
2.22
There remains a significant (although currently falling) demand nationally for new retail
warehouses from retailers, and support for this format from developers and investors –
where planning permission can be obtained. The range of retailers wishing to trade from
retail parks continues to widen, well beyond the traditional ‘bulky goods’ furniture,
floorcoverings, electrical goods and DIY goods retailers. Retailers seeking retail park
stores now include Next, Asda (with its Asda Living format), H&M Hennes, Blacks
Leisure, Debenhams, Ilva (the Danish furniture retailer moving into the UK), Arcadia
Group, Boots, Habitat, New Look, River Island, Argos. At the same time, the former
PPG6 and now PPS6 have imposed the sequential approach, which theoretically makes
it more difficult to expand the supply of retail park stores. As a result, there is pressure
for relaxation of bulky goods conditions on existing retail warehouses (usually
incrementally on a unit by unit basis), extension of existing retail parks and subdivision of
large stores.
2.23
Large numbers of mezzanine floors have also been installed, taking advantage of lax
planning regulation of internal alterations, thus substantially expanding out-of-centre
trading space. There has been a dash to complete the installation of mezzanine floors
wherever possible, before the new regulations to prevent it were imposed in May 2006.
Surely a classic case of ‘shutting the stable door…’!
Internet Shopping
2.24
Internet and other forms of onlineshopping is now becoming a major feature of the retail
landscape. Verdict estimates that in 2007, online spending accounted for approximately
10
5.2% of all retail expenditure, having enjoyed its fastest rate of growth in six years in
2
2007 . They forecast that this will rise to 13.8% by 2012. Based on their work, we
calculate that in 2007, 3.3% of all food and grocery sales were via online shopping, and
6.5% of all comparison goods sales. Some of the recent growth has been at the expense
of traditional non-store sales, in particular mail order shopping. However, Verdict
estimates that ‘four out of five online purchases are made at the expense of another
retailer.’ Some of the internet shopping is from retailers which also have traditional
‘bricks and mortar’ stores, leading to the phenomenon of ‘clicks and mortar’, ie increasing
numbers of traditional retailers diversifying their channels of product distribution to
embrace the internet, in parallel with continuing store sales. This is particularly the case
with the food retailers, all of whom have internet shopping channels, in some cases
sourced from local stores (eg Tesco). Thus Verdict concludes, ‘despite some degree of
cannibalisation, physical shopping is not done for; as internet retailing matures, in many
cases online and in-store sales channels will simply blur into one, becoming fully
integrated.’
2.25
The impact of internet shopping varies between different retail sectors. Verdict estimates
that in 2007, the lowest penetration was in health and beauty goods (2.2% of all retail
spending), and the highest, music and video (30.3%) and electricals (15.1%). Food and
grocery stood at 3.3% in 2007, forecast by Verdict to grow to 10.0% by 2012 (with much
being sourced from superstores rather than central warehouses, so contributing to local
store sales). In the medium term, the growth will also be uneven. For example, digital
downloads are now transforming the music and video industries. The high street
retailers, HMV and Virgin Megastore (which has recently been sold), are showing signs of
suffering from this. Indeed, Verdict expects that internet sales of music and video will
soar to 60.8% of all retail sales in this category of goods by 2011.
2.26
The above figures demonstrate that whilst the rate of growth in internet shopping has
been spectacular (from zero in the mid 1990’s), for most categories of goods the impact
on traditional forms of retailing has so far been small; occurring as it has during a period
of very high growth in retail spending overall. However, Verdict now expects continued
strong growth, a substantial part of which will be at the expense of traditional retail shops
and stores, despite traditional retailers embracing multi-channel selling.
The Implications for Islington
2.27
There are a number of implications of the above trends for retailing and retail
development in Islington, which may be summarised as indicated below.
2
‘UK e-Retail 2008’, Verdict Research Limited, May 2008
11
2.28
There may well be increased pressure for new discount supermarkets in the Borough.
Such stores, being much smaller are easier to accommodate than new full-range
superstores. The lack of the latter in the Borough and the non-availability of suitable sites
for new such stores means that the Borough’s smaller foodstores will continue to be an
important component of food shopping provision. They should therefore be supported
wherever possible; together with proposals for new foodstores for which a need is
demonstrated (subject to local land use and site planning considerations).
2.29
New retail development generally is likely to be depressed for at least the next year or
two. In particular, it is unlikely that new retail development (apart from new foodstores) in
the district and local centres in the Borough will be financially viable on its own. When
the retail and residential development markets recover from the present economic
downturn, to achieve new retail development in these small centres, it will be necessary
to encourage non-traditional forms of development. These will either need to be mixed
use schemes, probably including substantial residential elements so as to increase value
and subsidise the ground floor retail accommodation, or be low cost developments such
as free-standing discount supermarkets.
2.30
Secondary shopping in the Borough will need continuing support, if it is to survive and
prosper. The recommendations set out in the NRPF report referred to above should be
applied wherever possible; to improve the prosperity of secondary shopping, and help
retain its important function of providing specialist goods and services and contributing to
retail diversity in the town centres and throughout the Borough.
2.31
The rapid growth in online shopping means that existing retailers should be encouraged
to establish their own transactional websites, linked together to form town centre
webrings accessed via a portal site for each centre. Diversification of their channels of
distribution in this way will enable them to tap into a much larger potential market than
their local geographical catchment area alone. Clearly, this will be more practicable for
some retailers than for others, but some of the many specialist retailers in the Borough
should be well able to achieve increased sales by this method.
12
3
The Planning Policy Context
3.1
In this Section, we review national planning policies for new retail development and
identify the principal implications for Islington. We also consider the implications of the
latest updates to The London Plan.
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICIES
Town Centres First
3.2
National Planning Policy for retail (and other forms of development) is set out in ‘Planning
Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centres’, March 2005. The key principle of PPS6
is that new development (of retailing and the other defined uses) should be focused in
existing centres. These are the locations most accessible by public transport and where
one trip can serve several purposes; thus simultaneously facilitating switching from cars
to public transport and reducing the overall need to travel (i.e. achieving sustainability),
and improving facilities for people without cars (i.e. improving social inclusion). Growth
‘should be accommodated by more efficient use of land and buildings within existing
centres’. Thus high density, multi-storey and mixed use development is advocated, to
make the most of available sites.
3.3
However, it won’t be enough just to develop a superstore and surface car park on the
edge of a town centre, for example. In many town centres, it will be necessary to include
more value generators in order to make development financially viable, so the emphasis
on higher density and mixed uses fits well with the market realities described in Section 2
above.
A Pro-active Plan-led System
3.4
The principal tool for achieving town centre development is to be the new plan-led system
of Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Frameworks. These development
plans are to identify hierarchies and networks of town, district and local centres; assess
the role of and needs for new development in each; and then identify and allocate sites
for such development. They should include sites capable of accommodating a range of
‘business models’ ; defined by reference to scale, format, car parking and the scope for
accommodating parts of developers’ proposals. PPS6 does not expect there to be a
need for any new out-of-centre regional or sub-regional centres, or extensions to such
existing centres. Any changes to the hierarchical status of any existing centres should be
dealt with in development plans rather than via planning applications.
13
3.5
PPS6 recognises that there are limits to capacity arising from the layout of some town
centres, and responds by advocating extension of the town centre or the primary
shopping area, and/or designation of edge-of-centre sites well connected to the town
centre core. The accompanying document, ‘Planning for Town Centres: Guidance on
Design and Implementation Tools’, sets out design principles for new development; and
how Area Action Plans, masterplans and development briefs, and the new compulsory
purchase powers should be used to make it happen. The emphasis throughout is for
local authorities to be pro-active rather than merely permissive. But they are expected to
be realistic about whether sites are likely to be suitable, viable and available; and to
identify sites sufficient to meet needs for at least 5 years from adoption of their
development plan documents.
Spreading the Growth
3.6
Over the last 30 or more years, as described in Section 2 above, the greatest growth in
retail floorspace has been in the largest centres, with the result that long distance travel
for shopping, particularly by car, has increased. In the interests of sustainability and
social inclusion, the government wants to see a more even distribution of town centre
facilities, and better services in ‘deprived areas’. PPS6 therefore expects local authorities
to consider ‘whether there is a need to rebalance the network of centres to ensure that it
is not overly dominated by the largest centres’. The emphasis of development and
regeneration should therefore switch to medium sized and smaller centres, and it may
become more difficult to support schemes in the largest centres.
3.7
Interestingly, there are few policies or principles for out-of-centre development – no doubt
mainly because the other policies are intended to mean that there will not be much of it.
In a strengthening of policy, PPS6 makes it clear that ‘planning authorities should not
regard existing out-of-centre development, comprising or mainly including main town
centre uses, such as shops, shopping centres, leisure parks or retail warehouse parks,
as centres’. The approach of pressing for such schemes to be designated as ‘centres’ in
plans or for the purposes of applying the sequential approach, is therefore now ruled out.
A Rigorous Sequential Approach
3.8
The sequential approach is fundamental to the whole of PPS6. Second priority edge-ofcentre sites are defined as, ‘For retail purposes, a location that is well connected to and
within easy walking distance (i.e. Up to 300 metres) of the primary shopping area’; with
further guidance on other uses and the effects of barriers to movement. Thus Table 2 in
Annexe A states that ‘In determining whether a site falls within the definition of edge-ofcentre, account should be taken of local circumstances. For example, local topography
will affect pedestrians’ perceptions of easy walking distance from the centre……A site will
14
not be well connected to a centre where it is physically separated from it by a barrier such
as a major road, railway line or river and there is no existing or proposed pedestrian route
which provides safe and convenient access to the centre’ Only if there are no town
centre or edge-of-centre sites can out-of-centre sites be considered, with preference
given to those well served by a choice of means of transport and with the potential for
links with the town centre. In view of the new emphasis on making it happen, it is likely
that more town centre and edge-of-centre sites will be brought forward. So the
opportunities for developers to argue for out-of-centre sites should recede under these
policies.
3.9
Developers, retailers and other operators are expected to be flexible about the scale and
format of their scheme, car parking provision, and the scope for component parts of it to
be fitted onto town centre or edge-of-centre sites (disaggregation). PPS6 states that it is
not the intention to seek arbitrary sub-division of proposals, thus leaving some scope for
those pressing for large format developments. However, it will not be enough for retailers
to argue that they sell goods which can’t be sold from a town centre site; and their
difficulties in operating from a town centre location will have to be genuine and
substantial. Some regard has to be paid to business models, but it is not paramount:
what is more important is the principle of town centres first.
3.10
PPS6 confirms that extensions to out-of-centre stores (including internal alterations) are
to be subject to the sequential approach – the only exception being extensions where the
gross floorspace created does not exceed 200 sq m. Thus for example, food superstore
operators wanting to extend their out-of-centre stores to sell more comparison goods,
must consider whether they could instead open a comparison goods store in the town
centre. Asda and Tesco are already testing such stores in a few locations, and other
retailers will be likely to follow – which could generate new ‘anchors’ for town centre
schemes.
The Outlook
3.11
PPS6 should now be resulting in more local authority-led opportunities appearing for town
centre and edge-of-centre development, particularly in medium sized and smaller
centres. However, some of these may be aspirational rather than realistic, because
values in small centres are sometimes too low to make new development viable. A
further obstacle could be the cost of creating good linkages or breaching barriers to
pedestrian movement, to enable a site to function as edge-of-centre. The way forward
will be higher density mixed uses – where design or heritage constraints permit.
Meanwhile, the largest centres will continue organic growth and consolidation, even if
some major schemes there are curtailed following plan-led reviews of the retail hierarchy.
15
3.12
Out-of-centre, once permitted developments have been implemented, there will be few
more large scale developments, at least until town centre and edge-of-centre
opportunities have been fully taken up. However, the exemption of small extensions from
the sequential approach – which does not preclude a succession of such – will provide
some opportunities for growth and consolidation of existing retail parks and superstores.
Also the concession of taking account of genuine difficulties with operating the applicants’
business models from town centre and edge-of-centre sites will provide some
opportunities for specialist retailers. DIY stores and deep discount retailers are obvious
examples. Out-of-centre development is not over, but the balance has tipped in favour of
town centres. So values of existing out-of-centre development should rise, as owners
work at improving planning conditions to widen the range of goods permitted, and
undertake successive small extensions.
The main points
3.13
The main points of PPS6 in relation to retail development may be summarised as follows:
•
•
Development is to be focused in existing centres.
New development plans are to assess the need for development and allocate
town centre and edge-of-centre sites.
•
Higher density, mixed-use schemes are advocated, and design principles
indicated.
•
Local authorities are to be pro-active in making it happen, both through planning
policies, and by exercise of their improved site assembly powers.
•
There is a stronger presumption against out-of-centre developments than under
the previous guidance in PPG6.
•
But small extensions to existing such schemes are conceded, and some account
is to be taken of applicants’ business models.
•
Annual monitoring of implementation is to be undertaken and regular review of
town centre vitality and viability.
Proposed Changes to PPS6
3.14
In July 2008, the government published Proposed Changes to Planning Policy Statement
6: Planning for Town Centres, in the form of a Consultation document. The objectives of
the suggested changes are ‘First, they must support current and prospective town centre
16
investment, which contributes to economic prosperity, and to our social and
environmental goals......Second, that it is important to ensure that planning promotes
competition and consumer choice and does not unduly or disproportionately constrain the
market.’
3.15
In pursuance of these objectives, the principal changes proposed are as follows:
i) Part 2 of PPS6 dealing with positive planning for town centres and the plan-led
approach would be revised to place a greater emphasis on competition and consumer
choice. However, it retains the requirement for local planning authorities to assess the
need for main town centre uses when preparing their development plans, and to
identify in their plans ways of accommodating identified need in accordance with the
sequential approach. ‘There is no proposed change to the requirement for planning
authorities to assess the need for new town centre development or to take account of
scale, impact and accessibility considerations or the sequential approach in selecting
sites for development in development plans.’ In identifying and allocating sites in their
development plans, local authorities will expected to apply the new ‘impact test’
described below.
ii) Part 3 of PPS6 dealing with development control is substantially revised. The main
change would be replacement of the current requirement for applicants to
demonstrate need for edge-of-centre and out-of-centre development which is not in
accordance with an up-to-date development plan, with a new ‘impact test’. This would
need to be applied to edge-of-centre and out-of-centre development which is not in
accordance with an up-to-date development plan; and to town centre developments
which don’t accord with the development plan and which would substantially increase
the attraction of the town centre and could have an impact on other centres.
iii) The new impact test would replace the existing tests in paragraph 3.20. It sets out five
‘key town centre impact considerations, both positive and negative’, which may be
summarised as:
•
•
•
•
•
Compliance with the development plan;
Impact on committed and planned public and private investment;
Appropriateness of scale;
For retail and leisure proposals, the impact on town centre trade/turnover;
Promotion or undermining of town centre vitality and viability, including local
consumer choice and retail diversity.
iv) Where a proposed development would have a significant impact under these tests,
planning permission should normally be refused. If there are some impacts, but the
prospect of them being outweighed by wider economic, social and environmental
17
benefits, these wider issues would need to be assessed. The tests for wider impacts
or benefits (in summary) are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Impact on non-town centres being developed in accordance with the
development plan;
Sustainability in terms of accessibility and travel;
Promotion of social inclusion;
Employment creation;
For retail developments, ‘clawback’ of trade leakage from the catchment area;
Promotion or undermining of economic and physical regeneration in the area
within 5 years of completion of the proposed development;
Efficiency in the use of land, and re-use of ‘brownfield’ sites.
v) The new impact test is therefore in essence a ‘zero impact test’; in that the effect of
the development should be that it would cause no overall impact or would bring some
net benefits.
vi) The requirement for local authorities to produce annual monitoring reports on their
town centres remains, but the indicators of town centre viability in Figure 1 of PPS6
are extended to include land values and the length of time key sites have remained
undeveloped. The safety and crime indicator is extended to include the threat of
terrorism, and the evening and night-time economy.
3.16
These proposed changes are now out to consultation, and the final version of the revised
PPS6 (publication of which is expected in spring or early summer 2009) may well differ.
It is expected that Guidance on assessing need and preparing impact assessments will
be published at the same time. It is too soon to say whether the proposed changes to
PPS6 would make it easier or harder for developers to obtain planning permission for
edge-of-centre and out-of-centre retail developers. In a densely built-up inner London
borough such as Islington, the very limited availability of suitable sites for new retail
development will be likely to prove a greater constraint on retail growth than national
planning policies.
The implications for Islington
3.17
The principal implication is that further major retail development in the Borough beyond
current commitments will have to be fully justified in terms of need (unless within a
defined town centre, where it will not be necessary to demonstrate need), impact and the
sequential approach. It will be necessary to consider whether part or all of it could be
developed in smaller centres, so as to spread the benefits of growth more evenly, and
reduce the need to travel for shopping. This provides national policy support for potential
new retail development in Finsbury Park, subject to local site planning and access
considerations. In the smaller centres, any opportunities for new town centre
18
development should be brought forward for new retail and other uses, as soon as a need
is identified – subject of course to retailer demand and financial viability. Town centre
development is slow, expensive and difficult, whereas out-of-centre development is
relatively quick, cheap and easy. However, government policy now no longer supports
the easy option, and the Council will be expected to be pro-active in identifying and
assembling sites for development where this is financially viable. The application of the
sequential approach will be a strong tool to do this.
GROCERIES MARKET INVESTIGATION BY THE COMPETITION COMMISSION
3.18
In its final report published on 30 April 2008, the Competition Commission (CC)
concluded (inter alia) that:
‘The planning regime (in particular PPS6 in England, SPP8 in Scotland, PPS5 in
Northern Ireland and MIPPS 02/2005 in Wales) and its application by Local Planning
Authorities in accordance with the policy objectives of the planning regime necessarily act
as a barrier to entry or expansion in a significant number of local markets:
(i) by limiting construction of new larger grocery stores; and
(ii) by imposing costs and risks on smaller retailers and entrants without pre-existing
grocery retail operations in the UK that are not borne to the same extent by existing large
grocery retailers.’
3.19
The CC concluded that there should be a new competition test for proposed new grocery
stores and store extensions, which it would prefer to see established within the planning
system. It has recommended that the Department of Communities and Local
Government (DCLG) and the devolved administrations take steps to make the Office of
Fair Trading (OFT) a statutory consultee on all planning applications for new food stores
and store extensions ‘where the developed store will be in excess of 1,000 sq metres net
sales area’. The OFT would be required to apply a ‘competition test’, as follows:
‘(a)
assess concentration across an area defined using a 10-minute isochrone
(calculated using a standard, readily available package such as MapInfo/
Drivetime) around the store that is to be developed;
(b)
count the number of fascias (including that of the retailer that might operate the
developed store) operating large grocery retail stores within the isochrone, such
fascias to include all full-range national or regional grocery retailers and symbol
groups and independently-owned full-range grocery store operators;
19
(c)
(where the number of such fascias is three or fewer) calculate the share of
groceries floorspace within the isochrone that the grocery retailer operating the
developed store would have after the development had been implemented, such
calculation to include all full-range national or regional grocery retailers and symbol
groups and independently-owned full-range grocery store operators;
(d)
where a planning application was submitted by a large grocery retailer, provide
advice to the LPA on whether that grocery retailer had passed or failed the test;
(e)
where a planning application was submitted by a third party (including a grocery
retailer that is not a large grocery retailer), provide advice to the LPA on which
grocery retailers would fail the test;
(f)
a particular retailer will pass the test for a particular local area (ie within a 10minute isochrone around the store to be developed) if:
(i)
it would operate the developed store as a new entrant in the local area;
(ii)
the total number of fascias in the local area were four or more; or
(iii)
the total number of fascias were three or fewer and the grocery retailer
operating the developed store would have less than 60 per cent of groceries
sales area in the local area (this decision taken on the basis of a majority of
four to two);
(g)
a particular retailer would fail the test if:
(i)
the grocery retailer was not a new entrant in the local area; and
(ii)
the total number of fascias in the local area were three or fewer; and
(iii)
the retailer would have 60 per cent or more of groceries sales area (including
the new store) in the local area (this decision taken on the basis of a majority
of four to two).’
3.20
The CC recommends that a Local Planning Authority will only be able to disregard the
OFT’s advice in deciding a planning application in limited circumstances. These are
where it is satisfied, based on sound evidence, that the proposed development would
produce benefits for the local area which would clearly outweigh the ‘detriment to local
people from the area becoming or remaining highly concentrated in terms of grocery
retailing’; and where the development would not take place without the grocery retailer
which had failed the competition test. This suggest that there may be rash of applications
20
for new food superstores as enabling developments for regeneration projects, and that
the competition test will be fairly easy to circumvent by this means.
3.21
One of the apparent consequencies of the proposed competition test would be that (apart
from new entrants to the market) new stores will only be able to pass the test in
circumstances where there is little or no need for them. This is because in many cases
new stores would only be allowed in locations where there are already a number of
existing operators. This may well open the door for large new superstores operated by
the strongest retailers, which have the effect of closing the smaller existing stores, thus
leading in time to a reduction in competition between stores in the area – particularly if
the ‘needs’ test is abolished for development control purposes, as in the proposed
changes to PPS6. In other words, the opposite effect which the CC intends. It appears
that it may also make it harder for new stores to open in under-served markets, where
existing access to food stores is poor. Thus the competition test appears to run counter
to the objective of PPS6 that local planning authorities should seek to provide for the
needs of deprived areas in the interests of social inclusion.
3.22
Very recently, Tesco has appealed to the Competition Appeal Tribunal against the
proposed competition test. Tesco is expected to argue that the competition test would
not remedy the adverse effect on competition identified by the CC. The tribunal will have
to decide if the CC ‘considered the case fully, followed its own procedures, observed the
relevant law, acted fairly and proportionately and without bias, and came to a reasonable
decision on the basis of the evidence’.
3.23
It is expected that the government’s response to the CC report will be published in the
near future. In the meantime, the proposed competition test is not yet government policy.
It is likely that the revised version of PPS6 will take account of the government’s
response. In the meantime it would not be surprising if there was a rush by food retailers
to obtain and ‘bank’ permissions for new stores and store extensions, before the possible
introduction of a competition test and the revised version of PPS6.
The Implications for Islington
3.24
Islington already contains a substantial number of foodstore fascias, albeit most are small
stores. It is therefore somewhat unlikely that if introduced, the competition test would
inhibit market entry by new operators. However, in the densely built-up area of Islington,
there are very few edge-of-centre sites potentially available to accommodate new
foodstores. Thus in Islington, the lack of available sites is likely to prove a greater
constraint on development of new foodstores than the proposed competition test or the
promised new version of PPS6.
21
THE LONDON PLAN
3.25
In the remainder of this Section, we review the London Plan and its principal policies and
retail designations for the town and district centres in Islington.
3.26
The London Plan defines Islington as forming part of the North Sub-Region. Much of its
area has been designated an Area for Regeneration. Angel and Nag’s Head are part of
the Central Activities Zone (CAZ.) The CAZ contains a unique cluster of vitally important
activities. Angel and Nag’s Head are both classed as Major Town Centres for the
borough. The nearest such centres are Camden and Dalston; whilst Wood Green to the
north is classed as a Metropolitan Centre. In addition to, but in policy terms separate
from, these town centres, London contains a Regional Shopping Centre (located to the
north of Islington), Brent Cross, which serves a regional role and is not currently a town
centre. Archway is designated a District Centre. Finsbury Park may also be redesignated /upgraded from a Local Centre to a District Centre.
3.27
Although most retail emphasis is centred on the development and enhancement of
London’s West End as the primary retail centre, many of the sub-region’s ‘Major’ town
centres compete with the retail offer of the West End, and with larger centres outside
London. The London Plan states that boroughs should prioritise locations for retail
investment to revitalise the ‘Major’ centres and improve the overall accessibility to town
centre services, including the diversification of uses where appropriate.
3.28
The Plan states that District Centres have traditionally provided convenience goods and
services for more local communities. Some have developed specialist shopping
functions, often as a result of their lower rents. Developing the capacity of district centres
for convenience shopping is seen as critical to ensure access to goods and services at
the local level, particularly for people without access to cars.
3.29
Neighbourhood and more local centres are seen as providing services for local
communities and are of cumulative strategic significance. A number of recent initiatives,
including the NHS Plan 2000, highlight the importance of access to local and affordable
fresh fruit and vegetables for the improvement of health. The report of the Social
Exclusion Unit's Policy Action Team 13 'Access to Shops in Deprived Neighbourhoods'
emphasised the role of local shopping facilities in fostering social inclusion.
Neighbourhood shopping centres are seen as having a key role to play in addressing the
problems of areas lacking accessible retail and other services.
3.30
The principal policies which potentially affect retail development in Islington are Policy
2A.2, the spatial strategy for development, and Policy 2A.8, the policy for town centres.
Policy 2A.2 emphasises enhancing and diversifying the role of town centres and
consolidating their strengths in places with good public transport access. Policy 2A.8
22
whilst recognising the key economic importance of CAZs, indicates that implementation
of a polycentric strategy for London’s development will be carried out by:
•
sustaining and enhancing community and civic activities and facilities;
•
accommodating economic and housing growth through intensification and selective
•
reducing delivery, servicing and road user conflict;
•
improving the sustainability of London’s development;
•
the development of a competitive retail sector by engaging with developers and
expansion;
operators to find sites which fulfil the requirements of the sequential approach.
3.31
The Plan states that boroughs’ DPD policies should:
•
identify future levels of retail and other needs in the light of integrated local and
strategic assessments and enable the supply of capacity to meet these;
•
develop and enhance the network of International, Metropolitan, Major, District and
specialist centres;
•
identify more local and neighbourhood centres and those with distinct roles in
•
work with retailers and other stakeholders to identify developments that will support
meeting special needs;
delivery of the plan’s objectives, focusing it where practicable on town centres and
where this is not practicable on the edge of town centres.
3.32
The GLA is working with boroughs to identify the capacity of different centres to meet
Londoners’ likely future needs in the light of the broader objectives of this plan. Capacity
will be identified through ‘health checks’, which will be co-ordinated by the GLA. The next
such London Centres ‘Healthcheck’ is now in its early stages, and will use a mix of GLA
data and information from the boroughs. The GLS’s current borough-level assessment of
need will be refined to assess pressures arising from consumer expenditure growth and
other needs which may be placed on individual centres, such as the need for community
facilities. These assessments of capacity and need will be reconciled by working on the
Sub-Regional Development Frameworks and area planning frameworks.
3.33
Town centres will be broadly classified according to their capacity to meet expected
needs in the light of their current and future roles in the town centre network and in
relation to the roles of other centres including those outside London. This will require
inter-regional working. This broad classification of centres should be refined in the light of
local circumstances through Unitary Development Plans. The Sub-Regional
Development Frameworks will provide an opportunity to provide more specific policy
direction for some individual centres, where this is necessary to support local and
strategic objectives (for example, to identify likely future changes in a centre’s functional
23
classification or development of a strategically significant specialist role, so that these can
be taken into account when this plan is reviewed).
3.34
The London North Sub-regional Plan sets out in Policy 5B.1 strategic priorities for North
London, as follows:
•
to take advantage of the sub-region’s exceptional access to the CAZ and to other
growth and development areas to sustain relatively high levels of economic and
population growth, especially in the CAZ and inner parts of the sub-region;
•
to promote the contribution of the sub-region to London’s world city role including
that of the West End as an international shopping and leisure destination;
•
to optimise the development of Opportunity Areas and Areas for Intensification;
•
to enhance the attractiveness of town centres to consumers and manage the
restructuring of town centres in need of change, especially in the outer parts of the
sub-region.
3.35
The general policies for town centres are set out in Policy 2A.8 (detailed on the previous
page) and Chapter 3D. The North sub-region will face the greatest growth in consumer
expenditure, creating demand for 0.3 to 0.45 million sq m more comparison goods floor
space to 2016, according to the forecasts for the GLA by Experian. Though more than
half of this will be focused on the CAZ, especially the West End, much should be
accommodated in the sub-region’s dense network of town centres. However some
centres, especially in outer areas, are likely to be challenged by other changes,
particularly in the office market and may need sensitive restructuring. Strategically
designated town centres in the sub-region should be considered as opportunities for
more intensive development, and boroughs should consider how their roles could be
consolidated or enhanced to meet retail and other consumer needs and to increase
capacity for mixed-use development including housing. It is intended that Brent Cross
regional shopping centre will evolve into an integrated town centre with a mix of uses
including housing. In addition, Wood Green, Enfield, Edgware, Dalston and other centres
have the potential to provide sustainable access to higher quality goods and services.
Implications for Islington
3.36
Much of Islington has been designated an Area for Regeneration by the London Plan. It
states that ‘boroughs should prioritise locations for retail investment to revitalise the
‘Major’ centres.’ Strong retail growth is anticipated in the North sub-region which will
assist the future of Islington’s town centres.
3.37
The North sub-region will face the greatest growth in consumer expenditure, creating
demand for 0.3-0.45m sq ft more comparison goods floor space to 2016, according to
Experian. Though more than half of this will be focused on the CAZ, especially the West
24
End, much should be accommodated in the sub-region’s dense network of town centres.
Islington’s town centres should therefore be considered as opportunities for more
intensive development; and the Council should consider how their roles could be
consolidated or enhanced to meet retail and other consumer needs and to increase
capacity for mixed-use development including housing.
3.38
Modelled increases in floor space need by Experian, in particular Nag’s Head (5-8,000
2
2
m ) and Angel (6-8,000 m ) between 2001 and 2016 support a phased increased in retail
capacity. Our own more up-to-date and locally specific retail capacity forecasts
described in Section 5 below support the growth policy for Islington’s centres. The
principal challenge which the Council will face in giving effect to the policies for town and
district centres set out in the London Plan will therefore be in identifying and assembling
commercially suitable sites for new retail development in the densely built-up area of the
Borough.
25
4
Retailer Demand Update
4.1
In accordance with our instructions, we have updated the assessment in the 2005 Study
or retailer demand for new shops and stores in Islington’s town and district centres, and
elsewhere in the Borough. This section therefore sets out the type and amount of retailer
demand from various retailers wanting to locate in Islington. The data was sourced from
the Focus database, which gives requirements for Islington as a whole. The database
does not break down these requirements into different locations within the Borough.
However, because Angel is the principal centre, it can realistically be assumed that the
most popular location for retailers is in Angel; though Nag’s Head (Holloway Road) would
provide a possible alternative for some. It is unlikely that retailers who are on the Focus
database would have a specific requirement to locate in Archway due to the centre’s
small size and peripheral location.
Foodstores
4.2
Retailer demand for new foodstores was assessed by contacting the main food store
operators, outlining the nature of the study, and seeking details for them as to their
requirements and aspirations for the London Borough of Islington. In total we had
responses from eight foodstore operators. For reasons of commercial confidentiality, we
have not included each operator’s specific requirements within this report. We therefore
provide below an overview of our discussions.
4.3
Of the eight responses, five retailers expressed specific requirements for new stores in
Islington, or an interest in locating in the area. One major retailer expressed interest in
developing a 3,700 sq m - 4,600 sq m store in the Borough, as London and the South
East generally are areas in which this company is current under-representated. An
additional national operator expressed interest in a range of potential sites, from a
smaller convenience outlet, up to a 7,500 sq m store with car parking for 600+ cars. A
third major food retailer was interested in principle in opening foodstores or any size in
the Borough. There was additional interest for smaller stores of 280 to 460 sq m with up
to about 10 car parking spaces.
4.4
In discussions, the retailers did not name any potential sites within Islington as being
particularly appropriate for their requirements. There was some comment that suitable
space in the Borough for a larger store would be hard to find.
4.5
Parking is a major concern for food retailers and is an important issue when considering
Islington as an inner London borough where traffic congestion is already high. Food
retailers’ car parking requirements vary from operator to operator. Overall they do
26
recognise the need to be flexible with parking requirements within areas where traffic
congestion is a problem. However, despite more flexible formats, they still require car
parks and service areas to operate. Whilst internet shopping and home delivery are
offered by most major supermarkets, the demand for which continues to increase, the
impact of such services on car use and car parking remains unclear.
Other Convenience Goods Retailers
4.6
Table 4.1 shows the number of requirements from convenience goods retailers other than
foodstores, some of which are coffee shops or ’sandwich bars’. There are six
convenience retailers’ requirements for Islington, with the amount of space required by
each falling between 27 sq m and 810 sq m gross.
Table 4.1 Islington Retailer’s Requirements – Convenience Goods
Type
Rocket Restaurants
Hotel Chocolat
Pasta Brown
Barracuda Group
Costa Coffee
West Cornwall Pasty Co Ltd
Totals
Minimum
(sq m gross)
90
81
135
450
90
27
873
Maximum
(sq m gross)
360
126
315
810
90
90
1,791
Source: Focus July 2008
Comparison Goods Retailers
4.7
Table 4.2 show the list of retailers’ requirements for prime retail space in Islington as a
whole. There are 39 primary retailer requirements, including clothing, coffee shops and
food outlets. The amount of space required by individual retailers falls within 27 sq m and
13,500 sq m. However the latter is from TJ Hughes, which registers requirements for a
large number of town centres but has a limited expansion programme; and in our opinion
would be unlikely to take space in the Borough at present.
Table 4.2 Islington Retailers’ Requirements – Prime Retail Space
Retailer
Marstons Plc
Zara
Sofa Workshop
Eddie Catz
Poundland
Swarovski
Gerry Webber
T-Mobile (retail)
TJ Hughes Ltd
Minimum Size
(sq m gross)
1,960
900
135
450
315
81
225
72
2,250
Maximum Size
(sq m gross)
2,070
1,458
540
900
720
108
360
90
13,500
27
99p Stores Ltd
Brissi Ltd
Ecco
Country Casuals
Massimo Dutti
Sunglass Hut
Neals Yard Remedies
Rocket Restaurants
Pieces
Habitat UK
Intimissi
Ulla Popken
TK Maxx
Priceless
Hob Salons
Esprit
Hotel Chocolat
Phones 4 U
As Nature Intended
British Heart Foundation
Barracuda Group
Pasta Brown
Scribbler
And So To Bed
Costa Coffee
Scope
Help the Aged
Lakeland Ltd
Premier Inn
West Cornwall Pasty Co Ltd
Quicksilver
Sen
Steamer Trading Ltd
Claire’s Accessories
Traid
Totals
270
108
50
72
270
45
72
90
45
900
72
90
1,350
135
1,260
545
81
54
225
67
450
135
n/a
270
90
67
72
270
2,700
27
180
68
81
77
135
16,860
540
162
99
108
450
73
190
360
90
1,800
135
180
3,600
180
135
864
126
135
540
540
810
315
n/a
450
90
450
90
450
3,600
90
225
135
360
90
225
36,704
4.8
Table 4.3 shows the requirements for secondary retail space by retailers who would like
to locate to the area.
Table 4.3 Islington Retailers Requirements – Secondary Retail Space
Retailer
Safestore Ltd
BoConcept Urban Design
Uniqlo
Futon Company
Totals
Minimum Size
(sq m gross)
1,350
450
900
81
2,781
Maximum Size
(sq m gross)
4,500
450
2,700
135
7,785
28
4.9
Table 4.4 summarises by retailer type, the requirements from comparison goods retailers
who would like to locate in the area.
Table 4.4 Islington Retailer’s Requirements – Comparison Goods
Type
Clothes/Footwear
Electrical
Furniture
Household
Other
No. of Requirements
15
2
4
6
9
Source: Focus 2008
4.10
The largest number of requirements for space comes from clothing and footwear
retailers. There is also healthy requirement for space from household goods retailers,
including shops such as Lakeland Ltd, and furniture retailers such as Habitat. From the
list of requirements, a wide range of multiple retailers as well as charity shops, are
showing an interest in locating in Islington. Overall, Table 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 show a
healthy demand from retailers for space within Islington – principally for locations in
Angel, but increasingly likely to be spreading northwards along Upper Street beyond the
core of the town centre.
4.11
Table 4.5 shows the requirements from A3/A4/A5 operators for space in Islington.
Table 4.5 Requirements from A3/A4/A5 operators
Name
Use Class
A3
A3
Minimum
(sq m gross)
306
193
Maximum
(sq m gross)
324
222
Locale
Block House
The Speight's Ale
House
Tiffin Bites
Amuse Bouche
Novus leisure Ltd
The Livery
Lupa
Totals
A3
270
630
A3
A4
A4
A4
A5
180
180
540
495
90
2,254
270
450
900
585
135
3,516
Source: Focus 2008
4.12
Table 6.5 illustrates a fairly healthy level of demand from A3/A4/A5 operators, despite the
number of cafes and restaurants already in Angel and Upper Street. The demand is from
a range of types of sandwich shops, coffee shops, takeaways and restaurants. The
amount of space required totals between 2,254 sq m and 3,516 sq m gross. This does
not include independent operators, which do not usually register their requirements with
Focus.
29
Conclusions on Retailer Demand
4.13
A number of conclusions can be drawn from this overview of retailer’s requirements within
Islington. Five foodstore operators would be interested in expanding their retail offer
within the Borough. Requirements from food retailers include a wide range of store sizes,
from local convenience stores to superstores. There are retailer requirements for
premises across all sectors of comparison goods. Clothing and footwear retailers have
the highest number of non-food requirements and require the most floorspace, although
there are also significant space requirements from major furniture retailers. Both the level
of demand for space and the diversity of businesses wanting to locate in Islington are
healthy. However, the recent sharp economic downturn as a result of the ‘credit crunch’
may well inhibit the take up of shops and stores in the Borough, even from retailers which
have registered a requirement.
4.14
Although we have been unable to identify from Focus which town centre would be the
preferred location for space, we can realistically assume that the majority of retailers
would favour the existing centres of Angel and Nag’s Head, particularly the former, as
their highest priority. A potential alternative option for space outside the Borough, should
retailers be unable to satisfy their requirements within Islington, could be the Kings Cross
development currently underway, which is just on the edge of the Borough.
4.15
The key to attracting retailers to the Borough’s principal centres will be the creation of
attractive new developments capable of accommodating them, which will be particularly
difficult in Angel and Nag’s Head. The 2005 Study advised that a substantial opportunity
existed in Archway, and we believe that this opportunity should continue to be pursued.
However, being only a District Centre and lacking ‘critical mass’ in retailing terms, we
think it somewhat unlikely that Archway will be able to attract many of the retailers and
service businesses seeking space in the Borough, unless a development was ‘anchored’
by a large food store.
30
5
Quantitative Need for New Retail Development
5.1
In this section, we examine the current retail performance of Angel and Nag’s Head Town
Centres, Archway District Centre, and the non-central main food stores in the Borough.
We have also assessed the quantitative expenditure capacity available to support further
convenience and comparison goods retail floorspace in these locations. This Study
Update therefore includes the preparation of up-to-date forecasts of the capacity for
additional retail floorspace in the Borough, which will be supportable by increases in the
population and expenditure of catchment area residents and visitors. The 2005 Study
included retail capacity forecasts to 2016. In this Update Study we have rolled the
forecasting horizon forward to 2026. In this section therefore, we set out our forecasts of
the additional retail floorspace which will be supportable by growth in available
expenditure at five yearly intervals up to 2026.
THE DTZ RECAP MODEL
5.2
To prepare the new retail capacity forecasts for the Borough, we have used an updated
version of the same RECAP Model as was used by Donaldsons for the 2005 Study. The
RECAP Model has been adopted by DTZ as its new standard for such forecasting work.
The Model uses the results of a Household Interview Survey to identify the actual
shopping patterns in the catchment area. By this means, it is possible to model
realistically existing flows of catchment area expenditure to town centres, foodstores and
retail warehouses; as the basis for predicting the existing and future capacity for further
retail development. It is therefore an empirical model not a theoretical model. The Model
is described in detail in the 2005 Study.
5.3
In summary, the RECAP Model uses the results of the Household Interview Survey as its
objective measured ‘baseline’, using a conventional and widely accepted step by step
approach, to complete the following tasks:•
Calculate the total amount of convenience and comparison goods expenditure
3
which is available within the 11 zones comprising the catchment area (as shown on
the map in Appendix 1);
3
Convenience goods are defined as food, alcoholic drink, tobacco products, newspapers and periodicals, non-durable
household goods.
Comparison goods are defined as clothing and footwear; household textiles and soft furnishings; furniture and floor coverings;
household appliances; audio visual equipment; hardware, DIY goods, decorating supplies; chemist and medical goods,
cosmetics and beauty products; books, jewellery, watches, china, glassware and kitchen utensils, recreational, personal and
luxury goods.
31
•
Allocate the available expenditure to Angel and Nag’s Head Town Centres and
Archway District Centre, and to the principal non-central foodstores, based on the
results of the Household Interview Survey of shopping patterns undertaken in 2005
for the 2005 Study; so as to obtain estimates of current sales and forecast future
sales in each;
•
Compare the estimated sales in the town and district centres, and non-town centre
main foodstores, with existing floorspace (and in the case of main foodstores, with
sales based on ‘benchmark’ levels of estimated company average performance);
so as to assess the current trading performance of each shopping destination, and
the capacity to support further growth in floorspace.
5.4
The RECAP Model is a very useful tool for retail planning, which avoids the potential
inaccuracies arising from assumptions about existing trade draw patterns and market
shares which are often inherent in other forecasting methods. It is based on forecasting
methods which have been used and refined in a large number of retail studies on behalf
of public sector clients. In particular, forecasts made using the method on which the
RECAP Model is based have been accepted by Planning Inspectors and the Secretary of
State at many Public Inquiries in the UK. The RECAP Model was independently
validated in 2005 by the University of Plymouth as an appropriate forecasting method.
The Model has been used to prepare the expenditure and retail capacity forecasts set out
in this report.
5.5
It is important to remember that the RECAP Model (like any other forecasting model of
this type) is an exploratory tool, rather than a prescriptive mechanism. Thus, for
example, in preparing forecasts for future shop floorspace capacity, the Model is usually
run iteratively to explore the changes in the forecasting variables, such as in the pattern
of attraction of expenditure (the market shares) or in sales densities, which would be
necessary to support different levels of new development. Use of the Model in this way
indicates how well existing retailing is performing, illuminates sensitivities in variables,
and assists in making judgements about the realism of any given growth or impact
scenario.
5.6
When using the RECAP Model capacity forecasts as a guide to future planning policy, it
is also important to remember that the further ahead the forecasting date, the less
certain the forecast. Thus the forecasts for 2016 are more reliable than those for 2021
and 2026. In particular for these later dates, we suggest that forecasts such as these
should be treated with some caution, since they only indicate the broad order of
magnitude of retail capacity at those dates, if all of the forecast trends occur. For this
reason we recommend that the forecasts should be reviewed and revised by not later
than about 2013 in the light of events, based on a new Household Interview Survey of
32
shopping patterns, so as to take account of the effects of any development which has
occurred in the meantime. Furthermore, the long term growth in the use of internet
shopping is as yet unknown (although it has to a substantial degree been taken into
account in this report), and reinforces the need to revise the forecasts of retail floorspace
capacity well in advance of 2026.
5.7
The detailed RECAP Model tables are set out in Appendix 2, and this section should be
read in conjunction with that Appendix. The forecasts in this Study Update are subject to
the same caveats regarding the limitations of retail capacity forecasting in Inner London
set out in paragraphs 7.7 and 7.8 of the 2005 Study.
PRINCIPAL DATA INPUTS
Household Interview Survey
5.8
The For this update, we have again used the 11 zone catchment area used for the
Household Interview Survey, April 2005, and for the forecasts in the 2005 Study. This
catchment area and the 11 zones comprising it are shown on the map in Appendix 1.
Catchment Population
5.9
The starting point for the population forecasts was an up-to-date report, dated July 2008,
from MapInfo on the current and projected future population of each catchment area
zone. These forecasts cover the period up to 2016; and we have extrapolated them to
2026. The catchment zones are based on groups of postcode sectors, which do not
coincide with Ward and Borough boundaries. The latest population forecasts for the
Borough by the GLA, dated February 2007, are Ward based. It is therefore not possible
to achieve an exact match between the MapInfo forecasts and those of the GLA.
However, we have undertaken an approximate check by apportioning zone populations;
which has shown that the MapInfo forecasts are very close to those of the GLA for the
Borough as a whole. We are therefore satisfied that the population forecasts set out in
RECAP Model Table 1 in Appendix 2 are broadly compatible with those used for other
aspects of the Islington LDF, such as housing development policies.
Forecasting Dates
5.10
We have prepared base year estimates of retail sales as at 2008, on the basis that the
shopping patterns indicated by the Household Interview Survey results are unchanged
since then. Because there has been little new retail development in the Borough or
surrounding centres since 2005, we consider that this is realistic. Our forecasts have
been prepared for the years 2011, 2016, 2021 and 2026. As indicated above, the longer
33
ahead of these forecasts i.e. 2021 and 2026 should be treated as a broad guide only, and
reviewed and updated well before those dates.
Price Basis
5.11
All monetary values in this report are in constant 2005 prices, unless otherwise indicated.
Per Capita Expenditure
5.12
Information on average per capita expenditure in the catchment area in 2005 on
convenience and comparison goods, and the eight sub-categories of the latter, was
provided by the MapInfo report for the catchment area, and was the most up-to-date
available. Before deducting expenditure on special forms of trading, these amount to
£2,049.00 for convenience goods and £3,775.00 for comparison goods. These base
figures are set out in RECAP Model Table 2 in Appendix 2.
5.13
We then deducted expenditure on Special Forms of Trading (SFT). This is principally
mail order, vending machines, party plan retailing and on-line shopping via the internet
and interactive TV; and is mainly expenditure not made in retail shops, so needs to be
removed from the Model before forecasting the capacity for additional shop floorspace.
RECAP Model Table 2 shows the growing deductions which we have made, based on
information for the UK published by Verdict on growth in internet shopping and forecast
4
trends . Table 2.1 below shows Verdict’s estimates for the proportion of all retail sales in
the UK in 2007 accounted for by internet shopping, and its trend-based forecasts for
2012. This shows the proportion of sales taking place via the internet more than doubling
over the 5 years to 2012. For some categories of comparison goods, the internet
proportion is already substantial and is expected to become much more so. Based on
these, we have judged the deductions for SFT shown in RECAP Model Table 2. Our
deductions:
•
assume a flattening of the growth trend after 2012;
•
allow for the fact that some internet purchases of food are sourced and delivered
from foodstores rather than separate warehouses (and should therefore be included
in the Model);
•
allow for internet shopping to supplant mail order retailing to some degree, but
include other SFT apart from the internet.
4
‘UK e-Retail 2008’, Verdict Research Limited, May 2008
34
Table 2.1: UK Internet Shopping Estimates and Forecasts
Goods Type
Food & grocery
Comparison goods:
Music & video
Electrical goods
Books
Homewares
DIY & gardening goods
Clothing & footwear
Furniture & floorcoverings
Health & beauty
Other comparison goods
All Comparison Goods
Online sales as proportion of all UK retail sales (%)
2007
2012
3.3
10.0
30.3
15.1
14.3
7.7
3.8
4.2
3.8
2.2
3.7
6.5
60.8
34.5
21.7
21.2
8.7
12.7
9.9
4.8
11.3
16.1
Source: ‘UK e-Retail 2008’, Verdict Research Limited, May 2008
5.14
RECAP Model Table 2 also indicates the breakdown of per capita comparison goods
expenditure into the eight different categories of comparison goods expenditure covered
by Questions 6 to 13 in the Household Interview Survey; and the different deductions for
each category which we have made to account for SFT, again based on the information
in Table 2.1 published by Verdict.
5.15
The base figures for the year 2005 in RECAP Model Table 2 have been increased to
allow for actual and expected growth over the forecasting period to 2026. For
convenience goods, we have applied the actual UK growth 2005 to 2006 indicated in
MapInfo Brief 07/02 (1.00%), followed by the MapInfo ‘best fit’ trend rate of 1.00% per
annum, for the period 2006 to 2026. For comparison goods, we have applied the actual
UK growth 2005 to 2006 of 5.48%, followed by the ultra-long term trend rate of 3.90% per
annum for the period 2006 to 2026. Reflecting the recent downturn in the rate of growth
of comparison goods expenditure, this is somewhat below the econometric forecast of
4.9% per annum for the period 2005 to 2017 by Oxford Economics set out in MapInfo
Brief 07/02 (prepared before the recent ‘credit crunch’ and warnings by the Bank of
England in May 2008 of UK national economic slowdown); and below the long term trend
rate, also 4.9% per annum. It is well below the medium trend rate of growth of 5.6% per
annum.
5.16
We consider that the ultra-long term trend based growth rate of 3.9% per annum
realistically takes account of the current downturn in growth of retail expenditure, and the
medium term economic outlook. It is significantly below the historically very high rates of
growth of the last few years in the UK, which are exceptional in relation to the trend. It
35
would be unrealistic to assume that the recent high level of growth will continue annually
throughout the 18 year forecasting period. The ultra-long term trend spans the period
1964 to 2006, thus covering several economic cycles.
5.17
It should also be noted that we have applied the ultra-long term trend rate of growth in
comparison goods expenditure to the actual 2006 expenditure, which was significantly
above the ultra-long term trend at that date. Thus we have implicitly allowed for above
ultra-long term trend growth in per capita expenditure, despite applying the ultra-long
term trend rate of growth.
5.18
The combined effect of the forecast growth in population and in per capita expenditure is
that we expect total expenditure by catchment area residents on convenience goods (set
out in Table 3 in Appendix 2) to increase by about £182.6 m (26.2%) over the period
2008 to 2026; and total catchment area expenditure on comparison goods to increase by
about £1,398.1m (101.6%) over the same period. This compares with expected growth
in total catchment area population of approximately 10.1% over the period. Thus just
over one third of the growth in catchment area expenditure on convenience goods is due
to expected growth in population; but only a small proportion of the growth in catchment
area expenditure on comparison goods (about one tenth) is accounted for by forecast
growth in population. This means that the comparison goods floorspace capacity
forecasts in particular are very insensitive to the population growth assumptions and
much more sensitive to the assumptions about growth in per capita expenditure and
growth in SFT, particularly in the later part of the forecasting period. Thus if the adopted
LDF eventually results in marginally different planned population increases from those
already allowed for in RECAP Model Table 1, there will be very little practical effect on
the retail capacity forecasts, particularly for comparison goods.
Shopping Patterns in the Catchment Area
5.19
As indicated above, for this Update Study we have relied upon the results of the
Household Interview Survey of shopping patterns undertaken in April 2005 for the 2005
Study. The detailed tables of results are included in Appendix 8 of the 2005 Study. We
have used the results as a key input to our RECAP Forecasting Model in Appendix 2.
Thus for Angel Town Centre for example, in Table 5 we have combined the results from
Question 2 about main food shopping with those from Question 5 about top up food and
convenience goods shopping, to provide a weighted average market share of total
convenience goods expenditure in each zone which is attracted to main foodstores and
other convenience goods shops in Angel Town Centre. These weighted averages are
then rounded to the nearest integer and used in Table 7 to indicate the pattern of
attraction of convenience goods expenditure to shops and stores in Angel Town Centre.
36
A similar approach has been used for Nag’s Head and Archway and for the non-central
foodstores in Appendix 2.
5.20
In the case of comparison goods, for Angel Town Centre, we have applied the results of
the Household Interview Survey for each of the eight categories of comparison goods,
weighting the market shares for each according to per capita expenditure on each
category (as indicated by the MapInfo report); to provide a weighted average market
share of all comparison goods expenditure which is attracted from each zone by shops
and stores in the town centre. The market shares for each individual goods category and
the weighted averages are set out in Table 6; the final column (weighted average), of
which is rounded to the nearest integer, and applied in Table 7 to indicate the market
shares of all comparison goods expenditure attracted from each zone by shops in Angel
Town Centre. Similar tables apply to Nag’s Head and Archway. As in the 2005 Study,
we did not model non-central comparison goods shopping in the Borough, because of its
highly dispersed nature and the lack of retail warehouses.
5.21
The RECAP Model includes provision for a market shares correction factor, in
circumstances where use of Household Interview Survey results without correction would
result in unrealistic base year sales estimates, compared with independently derived
assessments. This can sometimes be the case, for example to correct anomalies which
occur if some respondents misinterpret the Household Interview Survey questions, or
there is bias in the survey results. As in the 2005 Study (and for the same reasons), we
have again applied market shares correction factors, to arrive at a more realistic
distribution of expenditure between the different shopping destinations in the Borough
and more realistic sales densities. However, we have updated the correction factors from
those in the 2005 Study, to take account of the changes in catchment area expenditure in
the meantime. The correction factors are indicated in RECAP Model Tables 7, 15, 23
and 30 in Appendix 2.
Visitor Expenditure
5.22
As in the 2005 Study, we have allowed for some expenditure in Angel Town Centre by
visitors who live outside the catchment area covered by the Household Interview Survey.
We have again allowed for an additional 5% of residents’ expenditure on comparison
goods to account for expenditure by such visitors to the town centre.
Existing Shop Floorspace
5.23
For main food stores in the town and district centres and the non-town centre main food
stores, we have used the most up-to-date floorspace data supplied by the Institute of
Grocery Distribution (IGD). For the smaller stores, we have used the same floorspace
figures as were supplied by the Council for the 2005 Study. Details of these shops and
37
stores are set out in Tables 10 (Angel) 18 (Nag’s Head), 26 (Archway) and 32 (noncentral shopping).
5.24
For comparison goods floorspace in Angel Town Centre, we have used the most up-todate data available from Experian Goad. To this we have added the net comparison
good sales area in the relevant main food stores. For Nag’s Head and Archway centres,
we have used the same floorspace figures as in the 2005 Study, because there has been
little change in those centres.
Sales Densities in Main Food Stores
5.25
For the existing main food stores in the town and district centres and the non-central main
foodstores we have applied estimated company average space allocations and
convenience goods sales densities based on information for UK food retailers published
by Verdict. These are set out in Tables 10 (Angel) 18 (Nag’s Head), 26 (Archway) and
32 (non-central shopping).
Retail Destinations
5.26
We have distinguished between the two town centres, Archway district centre, and the
non-central principal foodstores (for convenience goods shopping in the case of the
latter). This is both for forecasting convenience, and because it provides a more reliable
set of forecasts than if town centre and non-central shopping was lumped together. The
Household Interview Survey provides detailed information on shopping patterns,
distinguishing between use of the town and district centres and of the non-central stores.
This enables us to distinguish between the retail performance of the centres and that of
the non-central shopping. However, as discussed below, we consider that new retail
development should be located in accordance with the sequential approach wherever
possible, where it can strengthen existing centres, and in retail formats appropriate to its
location. Thus much of the forecast need should be accommodated in or on the edge of
the town and district centres as far as possible, even though the capacity for some of it is
calculated as non-central shopping for forecasting convenience and reliability.
Development Scenarios Assessed
5.27
We have again assessed two scenarios for development, as follows:
•
Scenario 1 – the ‘baseline’ scenario, which assumes that there will be no change in
the market shares of expenditure attracted from the catchment area through the
period to 2026.
38
•
Scenario 2 – proposed substantial redevelopment at Kings Cross, as part of the
major regeneration there. In this scenario, we adjust the future patterns of market
shares of comparison goods expenditure attracted to Angel Town Centre, to test the
implications of this new retail development. We have not modelled its impact on
Nag’s Head and Archway, because they are too far away and of a different nature to
be affected by the new retailing at Kings Cross.
Format of the RECAP Model Tables
5.28
The detailed RECAP Model Tables set out in Appendix 2 follow the same format as in the
2005 Study. Thus Table 1 sets out the population forecast for each of the 11 catchment
zones. Table 2 indicates per capita expenditure, growth in that expenditure, and growth
in SFT. Table 3 is total catchment area expenditure by zone for convenience and
comparison goods over the period 2008 to 2026. Table 4 indicates total catchment area
expenditure by zone in 2008 in each of the 8 categories of comparison goods.
5.29
In Scenario 1, for Angel Town Centre, Tables 5 and 6 set out the pattern of market
shares of catchment area convenience and comparison goods expenditure respectively,
and the weighted averages of each, which are attracted from the catchment area to that
destination. The market shares in Table 7 are based on the weighted averages set out in
Tables 5 for convenience goods, and 6 for comparison goods. Table 8 shows the
expenditure attracted on each of the 8 comparison goods categories, together with the
resulting overall market shares of such expenditure currently attracted by the town
centre. It is the product of Table 4 (catchment area expenditure by comparison goods
product group) and Table 7 (detailed market shares by comparison goods product
group). Table 9 is the product of Table 3 (catchment area expenditure) and Table 7. It
indicates the convenience and comparison goods expenditure attracted from each
catchment zone by Angel Town Centre at each date. Table 10 sets out the sales
potential of the existing main food stores at estimated company average levels; whilst
Table 11 indicates the sales potential of any committed new developments in the town
centre (which in this case are none).
5.30
Table 12 compares the expenditure attracted by Angel Town Centre and hence sales,
with existing shop floorspace. The top line of Table 12 (spending by catchment area
residents) is taken from the bottom line of Table 9. An uplift for visitor expenditure is then
added in, as described above. As appropriate, an allowance (of 1.5% pa for comparison
goods) is made for the average sales density of the existing shops to increase in real
terms, following the trend towards higher town centre sales densities in most town
centres, and to help ensure the long term prosperity of the existing town centre.
5.31
A similar arrangement of tables for Scenario 1 applies to each of the other shopping
destinations modelled.
39
5.32
Table 38 sets out the combined market shares of catchment area expenditure attracted
by the town and district centres and the non-central shopping, for each of the 8
categories of comparison goods shopping. Tables 39 to 41 show the combined market
shares for convenience and comparison goods shopping in Scenario 1 (Tables 39 and
40, and Scenario 2 (Table 41).
The RECAP Model Forecasts
5.33
In the remainder of this section, we set out our updated retail capacity forecasts for the
Borough. The forecasts are summarised in Table 5.2. We also comment on the
implications for future development strategy. In setting out our forecasts, we distinguish
between convenience goods and comparison goods.
Table 5.2: Summary of Retail Capacity Forecasts
RECAP
2011
2016
2021
2026
Model Table
(sq m net)
(sq m net)
(sq m net)
(sq m net)
(Appendix 2)
Angel Town Centre
9,300
10,000
11,000
12,000
12
Nag’s Head Town Centre
6,650
7,300
8,250
9,200
20
Archway District Centre
2,650
2,800
3,050
3,300
28
Islington Non-Central
4,400
4,850
5,500
6,150
34
Angel Town Centre
1,500
5,500
10,750
16,500
12
1,100
3,850
7,450
11,450
20
300
950
1,900
2,900
28
9,300
10,000
11,000
12,000
37
-250
1,050
5,600
10,650
37
Scenario/Goods/Location
Scenario 1
Convenience Goods
Comparison Goods
Scenario 2
Convenience Goods
Angel Town Centre
Comparison Goods
Angel Town Centre
Source:
RECAP Model Tables in Appendix 2 as indicated, rounded to the nearest 50 sq m net.
Notes:
The forecasts in Table 5.2 are cumulative, i.e. the forecasts for each date include the forecasts for the previous
dates and are not additional to those earlier forecasts. The forecasts are for further floorspace in addition to any
committed developments.
40
Convenience Goods
5.34
It is important to note that the convenience goods retail capacity forecasts for the town
centre and non-central locations set out in Table 5.2 are theoretical maxima. This is
because they are based on the assumption that sales densities in the existing main
foodstores will all fall to currently estimated company average levels in future years. This
is a conventional assumption in retail studies of this type. However, an average is only
an average; and the more attractive stores will continue to trade at levels above the
company average, whilst others may trade successfully below the average. In addition,
company average sales densities may well rise as food retailers become more efficient.
It would therefore not be realistic to plan on the basis that such an across the board
reduction in sales densities should or would occur.
5.35
It is also important to note that the capacity for non-central floorspace in the Borough was
forecast separately from that for the town and district centres merely for forecasting
convenience and reliability. In deciding how these forecast needs should be
accommodated therefore, the sequential approach which gives priority to town centre and
edge-of-centre sites over out-of-centre locations, should be applied.
5.36
The convenience goods forecasts are all on the basis that the additional floorspace would
be provided in the form of modern superstore floorspace, trading at the generic level for
such floorspace of £12,000 per sq m. Some operators trade at above this figure and
some below, so the format of the store(s) and identity of the operator(s) would alter the
forecast capacity. In the event that the additional floorspace was provided in the form of
deep discount supermarkets, for example, the capacity would be more than double,
because of the lower sales densities achieved by such retailers (in the UK, the average of
the estimated convenience goods company average sales densities for Aldi, Lidl and
Netto was £5,432 in 2006).
Angel Town Centre
5.37
Scenarios 1 and 2 for Angel Town Centre for convenience goods shopping. Scenario 1,
RECAP Model Table 12 shows that in 2008, we estimate that the main foodstores and
other conveniences goods shops in Angel Town Centre were achieving combined sales
of about £160.4m; at a combined average sales density of £24,767 per sq m net. Table
10 shows that based on the company average sales densities, the combined sales
density of these stores in 2008 would be £8,857 per sq m net. Thus, these stores as a
group are estimated to be trading at far above that ‘benchmark’ level.
5.38
In Table 12, we have allowed for sales in the existing convenience goods shops as a
group, to fall to the level based on the ‘benchmark’ level. On this basis, summary Table
41
5.2 above shows that there will be capacity for about 9,300 sq m net of additional
convenience goods floorspace in 2011 in Angel Town Centre. This should rise to about
12,000 sq m net in 2026, if forecast trends occur.
5.39
other conveniences goods shops in Nag’s Head Town Centre were achieving combined
sales of about £140.8m; at a combined average sales density of £17,370 per sq m net.
Table 18 shows that based on the company average sales densities, the combined sales
density of these stores in 2008 would be £8,535 per sq m net. Thus as with Angel Town
Centre, these stores in Nag’s Head as a group are estimated to be trading at well above
that ‘benchmark’ level.
5.40
In Table 20, we have again allowed for sales in the existing convenience goods shops as
a group, to fall to the level based on the ‘benchmark’ level. On this basis, summary Table
convenience goods floorspace in 2011 in Nag’s head Town Centre. This should rise to
about 9,200 sq m net in 2026, if forecast trends occur.
5.41
other conveniences goods shops in Archway were achieving combined sales of about
£40.0m; at a combined average sales density of £21,432 per sq m net. Table 26 shows
that based on the company average sales densities, the combined sales density of these
stores in 2008 would be £5,494 per sq m net. Thus as with the two town centres, these
stores in Nag’s Head as a group are estimated to be trading at well above that
‘benchmark’ level.
5.42
In Table 28, we have again allowed for sales in the existing convenience goods shops as
a group, to fall to the level based on the ‘benchmark’ level. On this basis, summary Table
convenience goods floorspace in 2011 at Archway. This should rise to about 3,300 sq m
net by 2026, if forecast trends occur.
Non-Central Stores
5.43
RECAP Model Table 34 shows that in 2008, the main non-central foodstores in the
Borough were estimated to be achieving combined sales of about £102.0m; at a
combined average sales density of £15,372 per sq m net. Again this is well above the
42
‘benchmark’ level of £8,250 per sq m net, indicated in Table 32. Thus, these stores as a
group are also estimated to be trading extremely well.
5.44
In Table 34, we have allowed for sales in the existing convenience goods shops as a
group, to fall to the ‘benchmark’ level. On this basis, summary Table 5.2 above shows
that there will be capacity for about 4,400 sq m net additional convenience goods
floorspace by 2011, rising to about 6,150 sq m net by 2026, if forecast trends occur.
The Borough as a whole
5.45
Taking the Borough as a whole, the convenience goods forecasts in Table 5.2 show that
there is very substantial expenditure-based capacity to support additional convenience
goods floorspace in the Borough at the present time. The existing food stores are heavily
overtrading, and substantial leakage of expenditure to foodstores outside the Borough is
also occurring. Capacity will grow further throughout the forecasting period, if forecast
trends occur. Overall, there is already capacity for several additional food superstores in
the Borough.
Comparison Goods
Angel Town Centre
5.46
In Appendix 2, Scenario 1, Table 12 shows that we estimate Angel Town Centre to be
achieving an average sales density for comparison goods in 2008 of about £6,766 per sq
m net. Based on our retail studies of a large number of other town centres, we consider
that this is a high sales density for a centre the size and nature of Angel. Table 5.2
shows that there will be capacity for additional comparison goods floorspace of about
1,500 sq m net in 2011, rising to 16,500 sq m net by 2026, if forecast trends occur.
These capacity forecasts are on the basis that sales in the existing town centre
floorspace will grow at 1.5% per annum (in real terms) throughout the forecasting period.
This allocates almost 40% of the growth in expenditure to existing floorspace and just
over 60% to new floorspace. In view of the high current sales density, we consider that
this would be realistic.
5.47
In Scenario 2, we have allowed for the planned new retail floorspace in the Kings Cross
regeneration scheme to attract some market share and hence expenditure from Angel
Town Centre. As a result, the capacity forecasts for Angel in Scenario 2 are somewhat
lower than in Scenario 1. Thus in Scenario 2, there is no forecast capacity for new
floorspace in Angel in 2011, and only about 1,050 sq m net in 2016. Thereafter, capacity
will rise to about 10,650 sq m net by 2026, if forecast trends occur.
43
5.48
For Nag’s Head, RECAP Model Table 20 shows that we estimate an average sales
density for comparison goods in 2008 of about £4,865 per sq m net. With Nag’s Head
functioning more as a centre for day-to-day shopping than Angel, we consider that this is
a realistic sales density. From this base year position, Table 5.2 shows that there will be
capacity for additional comparison goods floorspace of about 1,100 sq m net in 2011,
rising to about 11,450 sq m net by 2026, if forecast trends occur. These capacity
forecasts are again on the basis that sales in the existing town centre floorspace will grow
at 1.5% per annum (in real terms) throughout the forecasting period.
5.49
Archway is a small District Centre, and so the comparison goods capacity forecasts are
less reliable than those for the two town centres. This is because Household Interview
Surveys represent use of small centres less reliably than use of larger. The retail
capacity forecasts for Archway are therefore necessarily only a broad guide to future
retail floorspace needs. Subject to this caveat, Table 5.2 shows that there should be
sufficient expenditure to support about 300 sq m net additional comparison goods
floorspace in 2011, rising to about 2,900 sq m net by 2025, if forecast trends occur.
However, if larger scale development is undertaken, it would be likely to create its own
market share to a substantial degree, and therefore become justified in terms of
expenditure support from the catchment area.
The Borough as a Whole
5.50
Overall, there will be sufficient growth in expenditure in the catchment area to support
fairly substantial additional comparison goods floorspace, even if the 2005 market shares
of expenditure attracted from the catchment area do not increase. Most of this capacity
will be focused on the two town centres, particularly Angel. However, in view of the very
limited availability of suitable sites for new retail development in these town centres, we
consider it unlikely that it will be possible to deliver the scale of new retail floorspace
indicated by the retail capacity forecasts. Site availability will therefore be likely to be a
greater constraint on retail growth than availability of retail expenditure to support it, even
under Scenario 2 in Angel Town Centre.
USE AND REVIEW OF THE FORECASTS
5.51
Finally, and in accordance with our usual practice, we must emphasise that all
expenditure based forecasts of future shop floorspace capacity are based on imperfect
data and contain a number of assumptions. Our forecasts set out in this report are based
on the most up-to-date and reliable information currently available to us. However, they
44
are intended as an indication of the likely order of magnitude of future shop floorspace
capacity (if forecast trends are realised) rather than as growth targets or rigid limits to
future growth. The forecasts should be periodically revised as necessary in the light of
actual population and expenditure growth, and as development proceeds and its effects
become measurable.
45
6
Emerging Policy Issues
6.1
In this Section, we review the boundaries of Angel and Nag’s Head town centres
designated in the adopted UDP, and advise on potential changes. We consider the
position of Finsbury Park in the retail hierarchy and whether or not it should be
designated as a District Centre in the LDF. Finally, we consider the adopted UDP
policies for local centres in the Borough and advise on potential changes.
TOWN CENTRE BOUNDARIES
6.2
The boundaries of the two town centres are set out in the UDP, which was adopted in
2002. The issues are therefore whether or not these boundaries are still appropriate for
inclusion in the LDF; and if not, how the new boundaries should be defined. In principle,
we consider that a town centre boundary should be a realistic expression of the area
which includes most of the main town centre uses, in particular retailing. The Experian
Goad plan for a town centre is therefore usually a realistic indicator of its extent, because
it normally includes all the main retail areas and the shops and service businesses
occupying shop units. However, in order to provide planning policy support for identified
new town centre uses in accordance with the sequential approach of PPS6, it should also
include all potential development sites which could realistically be considered to be town
centre sites.
Angel Town Centre
6.3
The UDP town centre boundary for Angel covers all the retail areas to the west (south of
Tolpuddle Street); to the south, and to the east (south of St Peters Street). However, the
Experian Goad Plan extends much further to the north than the UDP town centre
boundary. Along Upper Street (west side), the Goad plan extends all the way to the Nat
West Bank at 218 Upper Street. On Upper Street (east side) it extends to Canonbury
Lane and includes 15 to 25 Canonbury Lane and properties on Cross Street to just east
of Shillingford Street. Along Essex Road, it extends as far as number 65 (west side) and
Packington Street (east side). The UDP town centre boundary extends only to just north
of Islington Green, and does not include any of the properties on Essex Road. The
northern part of the UDP boundary is the same as the boundary of the area designated
as ‘Central London’. This means that the whole of the area currently defined as Angel
Town Centre is inside the designated Central London area. However, in relation to
retailing and service business, it does not properly reflect reality on the ground.
6.4
If keeping the whole of the designated town centre inside Central London is of paramount
importance, the northern boundary of the town centre will have to remain as it is.
46
However, to extend it to the north would provide a better indication of the true scale of the
town centre. Most of the shops and service businesses shown on the Goad plan
extending northwards beyond the town centre boundary are genuine town centre uses
(including the Town Hall). They include a wide range of retail and service uses, of which
some are multiple operators, for example Fired Earth, Bang & Olufson, Farrow & Ball,
Jigsaw, Carluccio’s restaurants, Strada restaurants, various wine merchants, and
Sainsbury’s Local supermarket.
6.5
Retail and service uses have grown up and consolidated along Upper Street because of
the lack of suitable properties in the core of the town centre to the south. If this was
recognised, it would significantly increase the status of the town centre. We therefore
consider that the town centre boundary should be substantially extended to the north. A
natural break in the retail frontages occurs at Waterloo terrace on the west side of Upper
Street, and north of number 279 Upper Street on the east side. We therefore consider
that these points should mark the northern boundary on Upper Street. This would bring
within the town centre the potential development site currently occupied by Royal Mail. In
view of the lack of development sites for town centre uses highlighted in the 2005 Study
(a situation which has not changed subsequently), we consider that it would be desirable
to bring within the town centre any such which may potentially become available within
the LDF period.
6.6
Along Essex Road, we consider that the town centre boundary should extend as far as
the shops and service businesses included on the Experian Goad Plan. The cut-off point
would therefore be beyond number 65 Essex Road on the west side and at Packington
Street on the east side. On this suggested basis, Angel would emerge as the substantial
town centre which it really is, rather than as a fairly modest scale of centre in the overall
London context. The direction of retail growth has historically between northwards, and
our proposed extension of the town centre boundary would reflect that position.
6.7
The UDP town centre boundary for Nag’s Head again encloses a smaller area than the
Experian Goad Plan. The latter extends northwards along Holloway Road (east side) as
far as Manor Gardens. Along Seven Sisters Road, on the north side it extends as far as
Barrow Way and on the south side as far as the Bank of Cyprus at number 162 Seven
Sisters Road. However, Hornsey Road is a wide and busy road, and its junction with
Seven Sisters Road forms a significant barrier for pedestrians. The shops and service
businesses to the east of Hornsey Road are very secondary or are specialists, and there
are significant breaks in the shopping frontage, particularly on the north side of Seven
Sisters Road. Along Holloway Road, the few shops and service businesses included on
the Goad Plan but not within the UDP town centre boundary are secondary or specialist,
47
and there seems no particular reason why they should be included within the designated
town centre.
6.8
We therefore consider that there is no good reason why the UDP town centre boundary
for Nag’s Head should be extended. If was to be extended to the east, it would almost
coalesce with the boundary of the Finsbury Park centre. This would risk retail growth
between Nag’s Head and Finsbury Park so that they become a single extended linear
centre. We therefore consider that the town centre boundary for Nag’s Head shown on
the UDP should remain unchanged.
THE ROLE OF FINSBURY PARK
6.9
In the Islington UDP, Finsbury Park is designated as a Local Centre. However only part
of Finsbury Park is within Islington Borough, and so this designation applies only to that
part within the Borough. Over the Borough boundary in Hackney, there is significant
further shopping and services, mainly on the north-east sides of Stroud Green Road and
Blackstock Road, but also on the south-east side of Seven Sisters Road. Finsbury Park
centre as a whole is therefore a more substantial shopping and services centre than is
implied by the UDP designation of that part of it in Islington as a Local Centre. This is
recognised by the London Plan, which defines Finsbury Park as a District Centre
6.10
Finsbury Park also includes an important potential development site immediately adjacent
to the railway station, which could accommodate retailing and other town centre uses.
We understand that development proposals are being formulated for this site, including a
new supermarket. Clearly this would be a very sustainable location for such a use. In
view of the substantial identified need for new foodstores, and the very limited availability
of sites suitable for them, such a development (which complies with the sequential
approach) should in principle be acceptable, subject to local site planning, design and
access considerations. If the part of Finsbury Park which is within Islington was to be
redefined in the LDF as a District Centre (thus bringing it into line with its status in the
London Plan), it would help to create a policy climate in which redevelopment of this site
to provide a new retail ‘anchor’ for the centre, could be supported.
6.11
Conversely, we consider that even with such a development, there would not be an
adequate justification for designating Finsbury Park as a ‘Town Centre’. It functions
mainly as a centre meeting the day-to-day shopping needs of the local population –
although it does also have a significant concentration of specialist clothing shops on
Fonthill Road. A ‘town centre’ is generally taken to mean a clearly discernable and
reasonably substantial agglomeration of shops, service businesses occupying shop
premises, other uses such as leisure and entertainment facilities, and
social/civic/community uses; together with a public transport ‘node’. Clearly, the scale of
town centres varies enormously across the country and within London.
48
6.12
In terms of scale, we don’t have sufficient information to compare Finsbury Park as a
whole with Nag’s Head and Angel. There is no Experian Goad Plan for Finsbury Park
(whereas there are for Angel and Nag’sHead), which in itself indicates that Finsbury Park
has a limited retail status. We consider that the Council would need more evidence
about how local residents perceive and use Finsbury Park, before upgrading it to a Town
Centre. For example, whether the surrounding area is in any way a distinct ‘community’
with strong historical or ethnic ties to the centre, or whether it is just part of continuous
suburbia; whether people from the surrounding area do most of their main food or
substantial non-food shopping there; whether there is a substantial concentration of
civic/social/community uses. The answers would inform a decision – but clearly such a
decision to upgrade could only realistically be taken jointly with the adjoining Boroughs,
particularly Hackney. In our view, some jointly commissioned research on the whole of
Finsbury Park, not just the part in Islington, would be needed, before a joint decision to
upgrade the status of the centre could be taken. The current work by the GLA on town
centre healthchecks may help this process and form a basis for some additional bespoke
research. But as matters stand at the moment, we could not recommend upgrading it to
the status of a Town Centre when it is designated in the London Plan as a District Centre.
6.13
We therefore consider that Finsbury Park should be designated in the LDF as a District
Centre, as in the London Plan. The area so designated should include all those streets
with reasonably continuous shopping frontages, particularly along Stroud Green Road,
Blackstock Road and Seven Sisters Road. It should also include all sites with potential
for redevelopment for retail and other district centre uses.
POLICIES FOR LOCAL SHOPPING CENTRES
6.14
Current policies for local shopping centres are Policies S16 to S27 in the UDP; whilst
Policies S30 and S31 deal with ‘Service Uses and Non-protected Shops’. These policies
distinguish between ‘protected’ shopping centres and ‘non-protected’ shops. In the
protected shopping centres, the policies are aimed at preserving Class A1 retail uses as
far as possible, preventing change of use to other uses, retaining Post Offices and
chemists, and improving local centres wherever possible. In the case of non-protected
shops, the policies are more flexible regarding changes of use and the accommodation of
A2 and A3 uses.
6.15
We fully support the principle of retaining and improving local shopping centres wherever
possible. However, the research on secondary shopping undertaken for the National
Retail Planning Forum described in Section 2 above showed that in such secondary
shopping locations over the previous ten years, whilst there had been a significant loss of
A1 retail uses, there had been a compensating increase in service businesses. As a
result, most local centres had become services and shopping centres, rather than
shopping and service centres. The research did not indicate whether the growth of
49
services had been responsible for the loss of retailing. However, this seems very unlikely
in view of the national trends for the centralisation of retail sales into larger centres
described in Section 2 above. It is much more likely that retailers had closed as a result
of those trends, but that service businesses had fortuitously grown up to take the vacant
shops which had become available. The overall result was that in the small centres and
other secondary shopping areas studied in the NRPF research, there had been little or no
overall increase in shop vacancy over the previous ten years.
6.16
We therefore consider that planning policies for the local shopping centres should be
more flexible about allowing change of use from A1 to other Class A uses. This would
help to create conditions in which formerly retail shops which fall vacant could be reoccupied by service businesses, thus avoiding long term vacancy and spiral of decline.
We find it difficult to justify logically any particular proportion of shops in local centres
which should be retained in A1 use, and certainly consider that the current policy limit of
one third in non-retail use (Policy S18) is too restrictive in most cases. We consider that
a better approach would be to review each designated local centre, assess its ‘health’ as
a retail and services centre, and then devise a policy for it which reflects the current
range of retailing and services it contains, its vacancy level, and the realistic prospects for
retention of retailing or change of use to retail-related services. In some centres, the onethird proportion may be appropriate, but in others it may already be exceeded, or there
may be long term vacancy which would be ameliorated by more flexibility regarding
change of use.
6.17
The alternatives to such an individually tailored approach would be to:
•
Retain the present policy S18 (iii) of not more than one third of units in non-retail
use;
•
•
Adopt a different proportion, for example one half;
Allow complete flexibility for change of use, and thus leave the future of such
local centres to market forces.
On balance, we consider that if the Council does not wish to have individual policies for
each significant local centre, complete flexibility as to change of use within Class A
(subject to good local site planning and the protection of residential amenity) would be
more realistic than a fixed limit on change of use from A1 to other Class A uses. We also
consider that a policy to prevent loss of Post Offices (Policy S24) is likely to prove
unenforceable, and unlikely to prevent Post Office closures. We support the retention of
Policy S27, but consider that the Council will need to be more flexible about car parking,
if such new convenience goods shops and stores are to reduce leakage of expenditure
on food out of the Borough.
50
7
Summary of Principal Findings and Conclusions
7.1
UK national trends in retailing and retail development have had a somewhat limited
impact on Islington’s town, district and local centres. Because Islington is a very densely
developed inner London Borough, it has not experienced the development of large
superstores or retail warehouse parks. Being hemmed in with high density housing, it’s
town centres have been unable to expand much in a consolidated manner, and retail
growth has largely occurred along main roads, such as Upper Street, Holloway Road and
Seven Sisters Road. As a result, the Borough has a very limited range of multiple
retailers; but great strength in terms of independent retailers and service businesses,
many of which are specialist ‘destination retailers’. Growth in internet shopping will be
both a challenge to such retailers, and an opportunity for them to widen their catchment
areas.
7.2
The Borough will remain very dependent upon the existing small and medium sized
foodstores for food shopping, in view of the difficulties of accommodating new foodstores.
Proposals for new foodstores therefore should in principle be supported, subject to local
site planning and access considerations.
7.3
National policies in PPS6 and the London Plan support the further development of Angel
and Nag’s Head town centres for retailing. Opportunities for new retail-led development
in these town centres, and in smaller designated centres, should therefore be brought
forward whenever possible. The principal challenge which the Council will face in giving
effect to the policies for town and district centres set out in the London Plan will be in
identifying and assembling commercially suitable sites for new retail development in the
densely built-up area of the Borough. In the short term, economic conditions may
preclude implementation. However, appropriate policy support for new retail
development in the town and district centres should be put in place through the LDF.
7.4
There is a substantial demand from food retailers for new foodstores in the Borough.
Five retailers have said that they would be interested in opening new stores. These
range from local convenience stores to superstores. Demand from retailers is therefore
not a constraint upon development of new foodstores; and it is highly likely that any well
located opportunities for new foodstores which come forward will be readily taken up by
retailers.
7.5
There is also a healthy level of demand from comparison goods retailers and other Class
A businesses. Most of these will be likely to prefer a location in Angel Town Centre, but
some would probably consider Nag’s Head or other locations in the Borough, such as on
51
Upper Street, north of Angel. In the short term, economic conditions will probably inhibit
take-up of any shops and stores which are developed or otherwise become available.
However, in the medium to long term, we expect continuing healthy demand from
retailers for well located new shops and stores, particularly in the vicinity of Angel Town
Centre. Again therefore, retailer demand is unlikely to be a serious constraint on town
centre expansion.
7.6
Because of the limited range of foodstores in the Borough, the existing main foodstores
are heavily overtrading. There is therefore a substantial current and forecast future need
for new convenience goods floorspace in the Borough. Any realistic opportunities for
new foodstores should therefore be supported, subject to local site planning and access
considerations. Ideally these should be in existing designated centres, in accordance
with the sequential approach. However, in view of the limited opportunities for new
comparison goods retail development in the two town centres, sites outside the centres
but which are accessible by a choice of means of transport should in principle also be
supported for new foodstores.
7.7
In the short term, there will be no capacity for additional comparison goods floorspace in
Angel Town Centre, because the new retailing in the Kings Cross regeneration area will
be likely to absorb growth in expenditure which would otherwise be attracted to Angel.
Capacity for new floorspace at Angel will start to arise from about 2012, and will become
substantial from about 2021, if forecast trends occur. This will give Angel a ‘breathing
space’ in which to plan for and implement new town centre development, if suitable sites
can be created.
7.8
At Nag’s Head Town Centre, the scale of forecast capacity for new comparison goods
retail development is slightly greater than at Angel, because we do not expect Nag’s
Head to lose expenditure as a result of the Kings Cross regeneration. Significant
capacity will arise by about 2016, and will become substantial by 2021, if forecast trends
occur.
7.9
There is forecast to be only a small need for additional comparison goods retail
floorspace at Archway District Centre, on the basis of continuation of its current market
shares of catchment area expenditure attracted. However, in view of the difficulty of
accommodating substantial new comparison goods floorspace at Nag’s Head, and the
existence of a redevelopment opportunity at Archway, some of the capacity for new
floorspace forecast for Nag’s Head could potentially be accommodated at Archway.
Whilst this would mean transfer of some market share from Nag’s Head to Archway, it
could be a practical way of meeting forecast needs for new retail floorspace in the
northern part of the Borough in a sustainable way. However, it would probably require a
large food store to be included in the development to act as an ‘anchor’ and help attract
other retailers and service businesses.
52
7.10
We consider that the boundary of Angel Town Centre designated in the UDP should be
extended substantially to the north along Upper Street, and to a lesser extent along
Essex Road. This would better represent the true scale and extent of Angel Town
Centre. It would also bring within the town centre a potential longer term development
site. The UDP designated boundary of Nag’s Head realistically represents the town
centre, and we consider should remain unchanged. We consider that the part of
Finsbury Park Local Centre which is within Islington Borough should be redesignated as
a District Centre, in line with its designation in the London Plan. This would better
represent the scale and function of Finsbury Park centre as a whole. It would also help to
provide planning policy support for an important redevelopment site in the centre, located
immediately adjacent to the railway station.
7.11
For the designated Protected Local Centres, we consider that planning policies should be
made more flexible. Ideally policies should be individually designed for each such centre.
However, generally we consider that there should be more flexibility to allow change of
use from Class A1 to other Class A uses, in the interests of providing sustainable
services to local communities, and of avoiding the growth of long-term vacancies.
53
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
Catchment Area Map
Appendix 2
Islington RECAP Model 2008
Appendix 1 – Catchment Area Map
55
South
South
Tottenham
Tottenham
Hornsey
Hornsey
Zone 11
Zone
Finsbury
Finsbury Park
Park
Stamford
Stamford Hill
Hill
Zone 22
Zone
Zone
Zone 44
Upper
Upper Holloway
Holloway
Archway
Archway
Finsbury
Finsbury
Stoke
Stoke
Newington
Newington
Zone
Zone 33
Kentish
Kentish Town
Town
Tufnell
Tufnell Park
Park
Zone
Zone 55
Zone
Zone 88
Holloway
Holloway
Holloway
Holloway Road
Road
Lower
Lower Holloway
Holloway
Canonbury
Canonbury
Zone
Zone 77
Zone 99
Zone
Zone
Zone 66
Islington
Islington
Zone
Zone 10
10
Angel
Angel
Grays
Grays Inn
Inn
Regents Park
Regents
Park
North
North
Marylebone
Marylebone
Shoreditch
Shoreditch
Zone
Zone 11
11
Holborn
Holborn
Clerkenwell
Clerkenwell
Moorgate
Moorgate
Islington: Zones 1 - 11
03/07/2008
© 2008 Tele Atlas NV 's. This product includes mapping data licensed from Ordnance Survey ®
with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. © Crown Copyright 2008.
All rights reserved. Licence Number 1000020348
1 Holly Court, Tring Road, Wendover, Bucks. HP22 6PE
Tel: 01296 622555 Fax: 01296 622118
Email: pa_europe@mapinfo.com
web: www.mapinfo.co.uk/predictiveanalytics
Appendix 2 – Islington RECAP Model 2008
56
RECAP
The Retail Capacity forecasting Model
Project:
Client:
London Borough of Islington
Date of Latest Revision:
16-Jul-08
Retail Locations Modelled:
Scenarios Modelled:
Number:
139604
File:
Islington RECAP Model 2008
Angel Town Centre
Nag's Head Town Centre
Out-of-centre Convenience Goods Shopping in Islington
1
Baseline - Market Shares indicated by the Household Interview Survey 2005 remain unchanged.
2
Major new retail development at Kings Cross railway lands, opening in phases from 2011.
Notes:
Copyright:
DTZ RECAP Model
DTZ
Catchment Area Population and Expenditure
Table:
1
CATCHMENT AREA POPULATION FORECASTS
Zone
Postcodes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N8-8, N8-9
N19-3, N6-5
N19-4, N7-6, N7-7
N4-2 to N4-4
N19-5, N7-0, NW5-1, NW5-2
N1-9, NW1-0, NW1-1, NW1-9
N1-0, N1-1, N7-8, N7-9
N1-2, N16-9, N5-1, N5-2
N1-3 to N1-6, N16-8
N1-7, N1-8
EC1A-2, 4, 7, 9; EC1M-3 to 7; EC1N-2, 6, 7,8; EC1R-0, 1, 3, 4, 5;
EC1V-0 to 4, & 7 to 9; EC1Y-0, 1, 2, 4, 8; EC2A-1 to 4; EC2M-2 & 6;
EC2Y-5, 8 & 9; WC1X-0 & P.
11
TOTAL
Base Year
2008
2011
Forecasting Years
2016
2021
2026
18,057
24,755
20,836
35,335
42,652
33,663
36,204
36,909
38,897
16,471
18,524
25,171
21,225
35,889
44,701
36,088
36,905
37,779
39,726
16,887
18,270
24,842
21,079
35,597
45,832
37,952
36,720
37,806
39,939
17,004
18,458
24,951
21,273
35,826
47,942
40,749
37,115
38,443
40,653
17,368
18,552
24,966
21,395
35,943
49,842
43,347
37,386
38,949
41,259
17,679
40,388
42,827
44,430
47,088
49,520
344,167
355,722
359,471
369,867
378,838
Sources:
Anysite Report for Islington Catchment Area, MapInfo, 04 July 2008. Trend projections to 2021 and 2026 by DTZ.
Notes:
Catchment Zones based on postcode sectors do not match the Borough or Ward boundaries. However, as far as possible within this limitation these population
forecasts have been checked against the GLA population forecasts for Islington dated 5 February 2008, and closely match them.
DTZ RECAP Model
Table:
2
PER CAPITA EXPENDITURE
Per Capita Expenditure in (year):
2005
Price Basis (Year):
2005
Including Special Forms of Trading:
Convenience Goods (£):
2,049.00
Comparison Goods (£):
3,775.00
GROWTH IN PER CAPITA RETAIL EXPENDITURE:
Convenience Goods:
Comparison Goods:
1.00 % 2005 to
5.48 % 2005 to
PER CAPITA
EXPENDITURE IN
2008
(Including SFT)
Deduction for SFT (%)
Excluding SFT
2006
2006
1.00 % pa
3.90 % pa
Convenience Goods (£)
2011
2016
2021
2026
2008
2006 to
2006 to
2026
2026
Comparison Goods (£)
2011
2016
2021
2,111.09
2,175.05
2,286.00
2,402.61
2,525.17
4,298.51
4,821.31
5,837.71
7,068.39
8,558.51
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
7.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
2,026.64
2,066.30
2,148.84
2,234.43
2,323.16
3,997.62
4,242.75
5,078.81
6,078.81
7,274.73
COMPARISON GOODS PER CAPITA EXPENDITURE BY GOODS TYPE
Per Capita Comparison Goods Expenditure in
Including SFT (£)
2005
Clothing &
Furniture/
Household
Household
Audio-visual
footwear
florcvrgs etc
Textiles
Appliances
equipment
1,083
373
Per Capita Comparison Goods Expenditure in
Including SFT
Deduction for SFT (%)
Excluding SFT (£)
1,233.19
8.2
1,132.07
424.73
4.4
406.04
98
Hardware, DIY, Chemists, medcl
garden prdcts
& beauty goods
All other
Total
comprsn gds
comprsn gds
89
474
303
520
835
3,775
101.34
7.0
94.25
539.73
12.2
473.89
345.02
5.8
325.01
592.11
2.0
580.27
950.80
6.9
885.19
4,298.51
7.0
3,997.62
2008
111.59
10.1
100.32
Sources:
MapInfo Anysite Report. MapInfo/Oxford Economic Forecasting Information Brief 07/2. DTZ estimates.
Notes:
Growth 2005 to 2006 is the actual national average growth. Growth projections 2006 to 2026 apply the 1998 to 2006 average annual trend to the actual 2006
expenditure (convenience goods); and the ultra-long term average annual trend 1964 to 2006 to the actual 2006 expenditure (comparison goods).
DTZ RECAP Model
2026
Table:
3
CATCHMENT AREA EXPENDITURE FORECASTS
Catchment
Zone
2008
(£000)
36,595
50,170
42,227
71,611
86,440
68,223
73,373
74,801
78,830
33,381
81,852
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
TOTALS
697,504
TOTAL RETAIL EXPENDITURE
CONVENIENCE GOODS
2011
2016
2021
2026
2008
(£000)
(£000)
£0
(£000)
(£000)
38,276
39,259
41,244
43,099
72,185
52,011
53,382
55,752
58,001
98,961
43,857
45,295
47,534
49,704
83,294
74,158
76,492
80,050
83,501
141,256
92,366
98,486
107,123
115,791
170,506
74,569
81,553
91,051
100,701
134,572
76,257
78,906
82,931
86,853
144,730
78,063
81,239
85,898
90,485
147,548
82,086
85,823
90,836
95,852
155,495
34,894
36,539
38,808
41,071
65,845
88,494
95,473
105,215
115,043
161,456
735,029
Sources:
RECAP Tables 1 and 2
Table:
4
772,447
826,442
880,101
1,375,848
COMPARISON GOODS
2011
2016
(£000)
(£000)
78,593
92,790
106,794
126,168
90,052
107,056
152,268
180,790
189,655
232,772
153,112
192,751
156,579
186,494
160,287
192,009
168,548
202,843
71,647
86,360
181,704
225,651
1,509,240
CATCHMENT AREA COMPARISON GOODS EXPENDITURE BY GOODS TYPE IN
Catchment
Zone
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
TOTALS
Sources:
DTZ RECAP Model
2,248,351
2008
Clothing &
Furniture/
Household
Household
Audio-visual
All other
Total
footwear
florcvrgs etc
Textiles
Appliances
equipment
garden prdcts
& beauty goods
comprsn gds
comprsn gds
(£000)
20,442
28,024
23,588
40,002
48,285
38,109
40,985
41,783
44,034
18,646
45,722
(£000)
7,332
10,051
8,460
14,347
17,318
13,668
14,700
14,987
15,794
6,688
16,399
(£000)
1,811
2,483
2,090
3,545
4,279
3,377
3,632
3,703
3,902
1,652
4,052
(£000)
1,702
2,333
1,964
3,330
4,020
3,173
3,412
3,479
3,666
1,552
3,807
(£000)
8,557
11,731
9,874
16,745
20,212
15,952
17,157
17,491
18,433
7,805
19,139
(£000)
5,869
8,046
6,772
11,484
13,862
10,941
11,767
11,996
12,642
5,353
13,126
(£000)
10,478
14,365
12,091
20,504
24,750
19,534
21,008
21,417
22,571
9,558
23,436
(£000)
15,984
21,913
18,444
31,278
37,755
29,798
32,047
32,672
34,431
14,580
35,751
(£000)
72,185
98,961
83,294
141,256
170,506
134,572
144,730
147,548
155,495
65,845
161,456
389,620
139,745
RECAP Tables 1 and 2
34,527
32,437
163,096
Hardware, DIY, Chemists, medcl
1,825,684
2021
£0
112,205
151,673
129,317
217,779
291,430
247,707
225,615
233,687
247,121
105,577
286,240
111,857
199,710
304,654
1,375,848
2026
(£000)
134,961
181,624
155,642
261,476
362,587
315,335
271,971
283,344
300,151
128,610
360,246
2,755,947
Scenario 1
Angel Town Centre
Table:
5
CONVENIENCE GOODS MARKET SHARES IN
2008
2008
Allocations to
Angel Town Centre
Indicated by household interview survey
Zones
Main Food
Top-up
convenience
Q1
Q4
Expenditure weighting
70
30
(%)
(%)
1
32.0
8.0
2
45.0
22.0
3
46.7
11.3
4
10.0
1.8
5
5.9
2.0
6
13.8
1.9
7
6.4
2.9
8
64.2
31.7
9
66.9
16.3
10
78.8
33.8
11
71.8
14.1
Sources:
Household Interview Survey.
Expenditure weighting by DTZ.
Table:
6
WEIGHTED
AVERAGE
100
(%)
24.8
38.1
36.1
7.5
4.7
10.2
5.4
54.5
51.7
65.3
54.5
2008
COMPARISON GOODS MARKET SHARES BY GOODS TYPE IN
2008
Allocations to
Angel Town Centre
Indicated by Household Interview Survey
Clothing &
Furniture/
Household
Household
Audio-visual
Hardware, DIY,
Chemists, medcl
All other
footwear
florcvrgs etc
Textiles
Appliances
equipment
garden products
& beauty goods
comparison gds
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q10
Q11
Q12
1,233.19
(%)
0.0
17.3
8.5
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
21.6
20.1
42.0
26.3
424.73
(%)
0.0
13.1
8.4
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
14.0
20.3
37.8
31.7
111.59
(%)
0.0
27.7
9.9
0.0
1.2
2.0
1.3
16.2
30.6
39.1
26.4
345.02
(%)
0.0
18.1
9.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
29.6
35.4
53.3
32.5
592.11
(%)
2.1
37.0
4.9
0.0
1.1
1.3
0.6
25.2
35.6
42.7
36.1
950.80
(%)
1.1
21.1
4.1
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.8
22.5
30.1
39.4
30.3
Zones
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sources:
RECAP Table 2 for expenditure weights.
DTZ RECAP Model
Q8
Q9
101.34
539.73
(%)
(%)
0.0
0.0
15.5
12.8
9.5
5.7
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.7
0.7
0.0
0.0
25.2
24.7
21.8
18.8
48.7
42.5
21.7
19.4
WEIGHTED
AVERAGE
4,298.51
(%)
0.5
20.2
6.8
0.0
0.6
0.5
0.4
22.5
25.8
42.2
28.6
Table:
7
MARKET SHARES ATTRACTED FROM THE CATCHMENT AREA
Scenario:
1
Location:
Angel Town Centre
Market shares correction factors:
Convenience Goods:
75 % of survey indicated figures
Comparison Goods:
PROPORTION OF CATCHMENT AREA EXPENDITURE ATTRACTED
Catchment
Zone
CONVENIENCE GOODS
COMPARISON GOODS
2008
2011
2016
2021
2026
2008
2011
2016
2021
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
1
19
19
19
19
19
0
0
0
0
2
29
29
29
29
29
17
17
17
17
3
27
27
27
27
27
6
6
6
6
4
6
6
6
6
6
0
0
0
0
5
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
6
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
0
0
7
4
4
4
4
4
0
0
0
0
8
41
41
41
41
41
19
19
19
19
9
39
39
39
39
39
22
22
22
22
10
49
49
49
49
49
36
36
36
36
11
41
41
41
41
41
24
24
24
24
Sources:
RECAP Model.
DTZ for market share corrections.
DTZ RECAP Model
2026
(%)
0
17
6
0
1
0
0
19
22
36
24
Table:
8
COMPARISON GOODS SALES BY GOODS TYPE IN
Catchment
Zones
2008
Sales in
By Comparison Goods Type.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
2008
Angel Town Centre
Clothing &
Furniture/
Household
Household
Audio-visual
Hardware, DIY,
Chemists, medcl
All other
footwear
florcvrgs etc
Textiles
Appliances
equipment
garden products
& beauty goods
comparison gds
(£000)
0
4,121
1,704
0
451
0
0
7,671
7,523
6,657
10,221
(£000)
0
1,119
604
0
177
0
0
1,783
2,725
2,149
4,419
(£000)
0
585
176
0
44
57
40
510
1,015
549
909
(£000)
0
307
159
0
41
19
0
745
679
643
702
(£000)
0
1,276
478
0
0
95
0
3,672
2,946
2,820
3,156
(£000)
0
1,238
530
0
0
0
80
3,018
3,804
2,425
3,626
(£000)
187
4,518
504
0
231
216
107
4,588
6,830
3,469
7,191
(£000)
149
3,930
643
0
0
177
218
6,248
8,809
4,883
9,208
TOTALS
MARKET
SHARES
Sources:
38,349
12,976
3,885
3,295
14,443
14,721
27,840
34,266
10%
RECAP Model.
9%
11%
10%
9%
13%
14%
11%
Table:
9
RETAIL SALES BY CATCHMENT ZONE
Catchment
zone
CONVENIENCE GOODS
2008
2011
2016
2021
2026
(£000)
(£000)
(£000)
£0
(£000)
1
6,953
7,272
7,459
7,836
8,189
2
14,549
15,083
15,481
16,168
16,820
3
11,401
11,841
12,230
12,834
13,420
4
4,297
4,449
4,590
4,803
5,010
5
3,458
3,695
3,939
4,285
4,632
6
5,458
5,965
6,524
7,284
8,056
7
2,935
3,050
3,156
3,317
3,474
8
30,669
32,006
33,308
35,218
37,099
9
30,744
32,014
33,471
35,426
37,382
10
16,357
17,098
17,904
19,016
20,125
11
33,559
36,282
39,144
43,138
47,168
2008
(£000)
0
16,823
4,998
0
1,705
0
0
28,034
34,209
23,704
38,749
FORECAST RETAIL SALES
Scenario:
TOTALS
Sources:
1
160,379
RECAP Model.
DTZ RECAP Model
Location:
168,756
Angel Town Centre
177,206
189,326
201,375
148,223
COMPARISON GOODS
2011
2016
(£000)
(£000)
0
0
18,155
21,449
5,403
6,423
0
0
1,897
2,328
0
0
0
0
30,455
36,482
37,080
44,625
25,793
31,090
43,609
54,156
162,392
196,553
2021
£0
0
25,784
7,759
0
2,914
0
0
44,401
54,367
38,008
68,698
241,930
2026
(£000)
0
30,876
9,339
0
3,626
0
0
53,835
66,033
46,300
86,459
296,468
Table:
10
SALES CAPACITY OF EXISTING
MAIN FOOD & CONVENIENCE GOODS SHOPS AND STORES IN
Store
Net
Floorspace
(sq m)
803
836
3,052
924
287
1,253
Iceland
Marks & Spencer
Sainsburys
Tesco Metro
Sainsburys Local
Other Food & Convenience Goods Shops
ALL STORES
Sources:
IGD, Experian, DTZ, Verdict Research.
Table:
11
2008
Convenience
Goods
Allocation
(%)
94
92
85
90
95
100
7,155
Net convnce
Goods
Floorspace
(sq m)
755
769
2,594
832
273
1,253
6,475
Convenience
Goods sales
Density
(£ per sq m)
5,291
12,013
9,423
13,033
9,423
5,000
8,857
Convenience
Goods sales
(£000)
3,994
9,239
24,445
10,838
2,569
6,265
57,351
SALES CAPACITY OF COMMITTED RETAIL DEVELOPMENTS
CONVENIENCE GOODS
Store/Scheme
Net
Floorspace
(sq m)
None committed
ALL STORES
COMPARISON GOODS
Store/Scheme
Gross
Floorspace
(sq m)
None committed
ALL STORES AND SCHEMES
Sources:
DTZ, based on Verdict Research and Retail Rankings.
DTZ RECAP Model
Convenience Net Conv Gds
Conv Goods
Goods
Floorspace Sales Density
Allocation
(%)
(sq m) (£ p sq m net)
-
-
Net to Gross
Ratio
(%)
#DIV/0!
Net
Sales
Floorspace
Density
-
-
#DIV/0!
Conv Goods
Sales
(£000)
-
Sales
(£000)
-
-
Table:
12
FORECAST RETAIL CAPACITY
Scenario:
1
Location:
Angel Town Centre
Growth in sales per sq m from shop floorspace existing in
CONVENIENCE GOODS
2008
2011
2016
Residents'
Spending £000
160,379
168,756
177,206
Plus visitors'
spending (%)
Total
spending (£000)
160,379
168,756
177,206
Existing shop
floorspace
(sq m net)
6,475
6,475
6,475
Sales
per sq m net (£)
24,767
8,857
8,857
Sales from extg
flrspce (£000)
160,379
57,351
57,351
Available
spending to
support new
shops (£000)
0
111,406
119,855
Less sales
capacity of
committed new
floorspace (£000)
0
0
0
Net available
spending for new
shops (£000)
0
111,406
119,855
Sales per sq m
net in new
shops (£)
12,000
12,000
12,000
Capacity for
new shop
flrspc (sq m net)
0
9,284
9,988
Market Share of
Catchment Area
Expenditure
23.0%
23.0%
Sources:
RECAP Model.
Notes:
Excludes vacant floorspace.
DTZ RECAP Model
22.9%
Comparison
Goods:
2008
1.50 % pa
2011 to
2026
COMPARISON GOODS
2011
2016
2021
2021
2026
2008
189,326
201,375
148,223
162,392
196,553
241,930
296,468
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
-
-
2026
189,326
201,375
155,634
170,511
206,380
254,027
311,291
6,475
6,475
23,004
23,004
23,004
23,004
23,004
8,857
8,857
6,766
7,075
7,621
8,210
8,845
57,351
57,351
155,634
162,743
175,320
188,870
203,466
131,975
144,024
0
7,768
31,060
65,157
107,825
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
131,975
144,024
0
7,768
31,060
65,157
107,825
12,000
12,000
5,000
5,228
5,632
6,068
6,537
10,998
12,002
0
1,486
5,514
10,738
16,495
10.8%
10.8%
22.9%
22.9%
10.8%
10.8%
10.8%
Scenario 1
Table:
13
2008
2008
Allocations to
Zones
Main Food
Top-up
convenience
Q1
Q4
70
30
(%)
(%)
1
21.0
1.0
2
7.0
1.0
3
18.7
13.3
4
42.7
9.0
5
74.3
7.0
6
31.3
0.6
7
56.1
4.1
8
10.0
1.7
9
10.6
4.4
10
8.8
6.3
11
15.3
7.1
Sources:
Table:
14
WEIGHTED
AVERAGE
100
(%)
15.0
5.2
17.1
32.6
54.1
22.1
40.5
7.5
8.7
8.1
12.8
2008
2008
Allocations to
Clothing &
Furniture/
Household
Household
Audio-visual
Hardware, DIY,
Chemists, medcl
All other
footwear
florcvrgs etc
Textiles
Appliances
equipment
garden products
& beauty goods
comparison gds
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q10
Q11
Q12
1,233.19
(%)
1.0
5.1
3.5
1.9
5.3
0.7
1.2
5.2
11.0
14.6
21.6
424.73
(%)
0.0
7.1
5.3
0.0
0.0
2.9
1.7
5.0
14.5
13.5
17.7
111.59
(%)
0.0
3.2
2.1
1.0
8.2
5.4
2.6
2.9
9.5
12.8
17.2
345.02
(%)
0.0
5.6
4.1
0.0
1.3
4.3
1.6
3.1
11.0
8.6
14.5
592.11
(%)
1.0
6.0
4.2
0.9
6.5
9.2
3.6
4.2
8.1
12.7
13.0
950.80
(%)
0.0
10.0
4.9
0.0
2.3
6.4
7.6
3.6
10.3
16.1
17.6
Zones
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sources:
DTZ RECAP Model
Q8
Q9
101.34
539.73
(%)
(%)
0.0
0.0
8.3
8.1
3.2
3.8
1.0
1.0
5.9
3.5
9.0
9.6
2.0
0.6
1.9
2.2
6.3
8.0
16.0
13.7
14.5
18.8
WEIGHTED
AVERAGE
4,298.51
(%)
0.4
6.9
4.1
0.8
3.8
5.1
3.0
4.0
10.3
14.0
17.9
Table:
15
Scenario:
1
Location:
Convenience Goods:
Comparison Goods:
Catchment
Zone
CONVENIENCE GOODS
COMPARISON GOODS
2008
2011
2016
2021
2026
2008
2011
2016
2021
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
1
14
14
14
14
14
0
0
0
0
2
5
5
5
5
5
7
7
7
7
3
15
15
15
15
15
4
4
4
4
4
29
29
29
29
29
1
1
1
1
5
49
49
49
49
49
4
4
4
4
6
20
20
20
20
20
5
5
5
5
7
36
36
36
36
36
3
3
3
3
8
7
7
7
7
7
4
4
4
4
9
8
8
8
8
8
10
10
10
10
10
7
7
7
7
7
14
14
14
14
11
12
12
12
12
12
18
18
18
18
Sources:
RECAP Model.
DTZ RECAP Model
2026
(%)
0
7
4
1
4
5
3
4
10
14
18
Table:
16
Catchment
Zones
2008
Sales in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
2008
Clothing &
Furniture/
Household
Household
Audio-visual
Hardware, DIY,
Chemists, medcl
All other
footwear
florcvrgs etc
Textiles
Appliances
equipment
garden products
& beauty goods
comparison gds
(£000)
204
1,429
826
760
2,559
267
492
2,173
4,844
2,722
9,876
(£000)
0
714
448
0
0
396
250
749
2,290
903
2,903
(£000)
0
79
44
35
351
182
94
107
371
212
697
(£000)
0
194
63
33
237
286
68
66
231
248
552
(£000)
0
950
375
167
707
1,531
103
385
1,475
1,069
3,598
(£000)
0
451
278
0
180
470
188
372
1,391
460
1,903
(£000)
105
862
508
185
1,609
1,797
756
900
1,828
1,214
3,047
(£000)
0
2,191
904
0
868
1,907
2,436
1,176
3,546
2,347
6,292
TOTALS
MARKET
SHARES
Sources:
26,152
8,653
2,173
1,978
10,362
5,693
12,809
21,668
7%
RECAP Model.
6%
6%
6%
6%
5%
6%
7%
Table:
17
Catchment
zone
CONVENIENCE GOODS
2008
2011
2016
2021
2026
(£000)
(£000)
(£000)
£0
(£000)
1
5,123
5,359
5,496
5,774
6,034
2
2,508
2,601
2,669
2,788
2,900
3
6,334
6,579
6,794
7,130
7,456
4
20,767
21,506
22,183
23,215
24,215
5
42,356
45,259
48,258
52,490
56,737
6
13,645
14,914
16,311
18,210
20,140
7
26,414
27,452
28,406
29,855
31,267
8
5,236
5,464
5,687
6,013
6,334
9
6,306
6,567
6,866
7,267
7,668
10
2,337
2,443
2,558
2,717
2,875
11
9,822
10,619
11,457
12,626
13,805
2008
(£000)
0
6,927
3,332
1,413
6,820
6,729
4,342
5,902
15,550
9,218
29,062
Scenario:
TOTALS
Sources:
1
140,849
RECAP Model.
DTZ RECAP Model
Location:
148,762
156,684
168,084
179,432
89,294
COMPARISON GOODS
2011
2016
(£000)
(£000)
0
0
7,476
8,832
3,602
4,282
1,523
1,808
7,586
9,311
7,656
9,638
4,697
5,595
6,411
7,680
16,855
20,284
10,031
12,090
32,707
40,617
98,543
120,137
2021
£0
0
10,617
5,173
2,178
11,657
12,385
6,768
9,347
24,712
14,781
51,523
149,142
2026
(£000)
0
12,714
6,226
2,615
14,503
15,767
8,159
11,334
30,015
18,005
64,844
184,182
Table:
18
Store
Net
Floorspace
(sq m)
521
836
2,620
1,695
3,332
Iceland
Marks & Spencer
Morrisons
Waitrose
Other convenience goods shops
ALL STORES
Sources:
IGD, DTZ, Verdict Research.
Table:
19
2008
Convenience
Goods
Allocation
(%)
94
92
85
86
95
9,004
Net convnce
Goods
Floorspace
(sq m)
490
769
2,227
1,458
3,165
8,109
Convenience
Goods sales
Density
(£ per sq m)
5,291
12,013
10,918
11,827
5,000
8,535
Convenience
Goods sales
(£000)
2,591
9,239
24,314
17,240
15,827
69,212
CONVENIENCE GOODS
Store/Scheme
Net
Floorspace
(sq m)
Conv Goods
Goods
Allocation
(%)
Conv Goods
Sales
(£000)
None committed
ALL STORES
COMPARISON GOODS
Store/Scheme
Gross
Floorspace
(sq m)
Net to Gross
Ratio
(%)
#DIV/0!
Net
Sales
Floorspace
Density
Sales
(£000)
None committed
Sources:
DTZ RECAP Model
-
-
#DIV/0!
-
Table:
20
Scenario:
1
Location:
Comparison
2008
Goods:
CONVENIENCE GOODS
2008
2011
2016
2021
2026
2008
Residents'
Spending £000
140,849
148,762
156,684
168,084
179,432
89,294
Plus visitors'
spending (%)
Total
spending (£000)
140,849
148,762
156,684
168,084
179,432
89,294
Existing shop
floorspace
(sq m net)
8,109
8,109
8,109
8,109
8,109
18,355
Sales
per sq m net (£)
17,370
8,535
8,535
8,535
8,535
4,865
Sales from extg
flrspce (£000)
140,849
69,212
69,212
69,212
69,212
89,294
Available
spending to
support new
shops (£000)
0
79,550
87,472
98,872
110,220
0
Less sales
capacity of
committed new
floorspace (£000)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Net available
spending for new
shops (£000)
0
79,550
87,472
98,872
110,220
0
Sales per sq m
net in new
shops (£)
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
4,500
Capacity for
new shop
flrspc (sq m net)
0
6,629
7,289
8,239
9,185
0
Market Share of
Catchment Area
Expenditure
20.2%
20.2%
Sources:
RECAP Model.
Notes:
DTZ RECAP Model
20.3%
20.3%
20.4%
6.5%
1.50 % pa to
COMPARISON GOODS
2011
2016
98,543
-
120,137
-
2026
2021
2026
149,142
184,182
-
-
98,543
120,137
149,142
184,182
18,355
18,355
18,355
18,355
5,087
5,480
5,904
6,360
93,373
100,589
108,363
116,738
5,170
19,548
40,779
67,444
0
0
0
0
5,170
19,548
40,779
67,444
4,706
5,069
5,461
5,883
1,099
3,856
7,467
11,464
6.5%
6.6%
6.6%
6.7%
Scenario 1
Table:
21
2008
2008
Allocations to
Zones
Main Food
Top-up
convenience
Q1
Q4
70
30
(%)
(%)
1
10.0
0.0
2
6.0
2.0
3
8.0
1.3
4
28.2
2.7
5
5.0
4.0
6
11.3
1.3
7
6.5
8.2
8
12.5
2.5
9
6.9
2.5
10
7.5
2.5
11
4.7
1.2
Sources:
Table:
22
WEIGHTED
AVERAGE
100
(%)
7.0
4.8
6.0
20.6
4.7
8.3
7.0
9.5
5.6
6.0
3.7
2008
2008
Allocations to
Clothing &
Furniture/
Household
Household
Audio-visual
Hardware, DIY,
Chemists, medcl
All other
footwear
florcvrgs etc
Textiles
Appliances
equipment
garden products
& beauty goods
comparison gds
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q10
Q11
Q12
1,233.19
(%)
3.1
2.0
6.4
0.9
2.1
2.0
14.2
2.6
4.5
8.9
12.6
424.73
(%)
3.2
0.0
7.6
2.0
5.8
1.5
1.7
2.0
14.5
10.3
22.0
111.59
(%)
5.2
2.1
8.5
1.0
2.4
1.3
1.3
3.8
3.4
7.7
20.9
345.02
(%)
4.2
2.8
11.2
1.0
6.3
2.9
29.6
3.1
8.7
11.8
21.1
592.11
(%)
4.1
3.0
9.1
3.7
5.4
1.3
4.2
2.5
8.8
14.6
21.9
950.80
(%)
4.5
8.9
10.6
1.0
3.4
2.1
2.5
1.8
9.6
11.6
18.2
Zones
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sources:
DTZ RECAP Model
Q8
Q9
101.34
539.73
(%)
(%)
4.2
5.3
1.2
0.0
11.1
10.5
1.0
1.0
2.4
2.3
6.2
8.9
2.7
3.2
1.0
1.1
7.7
8.0
10.3
9.8
19.3
23.1
WEIGHTED
AVERAGE
4,298.51
(%)
4.0
3.3
8.9
1.4
3.6
2.9
8.2
2.2
8.0
10.8
18.4
Table:
23
Scenario:
1
Location:
Convenience Goods:
Comparison Goods:
Catchment
Zone
CONVENIENCE GOODS
COMPARISON GOODS
2008
2011
2016
2021
2026
2008
2011
2016
2021
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
1
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
2
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
3
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
4
15
15
15
15
15
0
0
0
0
5
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
6
6
6
6
6
6
1
1
1
1
7
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
8
7
7
7
7
7
0
0
0
0
9
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
10
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
11
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
Sources:
RECAP Model.
DTZ RECAP Model
2026
(%)
1
1
2
0
1
1
2
0
2
2
4
Table:
24
Catchment
Zones
2008
Sales in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
2008
Clothing &
Furniture/
Household
Household
Audio-visual
Hardware, DIY,
Chemists, medcl
All other
footwear
florcvrgs etc
Textiles
Appliances
equipment
garden products
& beauty goods
comparison gds
(£000)
127
112
302
72
203
152
1,164
217
396
332
1,152
(£000)
47
0
129
57
201
41
50
60
458
138
722
(£000)
19
10
36
7
21
9
9
28
27
25
169
(£000)
14
6
44
7
19
39
18
7
56
32
147
(£000)
91
0
207
33
93
284
110
38
295
153
884
(£000)
49
45
152
23
175
63
697
74
220
126
554
(£000)
86
86
220
152
267
51
176
107
397
279
1,026
(£000)
144
390
391
63
257
125
160
118
661
338
1,301
TOTALS
MARKET
SHARES
Sources:
4,230
1,902
360
390
2,189
2,178
2,848
3,948
1%
RECAP Model.
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
Table:
25
Catchment
zone
CONVENIENCE GOODS
2008
2011
2016
2021
2026
(£000)
(£000)
(£000)
£0
(£000)
1
1,830
1,914
1,963
2,062
2,155
2
2,007
2,080
2,135
2,230
2,320
3
1,689
1,754
1,812
1,901
1,988
4
10,742
11,124
11,474
12,008
12,525
5
3,458
3,695
3,939
4,285
4,632
6
4,093
4,474
4,893
5,463
6,042
7
3,669
3,813
3,945
4,147
4,343
8
5,236
5,464
5,687
6,013
6,334
9
3,153
3,283
3,433
3,633
3,834
10
1,669
1,745
1,827
1,940
2,054
11
2,456
2,655
2,864
3,156
3,451
2008
(£000)
722
990
1,666
0
1,705
1,346
2,895
0
3,110
1,317
6,458
Scenario:
TOTALS
Sources:
1
40,001
RECAP Model.
DTZ RECAP Model
Location:
42,001
43,973
46,839
49,678
20,208
COMPARISON GOODS
2011
2016
(£000)
(£000)
786
928
1,068
1,262
1,801
2,141
0
0
1,897
2,328
1,531
1,928
3,132
3,730
0
0
3,371
4,057
1,433
1,727
7,268
9,026
22,286
27,126
2021
£0
1,122
1,517
2,586
0
2,914
2,477
4,512
0
4,942
2,112
11,450
2026
(£000)
1,350
1,816
3,113
0
3,626
3,153
5,439
0
6,003
2,572
14,410
33,632
41,482
Table:
26
Store
Net
Floorspace
(sq m)
360
279
1,311
Co-op
Sainsburys Local
Other convenience goods shops
ALL STORES
Sources:
IGD, DTZ, Verdict Research.
Table:
27
2008
Convenience
Goods
Allocation
(%)
95
100
95
1,950
Net convnce
Goods
Floorspace
(sq m)
342
279
1,245
1,866
Convenience
Goods sales
Density
(£ per sq m)
5,910
9,423
4,500
5,494
Convenience
Goods sales
(£000)
2,021
2,629
5,605
10,255
CONVENIENCE GOODS
Store/Scheme
Net
Floorspace
(sq m)
None committed
ALL STORES
COMPARISON GOODS
Store/Scheme
Gross
Floorspace
(sq m)
None committed
Sources:
DTZ RECAP Model
Conv Goods
Goods
Allocation
(%)
-
-
Net to Gross
Ratio
(%)
#DIV/0!
Net
Sales
Floorspace
Density
-
-
#DIV/0!
Conv Goods
Sales
(£000)
-
Sales
(£000)
-
-
Table:
28
Scenario:
1
Location:
CONVENIENCE GOODS
2008
2011
2016
Residents'
Spending £000
40,001
42,001
43,973
Plus visitors'
spending (%)
Total
spending (£000)
40,001
42,001
43,973
Existing shop
floorspace
(sq m net)
1,866
1,866
1,866
Sales
per sq m net (£)
21,432
5,494
5,494
Sales from extg
flrspce (£000)
40,001
10,255
10,255
Available
spending to
support new
shops (£000)
0
31,746
33,718
Less sales
capacity of
committed new
floorspace (£000)
0
0
0
Net available
spending for new
shops (£000)
0
31,746
33,718
Sales per sq m
net in new
shops (£)
12,000
12,000
12,000
Capacity for
new shop
flrspc (sq m net)
0
2,646
2,810
Market Share of
Catchment Area
Expenditure
5.7%
5.7%
Sources:
RECAP Model.
Notes:
DTZ RECAP Model
5.7%
Comparison
Goods:
2008
1.50 % pa to
COMPARISON GOODS
2011
2016
2021
2026
2008
46,839
49,678
20,208
22,286
-
-
-
46,839
49,678
1,866
2026
2021
2026
27,126
33,632
41,482
-
-
-
-
20,208
22,286
27,126
33,632
41,482
1,866
3,132
3,132
3,132
3,132
3,132
5,494
5,494
6,452
6,747
7,268
7,830
8,435
10,255
10,255
20,208
21,131
22,764
24,523
26,418
36,584
39,423
0
1,155
4,362
9,109
15,064
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36,584
39,423
0
1,155
4,362
9,109
15,064
12,000
12,000
4,000
4,183
4,506
4,854
5,229
3,049
3,285
0
276
968
1,877
2,881
1.5%
1.5%
5.7%
5.6%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
Scenario 1
Table:
29
2008
Allocations to
Zones
Main Food
Top-up
WEIGHTED
convenience
AVERAGE
Q1
Q4
70
30
100
(%)
(%)
(%)
1
9.0
1.0
6.6
2
5.0
1.0
3.8
3
6.7
2.0
5.3
4
12.7
0.9
9.2
5
6.9
2.0
5.4
6
8.1
6.3
7.6
7
1.7
5.9
3.0
8
3.3
0.0
2.3
9
8.1
1.9
6.2
10
3.1
1.3
2.6
11
1.8
1.2
1.6
Sources:
DTZ RECAP Model
2008
Table:
30
Scenario:
1
Location:
Convenience Goods:
Comparison Goods:
Catchment
Zone
CONVENIENCE GOODS
COMPARISON GOODS
2008
2011
2016
2021
2026
2008
2011
2016
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
1
20
20
20
20
20
2
11
11
11
11
11
3
16
16
16
16
16
4
27
27
27
27
27
5
16
16
16
16
16
6
23
23
23
23
23
7
9
9
9
9
9
8
7
7
7
7
7
9
19
19
19
19
19
10
8
8
8
8
8
11
5
5
5
5
5
Sources:
RECAP Model.
Table:
31
2021
(%)
2026
(%)
2021
£0
2026
(£000)
Scenario:
1
Location:
Catchment
zone
CONVENIENCE GOODS
COMPARISON GOODS
2008
2011
2016
2021
2026
2008
2011
2016
(£000)
(£000)
(£000)
£0
(£000)
(£000)
(£000)
(£000)
1
7,319
7,655
7,852
8,249
8,620
2
5,519
5,721
5,872
6,133
6,380
3
6,756
7,017
7,247
7,605
7,953
4
19,335
20,023
20,653
21,614
22,545
5
13,830
14,779
15,758
17,140
18,527
6
15,691
17,151
18,757
20,942
23,161
7
6,604
6,863
7,102
7,464
7,817
8
5,236
5,464
5,687
6,013
6,334
9
14,978
15,596
16,306
17,259
18,212
10
2,670
2,791
2,923
3,105
3,286
11
4,093
4,425
4,774
5,261
5,752
TOTALS
Sources:
102,031
RECAP Model.
DTZ RECAP Model
107,485
112,930
120,783
128,586
Table:
32
Store
Net
Floorspace
Budgens, 213-215 Upper Street
Co-op, 132-134 Essex Road
Co-op, 303-311 Caledonian Road
Costcutter, York House, York Way
Food City, 261 Holloway Road
Geronway, 212-220 Essex Road
Holloway Food Store, 535 Holloway Road
Iceland, 259a Caledonian Road
Marks & Spencer, 70 Finsbury Pavement
Sainsburys Local, 317 Upper Street
Sainsburys Local, 323 Essex Road
Sainsburys Local, 89 Hornsea Rise
Somerfield, Whitecross Street
Somerfield, 185 Old Street
Tesco, 109-115 Stroud Green Road
ALL STORES
Sources:
(sq m)
443
175
416
154
125
257
79
637
836
308
377
203
1,486
511
1,403
7,410
IGD, DTZ, Verdict Research, VOA
DTZ RECAP Model
2008
Convenience
Goods
Allocation
(%)
90
95
90
95
100
95
95
94
92
95
95
100
83
90
85
Net convnce
Goods
Floorspace
(sq m)
399
166
374
146
125
244
75
599
769
293
358
203
1,233
460
1,193
6,637
Convenience
Goods sales
Density
(£ per sq m)
3,386
5,910
5,910
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,291
12,013
9,423
9,423
9,423
6,654
6,654
13,033
8,250
Convenience
Goods sales
(£000)
1,350
983
2,213
732
625
1,221
375
3,168
9,239
2,757
3,375
1,913
8,207
3,060
15,543
54,760
Table:
33
CONVENIENCE GOODS
Store/Scheme
Net
Floorspace
(sq m)
None committed
ALL STORES
Sources:
DTZ RECAP Model
Conv Goods
Goods
Allocation
(%)
-
-
#DIV/0!
Conv Goods
Sales
(£000)
-
-
Table:
34
Scenario:
1
Location:
Comparison
2008
Goods:
CONVENIENCE GOODS
2008
2011
2016
2021
2026
2008
Residents'
Spending £000
102,031
107,485
112,930
120,783
128,586
Plus visitors'
spending (%)
Total
spending (£000)
102,031
107,485
112,930
120,783
128,586
Existing shop
floorspace
(sq m net)
6,637
6,637
6,637
6,637
6,637
Sales
per sq m net (£)
15,372
8,250
8,250
8,250
8,250
Sales from extg
flrspce (£000)
102,031
54,760
54,760
54,760
54,760
Available
spending to
support new
shops (£000)
0
52,726
58,171
66,023
73,826
Less sales
capacity of
committed new
floorspace (£000)
0
0
0
0
0
Net available
spending for new
shops (£000)
0
52,726
58,171
66,023
73,826
Sales per sq m
net in new
shops (£)
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
Capacity for
new shop
flrspc (sq m net)
0
4,394
4,848
5,502
6,152
Market Share of
Catchment Area
Expenditure
Sources:
14.6%
14.6%
RECAP Model. DTZ estimates.
Notes:
DTZ RECAP Model
14.6%
14.6%
14.6%
1.50 % pa to
COMPARISON GOODS
2011
2016
2026
2021
2026
Scenario 2
Angel Town Centre
Table:
35
Scenario:
2
Location:
Angel Town Centre
Market shares adjustment factors:
Convenience Goods:
Comparison Goods:
Catchment
Zone
CONVENIENCE GOODS
COMPARISON GOODS
2008
2011
2016
2021
2026
2008
2011
2016
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
1
19
19
19
19
19
0
0
0
2
29
29
29
29
29
17
16
15
3
27
27
27
27
27
6
6
5
4
6
6
6
6
6
0
0
0
5
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
6
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
0
7
4
4
4
4
4
0
0
0
8
41
41
41
41
41
19
18
17
9
39
39
39
39
39
22
21
20
10
49
49
49
49
49
36
35
32
11
41
41
41
41
41
24
22
20
Sources:
RECAP Model.
DTZ for market share adjustments.
Table:
36
2021
(%)
0
15
5
0
1
0
0
17
20
32
20
2026
(%)
0
15
5
0
1
0
0
17
20
32
20
2021
(£000)
0
22,751
6,466
0
2,914
0
0
39,727
49,424
33,785
57,248
2026
(£000)
0
27,244
7,782
0
3,626
0
0
48,168
60,030
41,155
72,049
Scenario:
2
Location:
Angel Town Centre
Catchment
zone
CONVENIENCE GOODS
COMPARISON GOODS
2008
2011
2016
2021
2026
2008
2011
2016
(£000)
(£000)
(£000)
(£000)
(£000)
(£000)
(£000)
(£000)
1
6,953
7,272
7,459
7,836
8,189
0
0
0
2
14,549
15,083
15,481
16,168
16,820
16,823
17,087
18,925
3
11,401
11,841
12,230
12,834
13,420
4,998
5,403
5,353
4
4,297
4,449
4,590
4,803
5,010
0
0
0
5
3,458
3,695
3,939
4,285
4,632
1,705
1,897
2,328
6
5,458
5,965
6,524
7,284
8,056
0
0
0
7
2,935
3,050
3,156
3,317
3,474
0
0
0
8
30,669
32,006
33,308
35,218
37,099
28,034
28,852
32,642
9
30,744
32,014
33,471
35,426
37,382
34,209
35,395
40,569
10
16,357
17,098
17,904
19,016
20,125
23,704
25,077
27,635
11
33,559
36,282
39,144
43,138
47,168
38,749
39,975
45,130
TOTALS
Sources:
160,379
RECAP Model.
DTZ RECAP Model
168,756
177,206
189,326
201,375
148,223
153,685
172,581
212,315
260,055
Table:
37
Scenario:
2
Location:
Angel Town Centre
CONVENIENCE GOODS
2008
2011
2016
Residents'
Spending £000
160,379
168,756
177,206
Plus visitors'
spending (%)
Total
spending (£000)
160,379
168,756
177,206
Existing shop
floorspace
(sq m net)
6,475
6,475
6,475
Sales
per sq m net (£)
24,767
8,857
8,857
Sales from extg
flrspce (£000)
160,379
57,351
57,351
Available
spending to
support new
shops (£000)
0
111,406
119,855
Less sales
capacity of
committed new
floorspace (£000)
0
0
0
Net available
spending for new
shops (£000)
0
111,406
119,855
Sales per sq m
net in new
shops (£)
12,000
12,000
12,000
Capacity for
new shop
flrspc (sq m net)
0
9,284
9,988
Market Share of
Catchment Area
Expenditure
23.0%
23.0%
Sources:
RECAP Model.
Notes:
DTZ RECAP Model
22.9%
Comparison
Goods:
2008
1.50 % pa
2011 to
2026
COMPARISON GOODS
2011
2016
2021
2021
2026
2008
189,326
201,375
148,223
153,685
172,581
212,315
260,055
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
-
-
2026
189,326
201,375
155,634
161,369
181,210
222,930
273,057
6,475
6,475
23,004
23,004
23,004
23,004
23,004
8,857
8,857
6,766
7,075
7,621
8,210
8,845
57,351
57,351
155,634
162,743
175,320
188,870
203,466
131,975
144,024
0
5,890
34,061
69,591
0
0
0
0
0
0
131,975
144,024
0
(1,374)
5,890
34,061
69,591
12,000
12,000
5,000
5,228
5,632
6,068
6,537
10,998
12,002
0
1,046
5,613
10,646
22.9%
22.9%
10.8%
(1,374)
0
(263)
10.2%
9.5%
9.4%
9.4%
Total Market Shares
Table:
38
TOTAL MARKET SHARES BY COMPARISON GOODS TYPE IN
SHOPPING LOCATION
2008
COMPARISON GOODS TYPE
Clothing &
Furniture/
Household
Household
Audio-visual
Hardware,
Chemists,
All other
footwear
florcvrgs etc
Textiles
Appliances
equipment
DIY & garden
medical &
comparison
goods
beauty goods
goods
Angel Town Centre
10%
7%
1%
9%
6%
1%
11%
6%
1%
10%
6%
1%
9%
6%
1%
13%
5%
2%
14%
6%
1%
11%
7%
1%
TOTALS FOR 3 CENTRES
18%
17%
19%
17%
17%
20%
22%
20%
Sources:
RECAP Model
DTZ RECAP Model
Table:
Scenario:
39
1
TOTAL MARKET SHARES BY CATCHMENT ZONE FOR:
Catchment
Zones
3 Centres in Islington
Town and District Centres
2008
(%)
38
38
46
50
57
34
45
55
51
61
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sources:
RECAP Model
Table:
Scenario:
40
1
CONVENIENCE GOODS
2011
2016
(%)
(%)
38
38
38
38
46
46
50
50
57
57
34
34
45
45
55
55
51
51
61
61
56
56
2021
(%)
38
38
46
50
57
34
45
55
51
61
56
2026
(%)
38
38
46
50
57
34
45
55
51
61
56
Catchment
Zones
2008
(%)
58
49
62
77
73
57
54
62
70
69
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sources:
RECAP Model
Table:
Scenario:
41
2
2021
(%)
1
25
12
1
6
6
5
23
34
52
46
2026
(%)
1
25
12
1
6
6
5
23
34
52
46
3 Centres in Islington & O-o-C Conv Gds Stores
2021
(%)
1
25
12
1
6
6
5
23
34
52
46
2026
(%)
1
25
12
1
6
6
5
23
34
52
46
2021
(%)
1
23
11
1
6
6
5
21
32
48
42
2026
(%)
1
23
11
1
6
6
5
21
32
48
42
3 Centres in Islington
Town and District Centres
2007
(%)
38
38
46
50
57
34
45
55
51
61
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sources:
COMPARISON GOODS
2011
2016
(%)
(%)
1
1
25
25
12
12
1
1
6
6
6
6
5
5
23
23
34
34
52
52
46
46
Town and District Centres and Non-Central Foodstores
CONVENIENCE GOODS
COMPARISON GOODS
2011
2016
2021
2026
2008
2011
2016
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
58
58
58
58
1
1
1
49
49
49
49
25
25
25
62
62
62
62
12
12
12
77
77
77
77
1
1
1
73
73
73
73
6
6
6
57
57
57
57
6
6
6
54
54
54
54
5
5
5
62
62
62
62
23
23
23
70
70
70
70
34
34
34
69
69
69
69
52
52
52
61
61
61
61
46
46
46
Catchment
Zones
2008
(%)
1
25
12
1
6
6
5
23
34
52
46
RECAP Model
DTZ RECAP Model
CONVENIENCE GOODS
2011
2016
(%)
(%)
38
38
38
38
46
46
50
50
57
57
34
34
45
45
55
55
51
51
61
61
56
56
2021
(%)
38
38
46
50
57
34
45
55
51
61
56
2026
(%)
38
38
46
50
57
34
45
55
51
61
56
2007
(%)
1
25
12
1
6
6
5
23
34
52
46
COMPARISON GOODS
2011
2016
(%)
(%)
1
1
24
23
12
11
1
1
6
6
6
6
5
5
22
21
33
32
51
48
44
42

Islington Retail Study

Transcription

Similar documents

Retail Leasing Opportunity

your card! - Benefits Corporation Helps Chambers Grow Their

ForMer liNeNs `n tHiNgs @ gAteWAy stAtioN

Downtown PLEASANTON

BevMo! - Bill Brown Sales

71 The Essex County seat, Tappahannock, is finally coming into its

tropical storms - Pearson Schools and FE Colleges

Nardi Brochure Large 09-12-07

McNamara Terminal Retail Concessions Update…

Gunwharf Quays Leasing Brochure

Things to Do for Babies and Children Under Five

Youth information centres in the EU