See report by the Head of Commercial Services.
101
The Committee considered a report by the Head of Commercial Services giving details of the Retail and Town Centre Study which was intended to be added to the Council’s Local Plan Evidence Base and used to inform the Submission version of the Local Plan.
Karen Syrett, Place Strategy Manager presented the report and, together with Laura Chase, Planning Policy Manager, responded to Councillors questions. Karen explained that, in order to provide the evidence base for new Local Plan policies and allocations in this area, the Council had commissioned Cushman and Wakefield (CW) to prepare a new and up-to-date Retail and Town Centre Study. The Study would replace the Retail Update 2013 prepared by Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners and would also guide planning policies and decisions on planning applications.
The Study made a number of key policy and allocation recommendations in relation to Retail Hierarchy, Capacity Forecasts, Future Town Centre Development Needs and Primary Shopping Area and Primary and Secondary Retail Frontages.
The report recommended that the Council adopt a three-tier hierarchy of centres with Colchester Town Centre at the top of the hierarchy given that it is the principal shopping destination in the Borough supported by an extensive range of related town centre uses. It was considered relatively healthy at present, although the Study research and analysis identified some weaknesses and areas for improvement to ensure its vitality and viability over the plan period. The Urban District Centre category had been removed in the Preferred Options version of the plan, but the Study recommended that Tollgate, Turner Rise, Peartree Road and Highwoods should all be considered for reclassification as district centres in the new Local Plan. The Rural District Centres would also be retained as district centres and this would ensure that the Borough has a network and hierarchy of centres, as required by the National Planning Policy Framework, capable of serving their respective areas of the Borough. It will further help to ensure that the Council, as local planning authority, can effectively plan for these centres and formulate an appropriate policy response through the new Local Plan. The Study also recommended further consideration be given as to whether Greenstead should serve as a District or Local Centre. The Preferred Options version of the plan identified two Proposed District Centres as part of the Garden Communities in East Colchester and West Colchester respectively. These would be retained in the Submission version of the plan. The Study did not undertake a full review of the Borough’s local centres but considered that they performed an important role in terms of providing small scale retail and service uses to meet the basic needs of local communities.
The Study provided retail capacity forecasts for new convenience and comparison goods floorspace as well as considering future leisure requirements. For convenience goods (ie supermarkets) it was concluded that there could be capacity for one new medium-sized foodstore by 2028. The preferable location for this would be in or on the edge of Colchester Town Centre in accordance with the sequential approach, and where a lack of main foodstore provision had been identified. For comparison goods (i.e. clothing, furniture etc) the Study considered two scenarios, one a continuation of existing shopping patterns (i.e. market shares) and the other assuming Colchester Town Centre increased its market share as a result of committed and planned development.
Cushman and Wakefield had identified and assessed four sites in and on the edge of Colchester Town Centre as suitable for and capable of accommodating the full extent of future town centre floorspace needs to 2033. Vineyard Gate represented the most significant opportunity to offer larger format shop units, which would be suitable for modern, high quality retailers seeking to locate or relocate within the town centre. In turn, this would help with the objective of enhancing the town centre’s attractiveness to consumers and clawing back expenditure from competing shopping destinations. There was considered to be substantial potential to improve Priory Walk’s public realm and retail offer, either through extensive reconfiguration and refurbishment, or by redevelopment which meant it could potentially accommodate some of the forecast capacity for comparison goods retail floorpsace in the Town Centre. Mixed use redevelopment of the St Botolph’s site, with a focus on leisure uses was considered to have the potential t significantly and positively transform this important part of the town centre. The qualitative assessment of Colchester Town Centre had identified a need for a focused critical mass of food and drink uses, and in the consultant’s view, the St Botolph’s site represented the most suitable opportunity for such development. The area of land on the northwest edge of Colchester Town Centre, to the north of Colchester Retail Park (Middleborough/North Station Road) was considered to be an appropriate location for further office development supported by residential. Based on the assumption that amenity/infrastructure enhancements would be required and that the developable area would not exceed 40% in order to allow for access, car parking and amenity, the site was considered to have the physical capacity to accommodate two-thirds commercial uses with the remainder dedicated to residential uses and other ancillary provision.
The Study illustrated the Primary Shopping Area and Primary and Secondary Retail Frontages and provided the Council with clear direction on the approach to safeguarding retail uses in key areas. Within the primary areas, which included the key areas of Lion Walk, Culver Square and Fenwicks, it was recommended that the Council should take a restrictive approach to non-retail uses, with a policy seeking to maintain up to 70% A1 retail uses. Within the secondary frontages the Council was recommended to afford greater flexibility for changes of use within Classes A1-A15 in order to maximise the number of occupied units and sustain a more diverse composition of uses.
Councillor T. Young attended and, with the consent of the Chairman, addressed the Committee. He welcomed the Study on the basis that it was comprehensive, intelligent and well researched and, in particular he supported the identification of a retail hierarchy. He was also pleased to see that Greenstead ward had been identified in the Study. He considered the town centre’s independent shops needed to be protected as they provided so much character to the town centre. He was encouraged that the number of empty units was now below those recorded in many other town centres. He emphasised the success of Fenwick’s and welcomed the considerable investment the company had made in the town. He hoped this would lead to rival shops seeking to match Fenwick’s aspirations. He agreed that the primacy of the town centre in the retail hierarchy was really important and highlighted recent developments such as the Creative Business Centre with high-speed broadband and the forthcoming arrivals of the Primark store and the Curzon cinema. He considered the town centre was making real progress and, on behalf of the Cabinet, welcomed and congratulated the consultants on a thorough piece of work.
Members of the Committee discussed the report at length and generally welcomed the thorough and comprehensive report compiled by Cushman and Wakefield, together with its recommendation for a retail hierarchy, providing for a ‘town centre first’ approach, to be adopted. In particular, comments were made, as follows:
• The implications of the outcome of the appeal in relation to Tollgate Village and the implications of any future revisions to be made, depending on the Inspector’s decision;
• Various comparisons were drawn between the perceived vibrancy of Colchester in relation to towns such as Chelmsford, Ipswich, Norwich and Bury St Edmunds;
• Awareness of a list of preferred retailers who were seeking to move to or expand in Colchester – whether the list continued to exist and, if so, how many retailers were included in it;
• The existence of a free town centre circular bus service in Ipswich and whether there was potential to provide something similar in Colchester;
• Support for Dedham as a District Centre and its desire to make provision for an additional visitors car parking facility;
• The importance of ensuring employment opportunities existed near to and in the town centre as this provided a welcome source of foot fall to shops, restaurants and cafes at lunchtimes and other times of the day;
• Support for Highwoods to be included as an Urban District Centre but to bear in mind that the facilities extended beyond just a supermarket, post office and dry cleaners;
• The importance of the independent sector of shops in Colchester which provided a distinctive character which many other ‘clone-like’ town centres lacked and the importance of protecting this sector, potentially through incentives within the Business Rate regime, and the need to acknowledge that the existence of major retailers was not necessarily an essential factor to achieve a vibrant town centre;
• The ability of office space to be converted to residential use under permitted development rights and the need to acknowledge that much current office space did not provide sufficiently contemporary office space;
• In terms of attracting people into the town centre, the importance of the cultural offer in Colchester in terms of the Mercury Theatre, First Site and the Castle as well as the fact that the town centre was bounded by residential areas on at least three sides;
• The benefit of including information about Bury St Edmunds and Norwich to the report in order to extend the detail within the evidence base;
• The opportunity to improve Colchester’s retail reputation through the implementation of the Vineyard Gate development;
• The importance of maintaining Colchester as a visitor destination as well as a shopping destination and noting the recent significant improvement in the hotel accommodation in Colchester;
• The benefit to Colchester of the existence of a second town centre located rail station and the need for it to be given greater prominence, potentially with the introduction of a rapid transport system to link it with North Station and the town centre;
• The potential to look again at the proposed District Centre designation in relation to the Monkwick area where there were three neighbourhood shopping areas which could potentially be grouped rather than just viewed as individual shopping parades.
The Chairman stated his view on the relative popularity of neighbouring town centres from his experience working previously in Ipswich and currently in Chelmsford. He considered Ipswich residents were concerned about the impact of out of town retail on the town centre, given that the number of empty units in the town centre had increased whilst in Chelmsford, the new Bond Street retail area had opened with John Lewis but a number of units had not been occupied. He considered car parking charges to be similar in all three towns, whilst the number of park and ride facilities in Ipswich had recently decreased from three to two and he was aware of a number of Ipswich residents who travelled to Colchester to shop.
RESOLVED that –
(i) The findings of the Retail and Town Centre Study be noted and used to inform policies and allocations in the emerging Local Plan;
(ii) Consideration be given to including additional information to the Study relating to Bury St Edmunds and Norwich in order to further enhance the evidence base;
(iii) That the approach to the Retail and Town Centre chapter to be included in the emerging Local Plan be as set out below:
• A three-tier hierarchy of centres for Colchester Borough as follows:
1. Town Centre - Colchester’s historic Town Centre
2. District Centres - Highwoods, Peartree Road, Tiptree, Tollgate, Turner Rise, West Mersea and Wivenhoe
3. Local Centres - Specific sites to be identified in Adopted Proposal Maps;
• Colchester Town Centre is the principal shopping destination in the Borough supported by an extensive range of non-retail facilities such as day-to-day services and leisure, cultural and community uses;
• Policies will set out the role and function of each centre in the hierarchy;
• Policies on such centres will include the development management tests set out in paragraphs 24 (sequential test) and 26 (impact tests) of the National Planning Policy Framework;
• Policies will make it clear that within District Centres new retail and leisure proposals will only be supported where:
(a) The proposal is of a type and scale appropriate to the role and function of the particular centre and would not threaten the primacy of Colchester Town Centre at the apex of the retail hierarchy,
(b) Proposals to vary/remove conditions, including change the types of goods sold and the size of units, would not alter the centre’s role as a district centre,
(c) The proposal would not have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Colchester Town Centre and/or any other centre,
(d) The proposal would not have a significant adverse impact on public or private investment in Colchester Town Centre and/or any other centre,
(e) Proposals will need to meet accessibility and design criteria;
• Although the Council will seek the enhancement of district centres through non-retail uses (including services and community facilities): support for such uses will only be forthcoming where the concentration of such uses would not prejudice the viability of the centre’s main retail function;
• Development, including extensions to existing facilities, for main town centre uses outside of the district centres will only be permitted if, following a sequential assessment, it can be demonstrated that the development could not be accommodated more centrally having demonstrated flexibility in the format and scale of the proposal;
• The Primary Shopping Area, Primary Shopping Frontage and Secondary Shopping Frontage for Colchester Town Centre be as illustrated in Appendix G to the Retail and Town Centre Study;
• A Primary Shopping Area for the district centres will also be identified in the Local Plan.
• In defining primary and secondary frontages and thus a Primary Shopping Area, it is prudent to take into account the following principles:
- composition of uses;
- key anchors/ attractors;
- vacancies;
- pedestrian footfall; and
- levels of accessibility/ connectivity.
• Within the primary frontages the Council will take a more restrictive approach to further changes of use to non-retail / service uses. The policy will seek to maintain up to 70% A1 retail use. However, it is considered that A3 (food and drink) uses would be preferable to long term vacancies, if after extended marketing A1 retail use cannot be secured;
• Within the secondary frontages the Council will afford greater flexibility for changes of use within Classes A1-A5, in order to maximise the number of occupied units and sustain a more diverse composition of uses. The Policy will seek to maintain 50% A1 retail use within the secondary frontages;
• The following sites will be identified in the Local Plan as potential development opportunities to accommodate future comparison retail space and other town centre uses:
- Vineyard Gate,
- Priory Walk,
- St Botolph’s (principally leisure and mixed use) and
- Town Centre North West (predominantly office and residential based mixed use scheme);
• Policies will set out the detail for each site;
• In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, when assessing applications for retail, leisure and office development outside of town centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan, an impact assessment will be required if the development is over a proportionate, locally set floorspace threshold (if there is no locally set threshold, the default threshold will be 2,500 sq m);
• Further work will be undertaken to determine what local thresholds should be set for impact testing, when planning applications for retail development are submitted to make sure they are appropriate for Colchester.