IPI Submission on Retail Planning Guidelines - July 2010
Monday, August 16, 2010
Below are the details on the Retail Planning Guidelines submission. This submission was sent to Ms Finola Mc Donald based in the Department of Environment.
Dear Ms McDonald
Re: Retail Planning Guidelines - Issues Paper
The Irish Planning Institute welcomes the publication of an Issues Paper to inform the upcoming review of the Retail Planning Guidelines. We believe it is an opportunity to ensure interested parties and those charged with the management of our town centres have a set of Guidelines that have their origins in best international practice, are applicable and relevant to Ireland, are designed to reflect data that is available within this jurisdiction and that provide certainty to those making decisions on future retail development. The Institute has carefully read the Issues Paper and we provide our response to each of the questions raised in the following paragraphs. Our response is informed by the collective experience of planning practitioners in both the public and private sectors. We believe our collective experience is such that we can provide a valuable insight to the review of the Guidelines and would welcome the opportunity to discuss our thoughts with you at a meeting/consultation.
Q.1 In general, do you think that the retail planning guidelines have struck the right balance in accommodating new retail development that is projected to be required in a way which is efficient, equitable and sustainable?
In general, we consider that the Guidelines as written set out a policy direction that accords with best universal practice. We believe, however that there is an inconsistency in the interpretation of that policy at both Planning Authority and Board level. Inconsistency in the application of development control measures and forward planning policies introduce uncertainty for retail investors, for existing retailers and for the general public. In addition, we believe that some of the statements and guidance in the current Document are vague and open to varying interpretations. In the current climate, certainty is a prerequisite of investment decisions.
For example, the weight given to the sequential assessment and retail impact varies greatly from Local Authority to Local Authority and from Inspector to Inspector in An Bord Pleanála. Some attach little or no credibility to Retail Impact Assessment (RIA), while others concentrate on the minutiae of such assessments and the relevant retail strategies.
It is suggested, however, that the new Retail Planning Guidelines should be more integrated with the principles and policies of Smarter Travel - A Sustainable Transport Future 2009 - 2020, Department of transport, 2009, as the spatial location of retail activity impacts on trip generation and modes of mobility. Consequently, traffic/mobility assessments and other relevant analytical methods of assessing all modes of movement should be a more substantial consideration in a retail impact assessment.
Retail strategies should be clear and include up to date statistics. They should have clear guidelines in relation to capacity and location (akin to the core strategy for residential capacity set out in the new Planning Act 2010), so that investors, planning authorities and the general public will have certainty as to what scale and location of retail development is likely to occur. In effect, the current system is excessively “developer-led”, and should be more “plan-led”.
Q.1 - Remedy Sought
It is submitted that the helpful and important report underlying the original retail planning guidelines in 1999 written by Tym and Jonathon Blackwell should be fully reviewed and updated before new draft guidelines are prepared. The report reviewed international experience and data sources and provided necessary evidence base for the original guidelines and the same should be done for this review.
The revised Retail Planning Guidelines should provide clear parameters (or undertakes to prepare a working paper) for the preparation of Retail Strategies, the interpretation of those Strategies, and for the preparation of Retail Impact Assessments. It is also considered useful for the Department to provide training for decision makers in the whole area of retail planning to assist in striving for consistency in the decision making process.
It is submitted that clearer definitions should be provided in relation to the terms “practicable and viable” (paragraph 58), and “suitable, viable or available” (paragraph 59), making it clear that the suitability / practicability and viability is related to the overall retail industry and not to specific formats or arrangements of individual retailers, and that availability is related to the general market and not to specific approaches by one individual retailers to a landowner or landowners. Thus, for example, some retailers use a format that involves a large single internal floorplate, with only surface car parking. Assessment of suitability and viability has to include the potential for multi-floor internal layouts, and multi-storey car parking, particularly if the overall thrust of the Guidelines, which is to favour town / city centre and inner town/city locations, is to be properly realised.
Q.2 Should the retail floorspace caps be retained:
a) for convenience goods (see para. 75)?
Yes
If no, why not?
It is considered that the cap has proven, generally, to be a robust and reasonable approach. The Institute is strongly of the view that it is appropriate to retain the principle of a cap in all cases into the future, in the light of the overall objective of the Guidelines, which is to support town/city centres.
However, the Guidelines are vague in terms of the application of the cap, thereby weakening its effectiveness. In paragraphs 51 and 75, the cap applies only to the convenience sales areas of hypermarkets, but to the total net sales area of superstores (i.e. convenience and comparison floorspace). It is suggested that the former is applied on the basis of areas “delineated on application drawings” (51) and the “area to be devoted primarily for the sale of convenience goods” (75). This restriction has proven impossible to enforce in practice, since retailers will routinely vary the stocking arrangements of a retail premises, once built, and it is impractical and unrealistic to expect a planning authority to seek to enforce such a restriction. It is also arguable that to make such changes is, in any event, exempted development under Section 4 (1)(h) of the Act. The limitation on the total net sales area is a more robust control, and it is suggested that it should be the norm
In addition, at present, the CAP only applies to the convenience sales area of Hypermarkets but to the total net sales area of superstores, i.e. convenience and comparison floorspace (Paras 51 and 75). This has led to the emergence of a “black hole” between 3,000/3500sqms net and 5,000sqms net where stores between these two dimensions are not allowed. For example, the Board has ruled that a store of 4,400sqms is excluded as it is not a superstore and is therefore not a Hypermarkets (which is by definition greater than 5,000sqms net).
Q.2 (a) - Remedy Sought
The Department should consider these issues and an amendment may be required to Section 4 (1) (h) of the Act and Article 10, (2) (b) of the Planning and Development Regulations.
b) for retail warehouses (see paras. 82 and 84d)?
The Institute considers that the 6,000 sq m gross cap, including any ancillary garden centre) has proven to be reasonable and has worked reasonably well in practice. It should therefore be retained.
However, experience has demonstrated that in retail parks there is a need for stricter control over uses that are more appropriate to the town centre. Apart from comparison goods (see answer to question 7 below), non-retail uses such as leisure and restaurants should also not be located in retail parks. Such uses are more suitable to town centre locations and contribute to the vibrancy of the town centre as a location in which to shop, live, visit and work. However, there should be no objection to small coffee shops within an individual retail warehouse unit, but not as a stand alone unit.
Q.2 (b) - Remedy Sought
The 6,000 sq m gross cap should be retained. Other uses, which are more suitable to a town centre than retail warehouse parks, should not be permitted in retail warehouse parks (see also q. 7 below).
Q.3 The sequential approach (see paras. 58 - 63) aims to protect the vitality of city and town centres. Do you think this approach should be:
a) retained? Yes
b) modified? If so, in what way?
Modified Approach
The sequential approach is a useful tool in decision making. The Institute believes that it is a credible means of demonstrating to decision makers and potential objectors that the site chosen is the most appropriate for the development proposed. It is considered that paragraphs 58 to 63 present a reasoned and balanced approach to how sites should be selected.
Retail impact assessments must take a more rigorous approach to sequential tests. Town centres and edge of town centres should not be ruled out simply for lack of ease of site assembly. Significant investigation of consideration of site assembly must be demonstrated in a retail impact assessment with documentary proof of such investigation. Evidence must clearly justify why a site is chosen as the location for the retail activity.
However, it is our opinion that insufficient weight is given to other legitimate considerations such as site or centre suitability for the nature of the development proposed (para 58); issues to do with site acquisition and availability (para 60) and project viability (para 59). Investment decisions by retailers must be met with a concomitant proactive approach by those charged with the management of the town centre that reflects an understanding of the vagaries of site assembly and acquisition as well as market conditions. Such an understanding is essential to ensure that the little investment currently available is not lost. It is considered appropriate that the revised Guidelines include a good practice guide that provides clarity to decision makers and potential applicants on the matters to be considered in sequential assessment. This would assist in providing the certainty necessary to make investment decisions. A more universally acceptable approach is to examine sites from the point of view of suitability; availability and viability (see comment above)
Suitability: deals with current land use activity, size, capacity to accommodate development, traffic and transportation issues, development plan policies, including zonings. For example, there is little point in examining a site in a centre that is zoned for open space use or is occupied by a school or church.
Availability: is to do with site ownership, ease of assembly and timing. Sites must be genuinely available for development at the time site acquisition/assembly begins and within a reasonable time frame. The role of the Planning Authority in using its CPO powers in order to facilitate site assembly in central locations should be a material consideration, and should be encouraged in the Guidelines where there are genuine difficulties in this area.
Viability: the financial viability of a development is also a key consideration. Excessive vendor expectations, although somewhat tempered in the current climate, can make a proposal unviable and force investors to look elsewhere in the area. Excessive development costs relative to values are also a consideration. For example the requirement to deal with pollution issues of a former petrol station or industrial/port site can make a proposal unviable.
Q.3 Remedy Sought
Investment decisions by retailers must be met with a concomitant proactive approach by those charged with the management of the town centre that reflects an understanding of the vagaries of site assembly and acquisition as well as market conditions. Such an understanding is essential to ensure that the little investment available is not lost. The review of the Guidelines, and any supporting documentation or evidence that might be published as an addendum to the Guidelines, should set out in clear terms what the key considerations are in sequential assessment and the appropriate weight to be given to them.
Q.4 Has the application of the guidelines discriminated against discount grocery retailers such as Aldi and Lidl in terms of floorspace and / or site location?
No
One of the key principles of the planning system is that it is should not inhibit competition, preserve existing commercial interests or prevent innovation. The Retail Planning Guidelines state in this regard that Local Authorities should avoid taking actions which would adversely affect competition in the retail market. While the Retail Planning Guidelines and the current Retail Planning Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area distinguish between different types or formats of convenience retailing (including discount food stores, supermarkets, superstores, hypermarkets and smaller convenience outlets), most Local Authorities treat discount food stores as a separate land use class in their Development Plans. The fact that discount food retailers sell convenience goods at more competitive prices is not a planning consideration. (Indeed the ‘discount’ offer of the mainstream convenience retailers is increasing all the time.)
In practice, therefore, discount food store proposals are assessed as if they are a different use class, rather than on basis of criteria applying to other shop formats, i.e. scale; form; location; the potential effect on the vitality and viability of existing town centres; and other provisions within the development plan as provided by the Guidelines. This is inhibiting a competitive and healthy retail environment and is contrary to national retail policy guidance.
In recent years it has been observed that these stores have moved more into the convenience foodstore market where people can do weekly food shopping at these stores. When these retailers entered the Irish market they entered as discount grocery retailers and consequently are not treated in the same way as other retailers in the convenience foodstore market in terms of sequential tests. These stores are often located out-of-centre and this is not appropriate.
Q.4 Remedy Sought
The revised Guidelines should, therefore include a statement to the effect that identifying Discount Food Stores as a separate use class in Development Plans is inhibiting a healthy and competitive retail environment and that proposals for Discount Food Stores should be assessed in the same manner as other convenience retailers, i.e. on basis of scale; form; location; the effect on the vitality and viability of existing town centres; as provided by the Retail Planning Guidelines.
Q.5 Should the quantitative method for estimating future retail capacity needs continue to be used, given the drawbacks such as the lack of certain key data? If yes, what safeguards would you suggest?
The quantitative method to estimating retail capacity is an important and worthwhile assessment - when used correctly and in tandem with a solid qualitative assessment. It should be retained and supported by publication of a ‘Good Practice Guide’. Such a guide should clarify the correct/best approach methodology for undertaking a quantitative analysis and details on how to assess its findings.
Current Issues with Quantitative Assessments
The current issues with quantitative assessments can be broken down into four areas:
• Lack of practical knowledge on how to calculate and/or assess capacity;
• Differing information sources of various quality - for example, out-of-date data being relied upon in out-of-date retail strategies;
• Differing methodologies being employed, giving rise to a lack of consistency between planners (consultants, local authorities and Inspectors) on the approach used;
• Information gaps - with specific reference to turnover ratios (also known as ‘sales densities’) for different retail categories and for different parts of the State;
There should be more readily available and up-to-date data in respect of the baseline retailing context. In particular, Planning Authorities should make accessible current figures in relation to extant permissions for retail floorspace (built and unbuilt). This is crucial with regard to the planning development pipeline and retail capacity. Annex 2 of the Guidelines should be rewritten with this in mind, and with more responsibility falling on the Planning Authority in respect of collecting, collating, and making data available.
There is no one correct way to carry out a retail impact assessment. It is not an exact science. It would be counterproductive to insist on a certain approach over all others. However, Retail Impact Assessments should be required to cite sources for all data.
There has been an over-reliance on drive-time analysis to delineate catchment areas. This is an unsophisticated approach (particularly having regard to comparison retailing) and does not allow for the relative draw of competing centres and/or corridor effects associated with roads / public transport provision / geographical divides. Flexibility is required in preparing and interpreting Retail Impact Statements.
Well prepared and robust quantitative analysis remains key to estimating future retail capacity. It should certainly continue to be used.
Greater regard / recognition should be had to the latest CSO and ESRI publications when preparing and interpreting projections of floorspace requirements. Projections can be modified and re-assessed by reference to more up-to-date data. This is crucial in ascertaining retail capacity, and whilst projections by definition are imprecise, they are a critical factor in evaluating the ‘need’ for a proposed development. Perhaps a new Annex should be provided that would list reliable data sources retail analysis (though it should be made clear that this list is not prescriptive or exhaustive).
There needs to be greater recognition of the growing part that internet retailing plays in the overall retail market; particularly with regard to comparison goods.
Insufficient Weight given to Qualitative Factors
A good quantitative assessment is required to be supported by an in depth qualitative assessment. In this respect not enough weight is given to other factors influencing the retail planning dynamic in a given catchment. These factors include:
• Age of the retail floorspace;
• Quality of the retail offer;
• Location of the existing floorspace.
These issues have as much bearing on a retail planning application as the quantitative assessment. As such, qualitative assessments should always be undertaken in order to achieve a robust retail capacity assessment and it is suggested that this emphasis is underlined in a revision to the Guidelines.
In addition, it is considered that the retail strategies of local authorities need to be more specific in the identification of suitable locations for retail activity and in determining the capacity for retail activity in their jurisdictions. The onus is then placed on the developer through the retail impact assessment to demonstrate how their proposal complies with the specifics of the retail strategy. It has been the experience that retail impact statements tend to be biased in favour of proposed developments.
Q.5 Remedy Sought
These issues need to be addressed through publication of a Good Practice Guide, prepared in conjunction with the Department, stakeholder and decision makers. Similar guidance has been prepared for both England and Scotland, greatly adding to the understanding of the overall subject of planning for retail development. The guide should outline such basic information and methodologies as calculation of per capita expenditure and application of growth rates. Capacity and retail impact assessments should be clearly set out in a step by step approach, to remove any ambiguities. Such a document would ensure all planners will be agreed on the key inputs and on the agreed baseline information.
Q.6 Has there been over-emphasis placed by some planning authorities on the impact of proposed new or expanded shopping centres on existing outlets? If yes, how could this be counteracted?
There seems to be a certain level of confusion about retail impact. Impacts on competing retailers can sometimes become confused with impacts on existing centres. It is not the purpose of the planning system to be concerned with the former. The Guidelines should be more precise about what retail impact (from a planning perspective) constitutes.
Development Plans must provide more clarity with regard to the retail hierarchy of an area. For example, if there is capacity for a finite degree of retail expansion in an administrative area, and two competing centres within this area seek to develop floorspace, the Development Plan should provide a pointer as to which is to be considered the preferred location for retail expansion.
There may also have been an over-emphasis on protecting specific businesses. The Guidelines need to re-iterate the importance of protecting a town centre holistically, not just with regard to the retail function of the town centre but also its vibrancy through the arts, culture, leisure, public realm function of the town centre which is accessible to many modes of movement including walking, cycling, public transport and car.
Paragraphs 33 and 34 of the RPG provide that it is not sufficient to simply preserve existing town centres, but that it is also important to undertake ‘positive action to promote change’ including the requirement to undertake ‘effective management and promotion of the town centre’. This requirement should be more strongly reflected in the review of the RPG and enshrined in emerging retail strategies. As highlighted at the recent Annual IPI conference in Tullamore, this area of retail planning has been largely neglected and ignored in many town centres.
Without effective Active Town Centre Management in place, centres will inevitably decline, which has the twin affect of impacting on competitiveness and innovative retail solutions.
Q.6 Remedy Sought
Internationally, Town Centre Management (TCM) and the control of development are inextricably linked. In Ireland TCM is in its infancy and led more by business interests (e.g. BIDs schemes) than by those with a responsibility for the management of our town centres. The Guidelines should underline the importance of TCM that should be undertaken by Local Authorities, with the initiative led by the Department.
Q. 7 Should edge-of-centre and out-of-town retail outlets be required to charge for on-site parking? If yes, how should the revenue be used (e.g. to cross-subsidise public transport)?
The Institute considers that the charging for on-site parking in the case of edge-of centre and out-of-town retail outlets should be required, as the current situation, de facto, encourages the development of retailing at such locations. Such a charge can be a planning condition, which is readily enforceable. However, one would question whether the charge should go to the planning authority or to the developer. The purpose of such charging should be to ensure a “level playing field” for all retail developments, irrespective of location.
The revenue could be used to subsidise public transport. Such revenue could also be used to improve facilities so that modes of transport other than the car become a more attractive option for employees and shoppers - for example, better facilities for cyclists including the provision of showering facilities and storage facilities for staff, and attractive pedestrian walkways.
However, while it would be possible to do this for new developments, using planning legislation, an issue would arise as to how existing edge-of-centre and out-of-town retail developments could be required to charge for their existing (free) car parking. This would seem to require a change in legislation.
Q.7 Remedy Sought
The Guidelines should be altered to advise that, in the interests of sustainable development and to ensure equality of treatment for all retail developments, such charging should be made a condition of planning permissions for out of centre and out of town retail developments. An exception might be made for retail warehouse parks, provided that ONLY bulky goods, and in particular no comparison or convenience goods are permitted to be sold there (see comments below). How much to charge, and how the charge is to collected and used, should be left to the discretion of the relevant Planning Authority. However, consideration should also be given to how similar charges for car parking should apply to existing convenience / comparison retail developments at edge-of-centre and out-of-town locations.
Q.8 Should the range of goods permitted to be sold in retail parks be more tightly controlled? If yes, in what way?
The Institute is strongly of the view that the range of goods to be sold in retail parks should be more tightly controlled. Practice has shown that this is an area that requires considerable attention.
Paragraph 80 of the RPG already recommends that conditions be imposed on retail warehouse permissions, to limit the range of goods sold to the sale of bulky goods only.
However, in practice, not all planning authorities have been imposing such conditions, or have been imposing conditions which are poorly worded, making enforcement impossible. In addition, some local authorities (perhaps for reasons of increasing and/or retaining rates income) have been permitting comparison goods to be sold in such retail parks, at edge-of-town or out-of-town locations, especially where the adjoining city or town is under a different Planning Authority’s jurisdiction. The recent High Court case of Treacy v An Bord Pleanala is one example of this problem.
To permit laxity in this area runs the significant risk of undermining the entire thrust of the Guidelines, which is to ensure (as outlined in paragraph 21) that retail development is to be accommodated in a way that is “efficient, equitable and sustainable” and to establish the “optimum location for new retail development which is accessible to all sections of society and is of a scale that allows the continued prosperity of traditional town centres and existing retail centres”
Q.8 Remedy Sought
The review of the RPG should consider the following:
Provision of a comprehensive list of appropriate goods which can be sold under the term ‘bulky comparison goods’ to ensure that there is no ambiguity for retailers, and a list of goods that it is not appropriate to be sold under this category.
Provision for a sample condition that is clear and enforceable, and leave no room for doubt, for developers, retailers and the general public, as to what is permitted and what is not. Such a condition should be a requirement for insertion in all planning applications for retail warehouse parks. A sample condition might be in line with that used in a number of recent cases by An Bord Pleanala:-
The range of goods to be sold in the proposed retail park/development shall be limited solely to “bulky goods”, as defined in the Retail Planning Guidelines for Planning Authorities issued by the Department of the Environment Heritage and Local Government in January, 2005, and shall not include the sale of toys, footwear, sportswear or other clothing.
Reason: In order to prevent an adverse impact on the viability and vitality of the town centre, and so as not to undermine the retail hierarchy of the area.
OTHER ISSUES
District Centres. (Para 71)
The existing Guidelines have proven to be problematic in respect of the term “District Centre” (para 71 and glossary). The scale of district centres as defined in para 71 has been unclear, in that the 10,000 sq metres and 20,000 sq metres referred to has been interpreted as either gross floorspace or net retail floorspace. In practice, the use of this guideline figure has generally been interpreted as net retail floorspace, and this scale of development has, in practice, proven to raise concerns that it is excessive in the context of all but the larger cities and towns, to such an extent that a single district centre of 10,000 sq m net retail can be larger than the net retail floorspace of the town centre. In addition, the phrase “the local community living within a 10-20 minute drive time of the site” has been mis-interpreted to include other towns or settlements outside the town in question, particularly outside the major cities, thereby leading to inter-settlement impacts (and in some cases, appeals by individual planning authorities against decisions of neighbouring planning authorities).
The Institute is of the view that more clarity and certainty in relation to this term should be provided in the Guidelines, and that the scale of district centre should be varied across the State, to reflect the differing retail sizes of the settlements. The use of the designations for the hierarchy of settlements that is provided in the National Spatial Strategy would appear to be the most appropriate one.
The Institute is concerned that the use of figures in Paragraph 71 has been, in practice, a source of dispute and ambiguity because of different interpretations (maximum and minimum and net or gross). The Institute suggest that no figures be provided in Paragraph 71 and that the sizes of such district centres be left to the retail strategies. Alternatively if it is felt that figures should be used that the scale of the district centre should be proportionate to the overall retail scale of the town or settlement involved, and should relate only to that settlement. It is suggested that district centres should be defined in this paragraph as being up to 30,000 sq m net retail floorspace within some parts of Dublin, up to 15,000 sq m net floorspace in the other Gateways, and up to 10,000 sq m net floorspace in Hubs and County towns, and that in all other cases, district centres, where provided, should not exceed, in any individual case, 30% of the total net retail floorspace of the town or settlement involved. In many medium and smaller sized towns, district centres are not appropriate.
In addition, the inclusion of the term district centre with town centre in para. 27 (sentence 2) and in Annex 1 of the Guidelines (definition of town centre) has led to confusion and should be removed. In the larger metropolitan areas, this has created issues as to determining sequential tests and may prevent prioritising town centres over district centres in sequential tests.
Design
Greater emphasis should be placed on design and layout of stores and centres. This is a sustainability issue. The architectural treatment of many retail developments is substandard. An emerging element is the use of colours and materials that tie in with the brand of the anchor retailer, resulting in ‘branded’ centres. This is inappropriate and the guidelines should explicitly discourage this design approach.
Car parking provision within retail schemes
It is to be welcomed that many retailers (and one large multiple in particular) are veering away from extensive surface car parking areas and incorporating parking at grade within the footprint of the building. One issue arising from this, however, is that some Planning Authorities are applying financial contribution conditions to the parking area as if it were floorspace. Whilst this might be technically correct (i.e. it is within the ground floor of the building) it discourages developers from taking this approach. Accordingly, the visual and land efficiency benefits arising from incorporating surface car parking within the ground floor of a structure may be lost if Planning Authorities continue to levy this as retail floorspace. The Guidelines could provide direction in this regard.
Retail Services
The Guidelines might consider setting out a range of uses that would typically come within ‘retail services’, given that this is often used a catch all for any use that doesn’t fit into the types of retailing outlined in Annex 1 of the Guidelines.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the Retail Planning Guidelines are intended to direct decision and policy makers in the assessment of planning applications and in devising retail policies and strategies. As noted at the outset, it is considered that the Guidelines as they exist represent best international practice but that some aspects need to be altered in the light of experience. One of the key issues arises from their inconsistent interpretation by decision makers. This is a result of a combination of vagueness within the Guidelines themselves, and a lack of understanding of practitioners of the complexities of the retail market. It is the Institute’s view that, apart from the changes which we have set out above, the Guidelines need to provide explicit guidance in the preparation of retail strategies and in the preparation and interpretation of impact assessment, including sequential assessment. This can be best done by the production of a “Good Practice Guide”
We would welcome the opportunity of discussing these matters with you at your convenience.
Yours sincerely
Gordon Daly
President
Irish Planning Institute