WHITE YOUNG GREEN PLANNING REGATTA HOUSE CLIPPERS QUAY SALFORD QUAYS

MANCHESTER M50 3XP

TEL 0161 872 3223 FAX 0161 872 3193

Assessment of Major Out-of-Centre Retail Outlets in the UK

Black Country Consortium

May 2006

CONTENTS Page No 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 BASELINE POSITION OF MERRY HILL 3 3 REVIEW OF EXISTING OUT-OF-CENTRE REGIONAL MALLS 10

4 BLUEWATER, GREENHITHE 14

5 MEADOWHALL, SHEFFIELD 26 6 THE TRAFFORD CENTRE, MANCHESTER 34 7 LAKESIDE, THURROCK 42 8 METROCENTRE, GATESHEAD 51 9 CRIBBS CAUSEWAY, BRISTOL 60 10 BRENT CROSS, BARNET 67 11 WHITE ROSE SHOPPING CENTRE, LEEDS 77 12 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 82

1 INTRODUCTION Scope and Purpose 1.01 WYG Planning have been commissioned by the Black Country Consortium to undertake an

assessment of the top 10 out-of-centre regional malls throughout the UK to provide advice on

planning history and current/future planning strategy. The purpose of the study is to understand in

detail how major regional shopping malls are being dealt with at the relevant local and regional

level.

1.02 The research has been undertaken primarily to understand whether or not the case being pursued

in the Black Country to identify Merry Hill/Brierley Hill as an established town centre is unique and

whether or not the circumstances against which this strategy has been developed are also unique

or could easily be applied to other major regional shopping malls throughout the UK.

1.03 The research seeks to provide an up-to-date baseline position with regards to the 10 major out-of-

centre shopping malls as identified by the Management Horizons Europe UK Shopping Index. The

top 10 centres identified are:

• Bluewater;

• Meadow Hall;

• Trafford Centre;

• Lakeside;

• Merry Hill;

• Metro Centre;

• Cribbs Causeway;

• Brent Cross;

• Braehead; and

• White Rose.

1.04 The research undertaken as part of this study not only plots the growth and development of each

centre but more importantly focuses on the strategy now being pursued by each of the relevant

local planning authorities in dealing with their future growth and expansion. This not only relates to

the strategy developed at the local level as part of existing local plans/UDPs and emerging LDFs

but also examines any emerging regional strategy being developed as part of the wider spatial

strategy relevant to that centre.

1

1.05 In addition to the appraisal of the current and future planning position, the report also examines

each centre’s physical relationship with the surrounding environment and whether or not there are

unique circumstances which would support its future promotion as an established town centre

rather than an out-of-centre shopping mall.

1.06 Finally, the study brings together all this information to summarise the position of each centre and

how this relates to the current strategy being pursued at Brierley Hill. The summary identifies any

common approaches which may lend support to the strategy being pursued within the Black

Country but at the same time seeks to identify those centres which have limited prospects to

become established town centres and how such centres are being dealt with at the local and

regional level. Overall, the study seeks to establish whether or not the position being pursued at

Brierley Hill is in fact unique or is a reflection of wider regeneration initiatives which have been, or

are being, pursued elsewhere.

Methodology Adopted

1.07 In undertaking this research, a number of key actions were required to provide robust up-to-date

information as to the current position of each of the 10 centres identified. In doing so, WYG

completed the following key tasks:

• Organised a review of all the planning files relating to the history and development of each

centre;

• Undertook consultation with relevant planning offices responsible for each centre’s

development and the strategy being pursued at the local level;

• Consulted with relevant officers at the regional planning bodies, to understand in detail the

strategy and policy being developed as part of emerging spatial strategies;

• Undertook a comprehensive site visit of each centre; and

• Undertook a site visit and assessment of the surrounding area and development.

2

2 BASELINE POSITION OF BRIERLEY HILL/MERRY HILL

Background

2.01 Brierley Hill is situated at the heart of Dudley Borough, in the West Midlands and includes the Merry

Hill Shopping Centre. It is located approximately 12 miles west of Birmingham and is situated five

miles from the M5 motorway (accessible via Junctions 2 and 3) and is within easy reach of the M6

and M42 motorways. The shopping centre opened in 1985, and is currently owned by The

Westfield Group.

2.02 Merry Hill contains over 220 indoor stores in addition to 28 retailers located on an adjacent retail

park. Merry Hill has in excess of 10,000 parking spaces, available free to shoppers. The centre

attracts 21 million visitors every year. Anchor stores include Argos Extra; Asda; Bhs; Debenhams;

H and M; Matalan; Marks and Spencer; Next, Sainsbury’s; and TK Maxx. In total the area covers

approximately 1.5 million sq. ft (139,355 sq. m).

2.03 Merry Hill Shopping Centre was developed in a number of stages. They can be summarised as

follows:

1980 - The Round Oak Steelworks, which operated on the Merry Hill Site, closed,

1981 - The Merry Hill area was declared an enterprise Zone

1984 - The land occupied by the former Round Oak Steelworks was incorporated into the Enterprise Zone.

Also in this year the redevelopment of the Waterfront area begins

1985 - Phase 1 Merry Hill retail warehousing opened (Approximately 163,000 sq ft/ 15,143 sq m)

Phase 2 Merry Hill shopping mall opened (Approximately 203,000 sq ft/ 18,859 sq m)

1986 - Phase 3 Merry Hill retail warehousing opened (Approximately 214,000 sq ft/ 19,881 sq m)

1988 - Phase 4 Merry Hill Shopping Mall opened (Approximately 137,000 sq ft/ 12,728 sq m)

1989 - Phase 5 Merry Hill Shopping Mall opened (Approximately 818,000 sq ft/ 75,995 sq m)

1995 - Waterfront complete

1996 - Phase 4 shopping mall redeveloped

1997 - Canal development started between merry Hill and Brierley Hill Street

1998 - A4036 traffic improvements completed

2002 - Pedestrian link between Merry Hill, the Dudley Canal and the Waterfront improved with the opening

of Jubilee Walk

Regional Planning Guidance

2.04 The Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands (formerly RPG 11) covers the West Midlands

region including the urban area of Birmingham, including Dudley, and was published in June 2004.

The overarching vision for the West Midlands which is communicated within this document is a

3

Region which has economic success, a rich culture and environment, and one which firmly

supports the principles of sustainability.

2.05 In order to achieve this vision, the document seeks to adopt positive measures to address the

observed decline in the Regional economy, reverse the movement of people and jobs out of the

Major Urban Areas, tackle road and rail congestion and achieve a more balanced, sustainable

pattern of development. In light of this, four major challenges for the Region are identified. These

are: urban renaissance; rural renaissance; diversifying and modernising the Region’s economy;

and modernising the transport infrastructure of the West Midlands.

2.06 Specifically in relation the Black Country one of the key priorities is will be:

‘creating a balanced network of vital and vibrant town and city centres as the strategic focus for major

retail, leisure and office developments.’

2.07 The document indicates that the development of a balanced network of town and city centres to act

as the focus for major investment for retail, leisure and office development is crucial to the Region.

Within the Black Country this will mean:

‘continuing its economic, physical and environmental renewal focused around improved infrastructure

and the regeneration of town and city centres (including Walsall, West Bromwich and Wolverhampton) to create modern and sustainable communities.’

2.08 Chapter 4 ‘Urban Renaissance’ seeks to revitalised city and town centres. It recognises that whilst

all centres have a function to serve their communities, many centres occupy distinctive roles,

serving a sub-regional, Regional or national function. The retail function is only one element of such

centres. To this end, Policy UR2: Enhancing the role of City, Town and District Centres aims to

ensure that identified city, town and district centres play a leading role in urban renaissance

programmes to provide services for communities. This will be achieved through:

‘i) maintaining and enhancing the pattern of urban centres according to their function and role in the

Region; ii) developing strategies to maintain and enhance the underpinning role of all urban centres to serve

their local communities in terms of retail provision, access to services and cultural/leisure activities; iii) developing strategies to promote a sense of identity and local distinctiveness; iv) identifying and creating opportunities for development, particularly for business, retail, leisure,

tourism, cultural, educational and other services which are accessible to all; v) adopting strategies to encourage more people to live in or close to centres through the reuse of

sites, development of mixed-use schemes, the conversion of property and initiatives such as “living over the shop”;

4

vi) ensuring the highest standards of design are adopted, building on the existing character and identity of centres; and

vii) enhancing urban centres as the primary nodes of the public transport network.’

2.09 Later in the RSS, Chapter 7 ‘Prosperity for All’ also details the approach to be taken towards town

and city centres. Policy PA11 sets out a network of town and city centres. The network of 25

centres will be the focus for major retail developments, uses which attract large numbers of people,

and large scale leisure and office developments. Merry Hill Shopping Centre is not identified as

part of this network. The supporting text stresses that large retail development should be directed

towards the identified centres due to sustainability issues and in order to assist in regeneration.

Paragraph 7.60 further indicates that no formal hierarchy of distinctive roles for strategic centres will

be imposed, although the unique character of Birmingham as the Regional capital and international

city is acknowledged.

2.10 Paragraph 7.64 of Chapter 7 specifically relates to Merry Hill, which is recognised as an important

Regional shopping destination offering potential to aid the regeneration of the South Black Country

and West Birmingham Regeneration Zone. Notwithstanding this, the need to balance the delivery

of this regeneration role with the regeneration needs of other centres is acknowledged. As such,

the Regional Planning Body should form a strategic view on:

‘a) regeneration priorities within the Region/Black Country sub-region;

b) the balance between centres, in particular which centres in the Region/sub-region should be the focus for major growth to assist their regeneration; and then

c) the role of Merry Hill and, if appropriate, the timing of any future large-scale development there.’

2.11 Moreover, the text states that the above ‘…should be informed by the proposed Black Country Study

(1.32) and the work on creating a balanced network of centres (7.58). Any further retail development at Merry Hill should be considered in that context. Any such expansion should be subject to the following: d) improvements to public transport including the extension of the Metro to Merry Hill; and e) the introduction of a car parking regime at Merry Hill, including the use of parking charges,

compatible with that in the major centres in the Regional network.’

2.12 With regard to out-of-centre retailing, Policy PA12 states that:

‘It is not envisaged that any further large-scale (10,000m2 gross) out-of-centre retail developments or extensions to existing developments will be required during the period covered by this RPG. Smaller-scale out-of-centre retail proposals should be considered in the light of policies and proposals in development plans and take full account of Government guidance including the requirement to

5

demonstrate ‘need’ and the sequential test. No existing out-of-centre developments should be redefined as town centres.’

2.13 RSS justifies this policy, stating that it is considered that the network of town and city centres

outlined in Policy PA11 would be threatened by significant out-of-centre development

Surrounding Land Uses

2.14 A number of different land uses can be found

surrounding the Merry Hill Shopping Centre. To the

south of the shopping centre there are two retail

parks; a partially covered older retail warehouse

park including Matalan; JJB Sports; and Halfords,

and a more modern retail park (Figure 1.1), which

includes Comet; PC World; Decathlon; and Staples.

A UCI Cinema and KFC restaurant are located

nearby. In addition to the free parking available here, a bus station is incorporated linking the

centre with the surrounding area. A petrol filling station is also located on this retail park.

Figure 1.1: Nearby Retail Park

2.15 Residential development is located in close proximity to Merry Hill, including modern four storey

apartments built around the decked car park (Figure

1.2), and located to the south-west of Merry at the

Embankment/The Boulevard road junction. To the

east of the site, along Central Way and between the

shopping centre and the A4036, there are some

new build semi-detached town house properties,

located on Madison Avenue and Columbus Avenue.

There are linkages between this housing area and

Merry Hill; dedicated cycle lanes are also provided.

Figure 1.2: Apartments on Embankment

2.16 To the north and west of Merry Hill Shopping

Centre lies the Dudley Canal. The western area

contains cleared vacant land adjacent to the

Canal, with warehousing units beyond. To the

north the Dudley Canal leads into the Waterfront

Complex (Figure 1.3), based around the Dudley

Canal embankment. There are a number of bars,

restaurants and office units and a hotel. The

Waterfront area is well used by pedestrians, and Figure 1.3: The Waterfront

6

pedestrian movement through the area is aided by the design of the Waterfront. The Dudley Canal

path too was observed to be used by pedestrian users and cyclists, whilst the Jubilee walkway links

to the Merry Hill Centre provides links between the Waterfront area and the shopping centre.

2.17 To the north east of the shopping centre is a large area of land used as a car park. Several service

uses, namely a McDonald’s restaurant and a Chinese restaurant are situated on either side of the

car park. A vacant site lies at the junction of the A4036 and Level Street. Located to the eastern

side of the A4036 are a number of industrial units, both free-stranding and as part of the Enterprise

Trading Estate. Businesses located here include HSS Tool Hire, Plumb Centre and Howdens.

Saltwells Nature Reserve is to be found to the lower eastern part of the A4036.

Council’s Vision 2.18 Although the recently adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP) does not identify specific policies

for the future development of Merry Hill/Brierley Hill (as it will be informed by the findings of the

Black Country Study). The Council had previously identified a vision for Brierley Hill (First Deposit

UDP, 2000). The vision was to create a new thriving town centre serving the needs of an enlarged

business and residential community. An Area Development Framework was prepared in 1998 to

look at the way in which the ‘triangle’ of Brierley Hill/Merry Hill/Waterfront can be planned in the

future to become a more cohesive town centre. There were three elements to this approach:

1. Consolidate the role of the town centre;

2. Pursue a comprehensive development strategy;

3. Encourage the growth of a sustainable community.

2.19 In particular, it was recognised that new houses and better public transport is needed in order for

the town centre to operate effectively. On this basis, the Council previously identified that it was

necessary to define distinctive parts of the town centre (Urban Quarters) where their roles are

identified and their future development set out. Based on this context, a series of general and

specific policies were put forward, including inter alia:

BH1 STRATEGIC ROLE. Brierley Hill will be promoted as a new sub-regional town centre for

businesses, commerce, retail, leisure, culture, public services and urban living.

BH2 BUSINESS. Development will be directed to specific locations within the town centre to

enhance its role as a sub-regional focus for business activity.

BH3 RETAIL. An additional 38,000 sq m of pure comparison goods floorspace (up to 2006) will

be allowed in Merry Hill. The loss of bulky goods outlets from the Retail Park will be resisted.

7

Brierley Hill High Street will be supported to provide convenience shopping, including a large

supermarket.

BH5 LESIURE AND RECREATION. These will be encouraged in specific locations (including

commercial facilities).

BH6 HOUSING. A minimum of 1,100 dwellings will be located within the town centre.

2.19 Whilst specific policies have not been identified within the adopted UDP (October 2005), future

development proposals at Merry Hill/Brierley Hill would integrate with non-retail uses and the

existing Merry Hill Shopping Centre. Indeed, an illustrative vision of Brierley Hill has been

established. In this respect, it is evident that significant non-retail uses are proposed, which will

adjoin the main shopping centre being well integrated. Uses include residential, office and

community uses that will be accessible by foot together with a variety of modes of transport. The

vision will create a more traditional town centre with a range of uses commonly found in town

centres elsewhere, including offices, housing and community uses. Indeed, significant new

residential has taken place recently. Consequently, the Merry Hill Shopping Centre will not act as

an out-of-centre regional shopping mall like similar centres elsewhere in England.

2.20 Indeed, significant mixed use development is proposed as part of the wider regeneration of Brierley

Hill, following the completion of the Brierley Hill Masterplan. These developments include a £24

million scheme to deal with traffic congestion in the area funded through Government (£17.5m),

Westfield (£4.7m) and Dudley MBC (£3m), which is due to commence in September 2006 and

completed in March 2008. Furthermore, significant improvements to public transport are also

proposed, including the Midland Metro which Westfield (the owner’s of the shopping mall) have

agreed to a £35 million contribution to the Wednesfield to Brierley Hill line. Further public transport

improvements are arranged via a £1.28 million s106 Agreement on the Leisure Plateau in the area,

and discussions are underway with bus companies on how this can act as seed funding for ongoing

improvements in the public transport system. The Leisure Plateau will develop ten restaurants, a

new and enlarged cinema, a casino, comedy club, family entertainment centre and an amphitheatre

as part as a 172,000 sq ft development with a targeted completion of Summer 2008.

2.21 Significant mixed use development is proposed with work due to be completed by the end of 2008

for two office blocks together with 183 apartments. Also, a £24 million scheme to provide a new

health and social care centre in the centre of Brierley Hill. Subject to land remediation issues this

scheme will be completed by March 2009 and combines three doctor’s surgeries, the Primary Care

Trust officers, Social Services provision and some hospital services. In addition, as part of the

future regeneration and improvement of Merry Hill/Brierley Hill the first regional centre for the

8

National Youth Theatre in Brierley Hill will be established from January 2007. Funding is in place to

achieve this.

2.22 Furthermore, within the Brierley Hill Masterplan there are several ‘soft’ areas within the masterplan

area, which allows flexibility of development and immediately adjoining the proposed policy

boundary for the town centre that can potentially be subject to partial or comprehensive

redevelopment for development subject to market conditions.

2.23 These include the potentially more intensive, higher specification office buildings in the Waterfront

West Business Park, reflecting the type of development within the principal Waterfront

development. Moreover, the area to the north of Waterfront beyond the rail line (known as Harts

Hill) is a long established industrial area now characterised by a degraded environment and ageing

buildings. The regeneration of this area, as part of the Central Employment Zone within the Arc of

Opportunity, is already a priority for the Council (as identified in the recently adopted Unitary

Development Plan). Furthermore, with the implementation of the Midland Metro (a stop will be

located immediately adjacent to this area) the potential for investment on this area will significantly

increase and incremental or even more comprehensive upgrading for higher value business uses is

envisaged.

2.24 In addition there are areas of retail warehousing, most notably to the south of the Boulevard, which

are likely to be considered suitable for redevelopment once other opportunities have been

exploited.

2.25 The masterplan is an implementation framework. It has confirmed that there is capacity to fulfil, as

a minimum, the comparison retail and office requirements of both the RSS Phase 1 Revision to

2021, the Black Country Study Strategy period to 2031, plus over 2,700 dwellings and the creation

of more than 12,500 jobs.

9

3 REVIEW OF EXISTING OUT-OF-CENTRE REGIONAL MALLS

National Planning Policy 3.01 Planning Policy Statement 6: ‘Planning for Town Centres’ (PPS6) was published in March 2005 and

replaces Revised Planning Policy Guidance Note 6: Town Centre and Retail Developments (PPG6,

1996) and subsequent policy statements. PPS6 covers town centres and the main town centre

uses, including: retail, leisure and offices.

3.02 PPS6 identifies that the Government’s key objective for town centres is to promote their vitality and

viability by (paragraph 1.3):

• Planning for the growth an development of existing centres; and

• Promoting and enhancing centres, by focusing development in such centres and encouraging

a wide range of services in a good environment, accessible to all.

3.03 There are other Government objectives which need to be taken account of in the context of the key

objective outlined above:

• enhancing consumer choice by making provision for a range of shopping, leisure and local

services, which allow genuine choice to meet the need of the entire community, and

particularly socially-excluded groups;

• supporting efficient, competitive and innovative retail, leisure, tourism and other sectors, with

improving productivity; and

• improving accessibility, ensuring that existing or new development is, or will be, accessible and

well-served by a choice of means of transport.

3.04 Through regional spatial strategies (in London the Spatial Development Strategy) and local

development documents, regional planning bodies and local planning authorities respectively

should implement the Government’s objectives for town centres, by planning positively for their

growth and development. Paragraph 1.6 states that they should therefore:

• develop a hierarchy and network of centres;

• assess the need for further main town centre uses and ensure there is the capacity to

accommodate them;

• focus development in, and plan for expansion of, existing centres as appropriate, and at the

local level identify appropriate sites in development plan documents;

10

• promote town centre management, creating partnerships to develop, improve and maintain

town centres, and manage the evening economy and night-time economy; and

• regularly monitor and review the impact and effectiveness of their polices for promoting vital

and viable town centres.

3.05 In order to deliver the Government’s objective of promoting vital and viable town centres,

development should be focused in existing centres in order to strengthen and, where appropriate,

regenerate them. Paragraph 2.1 of PPS6 states that regional planning bodies and local planning

authorities should:

• actively promote growth and manage change in town centres;

• define a network and hierarchy of centres each performing their appropriate role to meet the

needs of their catchments; and

• adopt a proactive, plan-led approach to planning for town centres, through regional and local

planning.

3.06 Furthermore, PPS6 recognises that regional planning bodies and local planning authorities should

consider the network of centres. Indeed, PPS6 highlights that at both regional and local level,

authorities should (paragraph 2.9): ‘…plan carefully how best to distribute any identified growth to

achieve the objectives of their spatial strategies. In defining their objectives, regional planning bodies and local planning authorities should consider whether there is a need to rebalance the network of centres to ensure that it is not overly dominated by the largest centres, and that there is a more even

distribution of town centre uses, and that people’s everyday needs are met at the local level.’ On this

basis, PPS6 states that in considering the development of the network and hierarchy, regional

planning bodies should consider:

• whether there is a need to avoid an over-concentration of growth in the higher level centres;

• the need for investment and growth to strengthen other centres, especially those needing

regeneration; and

• the need to address deficiencies in the network by promoting centres to function at a higher

level in the hierarchy of designating new centres.

3.07 Furthermore, PPS6 (paragraph 2.10) highlights that regional planning bodies and local planning

authorities should recognise that networks and hierarchies are dynamic, and will change over time: ‘…but any significant change in role and function of centres, upward or downward, should come through the development plan process, rather than through planning applications. Changes to the status of existing centres or the identification of new centres which are of more than local importance

should be addressed initially at the regional level through regional spatial strategies.’ (Our emphasis).

11

3.08 With regard to the role of regional plans, PPS6 states that regional spatial strategies should set out

a vision and strategy for the region’s growth particularly for higher level centres in the region and

their role as the focus for major retail, leisure, office and other main town centre development of

more than local importance. Paragraph 2.13 states that:

‘In preparing revisions to their regional spatial strategy, the regional planning body should:

• develop a strategic framework for the development of a network of centres in their region and, where appropriate, for any identified sub-regions taking into account the need to avoid an over-concentration of growth in higher level centres;

• make strategic choices about those centres of regional and, where appropriate sub-regional significance:

o where major growth should be encouraged; and o where appropriate, the need for new centres in areas of planning major growth.

• In broad terms, assess the overall need for additional floorspace over the regional spatial strategy period, especially for comparison retail, leisure and office development, and for five-year periods within it, and, having regard to capacity and accessibility of centres, identify where the identified needs would best be met having regard to the Government’s objectives; and

• Monitor and regularly review the implementation of the strategy.’

3.09 With regard to major out-of-town centre development, PPS6 advises that development of regional

or sub-regional importance should be addressed through the regional spatial strategy. PPS6 states

that in response to the key objective of the Government’s town centre policy, it is unlikely that the

development of a new or an expanded out-of-centre regional or sub-regional shopping centre will

meet the requirements of this policy.

3.10 Furthermore, paragraph 2.54 of PPS6 highlights that: ‘Unless they are identified as centres in

regional spatial strategies and/or in development plan documents, planning authorities should not regard existing out-of-centre development, comprising or including main town centre uses, such as shops, shopping centres, leisure parks or retail warehouse parks, as centres.’

Regional/Sub-Regional Shopping Malls

3.11 A number of major out-of-centre/town regional malls are located throughout the UK. In this respect,

Annex A of PPS6 defines regional and sub-regional shopping centres as: ‘out-of-centre shopping

centres which are generally over 50,000 square metres gross retail area, typically comprising a wide variety of comparison goods stores.’

3.12 Table 3.1 lists the largest malls throughout the United Kingdom based on the Management

Horizons Europe (MHE) ‘UK Shopping Index (2003/04)’. This index ranks the top 1,672 shopping

12

venues in the UK, including town centres, major retail warehouse parks and factory outlet centres

together with stand alone malls. The index is based on a weighted scoring system which takes

account of each location’s provision of multiple retailers and anchor store strength.

3.13 The MHE Rankings rank Merry Hill 61st nationally in 2004, which places it in the top 5% of all UK

shopping venues. Merry Hill is ranked fifth in the top 10 stand alone malls identified by MHE;

Bluewater is ranked highest. However, it is important to note that this rank is based on 2003

information and the MetroCentre is now identified as being the biggest in Europe, due to a recent

extension. The retail offer at The Trafford Centre has recently been improved with the addition of a

John Lewis department store, which may affect their ranking. Notwithstanding this, it is significant

to note that with the exception of Meadowhall in Sheffield, the other nine largest malls have fallen in

the ranking since 2001, most notably Brent Cross and Cribbs Causeway.

Table 3.1: The Top 10 Stand-Alone Mega-Malls

Rank Mall MHE Index Score Rank 2003-2004 Rank 2000-2001 Change in Rank

1 Bluewater 242 18 12 -6 2 Meadowhall 203 31 33 +2 3 Trafford Centre 202 32 30 -2 4 Lakeside 186 45 29 -16 5 Merry Hill 170 61 49 -12 6 MetroCentre 166 64 52 -12 7 Cribbs Causeway 139 100 80 -20 8 Brent Cross 124 131 107 -24 9 Braehead 119 139 121 -18 10 White Rose 102 183 167 -16

Source: Management Horizons Europe: UK Shopping Index (2003/2004)

3.14 WYG has assessed each of the top ten malls within England (i.e. excluding Braehead Shopping

Centre in Scotland, which is not subject to guidance outlined in PPS6) in terms of the following:

• Regional and local planning policy in respect of the respective mall;

• Description of the mall, including an assessment of the mall in terms of surrounding uses;

• Planning history; and

• Future plans and strategy for each mall.

13

4 BLUEWATER, GREENHITHE General Description of the Centre and Surrounding Area

4.01 Bluewater Shopping Centre (‘Bluewater’) is located near to Greenhithe Village in the Borough of

Dartford, in northwest Kent in close proximity to

the main interchange between the A2 (London to

Dover Road) and the M25 orbital motorway.

Bluewater has been built in a former chalk quarry

and consequently cliffs up to 50 metres high

surround the shopping centre on three sides

(Figure 4.1) Accordingly, the surrounding road

network together with the chalk cliffs restrict

significant further expansion outwards of the existing shopping centre.

Figure 4.1: Chalk Cliffs surrounding Bluewater

4.02 Bluewater was opened in March 1999, being developed by Lend Lease and comprising 154,000 sq

m of floorspace (including 140,000 sq m of retail). It offers parking for approximately 13,000 cars

and a taxi rank and bus station are also located adjacent to the main entrances of the shopping

mall, resulting in the centre being accessible by a variety of modes of transport. However,

significantly, access by foot is restricted by the centre’s relatively isolated location from nearby

residential areas and by the major road network, which does not aid pedestrian movement.

Therefore, it is evident that most shoppers access the centre by private car.

4.03 The centre comprises of three shopping malls

(Guild Hall, The Rose Gallery and Thames Walk)

with over 330 stores, including: House of Fraser;

John Lewis; and Marks & Spencer. There are 40

cafes, bars and restaurants and a 13-screen

cinema. Bluewater is surrounded by over 50 acres

of parkland with seven lakes, offering leisure

activities including fishing, cycling and boating. Figure 4.2: View inside the Mall

Planning History 4.04 The Bluewater Shopping Centre is built on the site of a former quarry. The original planning

applications submitted in 1986 and 1988 (LPA Ref: DA/86/0391OUT and DA/88/00336OUT)

proposed the construction of a regional shopping centre (140,000 sq. m retail) with recreation and

leisure facilities and associated access roads, including alterations to the existing highway network

and 10,000 car parking spaces. Dartford Borough Council was minded to grant planning

14

permission, major economic and environmental benefits. The site was removed from its Green Belt

allocation to allow for the development of a regional shopping centre. The proposal and citing was

‘called-in’ by the Secretary of State and planning permission was eventually granted in May 1990.

4.05 Conditions imposed on the approved scheme included restricting the gross lettable retail floorspace

to 139,360 sq m and that floorspace devoted to recreation and leisure uses should not exceed

11,613 sq m. Moreover, conditions forbid the use of more than 1,148 sq m (gross) of retail

floorspace for the sale of food and convenience goods. Accordingly, no major foodstore is located

within or adjacent to the shopping centre.

Relevant Planning Policy

Regional Planning Guidance

4.06 Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) for the South East is set out in RPG9, which covers the period

up to 2016 and was published in March 2001. This guidance has an overriding vision of

encouraging economic success throughout the Region, ensuring a higher quality of environment

with management of natural resources, opportunity and equity for the Region’s population, and a

more sustainable pattern of development. The focus of policies in RPG9 are on enabling an urban

renaissance, promoting regeneration and renewal, concentrating development in urban areas,

promoting a prosperous and multi-purpose countryside and promoting wider choice in travel

options, thereby reducing reliance on the private car.

4.07 One of the main principles outlined in RPG9 that should govern the continuing development of the

Region is focusing development within urban areas through making them more attractive,

accessible and better able to attract investment. In this respect, Policy Q5 of RPG9 identifies that:

‘The Regions existing network of larger town centres should be the focus for major retail, leisure and

office developments, to support an urban renaissance, promote social inclusion and encourage more sustainable patterns of development.’

4.08 RPG9 acknowledges that town centres have suffered from the last recession and from the

diversification to out-of-centre retail developments. Therefore, in order to reverse this trend, RPG9

identifies that there is a need to focus retailing development in town centres and to avoid further

development in out-of-centre locations.

4.09 Furthermore, RPG9 distinguishes between different parts of the Region, namely: London; Thames

Gateway; Priority Areas for Economic Regeneration (PAER); the Western Policy Area; and

Potential Growth Areas. Bluewater Shopping Centre falls within the Thames Gateway, which is

identified by the guidance as a regional and national priority for regeneration and growth with the

15

potential to make a contribution to the Region’s economy. Although RPG9 identifies that the

Thames Gateway has socio-economic and physical problems, Bluewater is identified as acting as a

catalyst for improving the area’s image thereby attracting further inward investment.

4.10 However, it is significant to note that the new South East Plan is being drafted by the South East

Regional Assembly and the South East Plan Part 1: Core Regional Polices was approved by the

Assembly’s annual meeting on 13 July 2005. The Plan sets out a vision for the region from 2006

through to 2026, focusing on housing, transport, economy and the environment. The full plan, to

include Part 1 and Part 2 (‘Sub-regional Details), will be submitted for Government approval in

Spring 2006 (intended date of 31 March), therefore, it is important to note that neither Part A

(although has been submitted to the Government for comments) nor Part B have been formally

adopted.

4.11 Notwithstanding this, the emerging South East Plan identifies a vision for the South East of: ‘…sustained improvement in its quality of life over the period to 2026, measured by the well being of its citizens, the vitality and its economy, the wealth of its environment and the prudent use of natural resources.’

4.12 With regard to town centres and retailing, Section D8 of the emerging South East Plan reflects the

guidance contained in PPS6 of promoting the vitality and viability of town centres. Policy TC2 sets

out a strategic network of town centres, within which Bluewater is identified as a ‘Primary Regional

Centre’ along with other centres such as Brighton, Oxford, Southampton and Milton Keynes.

Accordingly, Policy TC2 seeks to focus major retail development, uses which attract large numbers

of people, employment and housing within these centres. Significantly, the nearby centres of

Dartford and Gravesend are both identified as ‘Secondary Regional Centres’ in the draft South East

Plan.

4.13 With regard to new development and redevelopment in town centres, the supporting text to this

policy (paragraph 1.12) highlights that: ‘Local authorities should work across administrative

boundaries to assess capacity and need for new development within the town centres and identify

which centres should be preferred locations for growth.’ Furthermore, a regional study into Town

Centre Futures (November 2004) and addendum (April 2005) commissioned by the Regional

Assembly’s Town Centre and Retail Task Group has informed regional priorities, which are

reflected in guidance contained in the emerging South East Plan. This research showed very

substantial growth in residual retail expenditure and development in the period to 2026. Indeed, the

study identified residual expenditure for new comparison retail floorspace of £20bn by 2026, which

equates to approximately 4 million sq m (gross) of retail floorspace. The study forecasted that

existing floorspace stock in the identified leading 50 town centres (which includes Bluewater) will

double by 2026.

16

4.14 In accordance with PPS6, the emerging South East Plan acknowledges that this residual growth

should be directed towards town centre and edge-of-centre locations in the first instance. Moreover,

the regional study into town centre futures has helped inform the following strategy for the

development of a balanced network of centres for each sub-regional strategy area. Bluewater is

identified to fall within Sub-Regional Strategy Area 4: Kent Thames Gateway (which includes the

strategic centres of Bluewater/ Ebbsfleet, Maidstone, Chatham, Dartford, Gravesend and

Sittingbourne). The emerging South East Plan identifies that: ‘This catchment has a blend of centres

with substantial critical mass (Bluewater/Ebbsfleet and Maidstone) together with significant planned

housing and employment in the Gateway’. (Paragraph 1.30).

4.15 In this respect, the emerging South East Plan identifies that: ‘Limited additional floorspace should

be permitted at Bluewater if it maintains its specialist regional role for comparison goods shopping

and a new centre will be provided at Ebbsfleet.’ (Paragraph 1.30). Furthermore, Policy TC3 ‘New

Development and Redevelopment in Town Centres’ identifies that:

‘The strategic network of town centres will be the prime focus for large scale leisure, office and culture

and retail developments to meet identified needs taking into account: i The need to support the pre-eminent town centre’s functions, viability and capacity to

accommodate change and growth within each sub-regional catchment area ii The need to respect the historic character, environment and cultural value of existing town

centres iii Where it would assist the regeneration of vulnerable centres, new investment of the

appropriate level and scale should be promoted iv Where it would support sustainability objectives including the role of regional hubs v The potential impact on the vitality and viability of nearby town centres vi The impact on traffic and the need to minimise reliance on the car/lorry and promote public

transport accessibility.’

4.16 Accordingly, the emerging South East Plan identifies that the network of town centres is an

important element of the spatial strategy. The role and regeneration of these centres should not be

undermined by large-scale out-of-centre retail development. Indeed, paragraph 1.43 states that: ‘No

need has been identified for any further out-of-centre regional or sub-regional shopping centres or large-scale extensions to existing centres during the period to 2026. However, if there are no sequentially suitable sites it may be appropriate to consider an intensification of development on

existing out-of-centre sites.’ (Our emphasis).

4.17 Indeed, Policy TC4 (‘Creating and Supporting Town Centres’) reflects that there has been no need

identified for any further out-of-centre regional or sub-regional shopping centres or large-scale

extensions to existing centres. In this regard, Policy TC4 states that: ‘The role and regeneration of

town centres should not be undermined by an intensification of uses on out-of-centre development.’

17

4.18 Given this, it is evident that there appears to be a number of contradictions within the emerging

South East Plan, on one hand identifying Bluewater as a defined centre, where future development

should be focused and on the other hand restricting further large-scale extension at existing out-of-

centre facilities where no need has been identified. Indeed, it is significant to note that the

Government have provided an initial response (March 2005) to the Consultation Draft South East

Plan (Part A). The Government response highlighted that they have particular concern with the

inclusion of Bluewater within the list of town centres under Policy TC2. In this respect, the

Government are unconvinced that Bluewater performs the function of a town centre. As such, the

response highlights that: ‘In our view, it is an out-of-town retail development. As such it should not be

the focus for major additional development or uses, which attract large numbers of people, especially as that paragraph 1.16 of the draft consultation Plan states that no need has been identified for large-scale extensions to existing out-of-centre or sub-regional shopping centres up to 2026.’

4.19 It appears that these concerns have not been addressed in the publication of the South East Plan

Part 1 (July 2005). However, discussions with the South East Assembly indicate that the

Government will provide a formal response to Part A and Part B when it is submitted to the

Government in March 2006 and therefore, it is likely that these concerns will be expressed again.

Structure Plan

4.20 The Kent Structure Plan, jointly produced by Kent County Council and Medway Council was

adopted in 1996 and sets out the strategic planning framework for the protection of the

environment, major transport priorities, and the scale, pattern and broad location of new

development including provision for new housing and major development across Kent and

Medway.

4.21 Whilst it is acknowledged that the Kent Structure Plan pre-dates the opening of Bluewater

Shopping Centre (1999), it is important to note that specific references to the Bluewater

development are contained in the Kent Structure Plan. Indeed, the adopted structure plan identified

a portfolio of strategic development locations in the Kent Thames-side area; including Western

Quarry (Bluewater Regional Shopping Centre) identified under Policy NK1.

4.22 Furthermore, Policy R3 of the Kent Structure Plan identified that priority would be given to town

centre proposals identified in local plans and to the committed regional shopping centre at Western

Quarry, Dartford (Bluewater).

4.23 Whilst it is considered that the adopted Kent Structure Plan is somewhat outdated in retail planning

terms, the structure plan is currently under review. Following changes to local government in 1998,

Kent County Council and Medway Council are now jointly responsible for the review of the structure

18

plan. Accordingly, the review of the structure plan commenced in March 2002 with the publication of

‘Mapping out the Future’, which focused on key areas of policy change for discussion. The

responses and views received from this consultation were fed into the production of the deposit

version of the Kent and Medway Structure plan, which was published in September 2003.

4.24 This document provides the strategic planning framework that will guide decisions on development,

transport and environmental matters in the area over the period 2001-2021. In this respect, the

emerging Structure Plan’s role in shaping development will be particularly crucial since two of the

Government’s four growth areas for the South East, identified in ‘Sustainable Communities: building

for the future’, Thames Gateway and Ashford, are within Kent and Medway.

4.25 The emerging Structure Plan identifies a number of key spatial issues including: responding to the

decline of town centres and accommodating growth pressures in a sustainable way. In terms of the

retail hierarchy of Kent, the emerging structure plan identifies that: ‘Bluewater is an established out-

of-centre shopping development with a regional catchment extending across much of Kent and into

London and Essex’ (paragraph 6.45). In this respect, Bluewater is identified as the only regional

centre in the hierarchy and it is intended the hierarchy of centres identified will generally be

maintained. Furthermore, paragraph 6.50 states that: ‘The planning and development strategy in

North Kent will result in Bluewater becoming a major centre for retail, leisure and entertainment

embedded within the new urban area of Kent Thameside.’ In addition, the emerging Structure Plan

identifies that over the next 20 years it will mature as a central place, being well connected through

road links and new public transport systems to the whole of Kent Thameside and being in close

proximity to the A2 and the new station at Ebbsfleet. In this regard, the emerging Structure Plan

considers that it is not solely served by car and there is a good and developing bus system, and in

the near future it will be well served by Ebbsfleet and Greenhithe stations and ‘Fastrack’.

4.26 However, in terms of accommodating future growth in retail expenditure, the Structure Plan

identifies that large scale retail development will be concentrated at the sub-regional centres, which

provide the greatest choice and have the best prospect of competing with out-of-centre shopping

and at the town centres of the Principal Urban Areas which are experiencing major growth. On this

basis, Policy FP15 (‘Development for Core Comparison Goods Shopping’) identifies that:

‘a) Proposals for core comparison shopping should be accommodated at town or district centres

in Kent. b) Development of comparison goods shopping at the sub-regional and principal town centres

will be supported, particularly at: (i) Maidstone; (ii) Chatham; (iii) Ashford;

19

(iv) Folkestone; c) The scale and character of development at Canterbury should not prejudice investment in,

and strengthening of, the principal town centres in East Kent and development of Ashford as a sub regional centre.

d) Any development at Bluewater should not prejudice investment in, and strengthening of, the

sub regional centres of Chatham and Maidstone nor conflict with the role of principal town centres in North Kent as the prime focus for local retail, services, cultural and leisure facilities.

e) Development of a new mixed use town centre for Thanet at Westwood, adjacent to and

integrated with existing major retail provision, and incorporating up to 25,000 sq m of gross floorspace will be supported.’

4.27 On this basis, it is evident that policies in the emerging structure plan seek to concentrate

development at established town centres rather than further development at Bluewater Shopping

Centre.

Local Plan

4.28 The Borough of Dartford Local Plan was formally adopted in April 1995 and sets out a policy

framework to guide and encourage development in the Borough and to enhance its environment for

the period to 2001. On this basis, we consider that the adopted Local Plan is out-of-date in retail

planning terms. However, it is significant to note that the plan contains a number of references to

Bluewater.

4.29 In regard, a regional study undertaken by SERPLAN in 1987 identified a quantitative gap in

strategic shopping provision in the A2 corridor in North Kent. Consequently, specific provision was

made for the adjustment of Green Belt boundaries in North West Kent to allow for the development

of a regional shopping centre. Accordingly, policies within the adopted Local Plan sought to secure

the implementation of the Bluewater proposal, reflected in Policy R1 which states that retail

development will be permitted at Western Quarry (Bluewater). Indeed, the Council identified that

the Bluewater development would result in major economic and environmental benefits and was

supported by the Council at various stages of the planning process. In this respect, Policy R4

safeguards Western Quarry, Dartford for the development of a regional shopping centre.

4.30 As we have previously highlighted, we consider that the adopted Local Plan is out-of-date in retail

planning terms. Consequently, the Local Plan is currently under review and the Second Deposit

Draft (‘emerging plan’) was published in October 2002, but significantly will not progress to Inquiry.

This is because the Council has decided to begin work on the new Local Development Framework

system. The Local Development Framework Scheme was approved in April 2005 and sets outs a

20

timetable for the preparation of the full Local Development Framework. Within this timetable, the

Core Strategy and the other major components are anticipated to be adopted in March 2007.

Notwithstanding this, the Dartford Local Plan review Second Deposit and the amendments to the

Second Deposit Draft (approved January 2004) provide the most up-to-date information on

development policy in the Borough.

4.31 On this basis, the emerging plan identifies that the strategy for Dartford has been determined by

two factors – Dartford’s fundamental role within the Thames Gateway as a growth area, and how

the scale of development can be achieved in a form which meets sustainable objectives.

4.32 In terms of retail development, the Council’s primary objectives are identified to be:

1. To meet the demand for new shopping facilities within the Borough in locations which

reduce the need to travel and are accessible by foot, cycle and public transport.

2. To consolidate and enhance the vitality and viability of Dartford Town Centre as the

Borough’s main mixed-use shopping centre.

3. To maintain the role of Bluewater as a regional shopping centre.

4. To safeguard the role of district and local shopping centres in providing convenience

shopping and service facilities for local communities.

5. To safeguard the role of rural shops in providing convenience shopping for local

communities.

4.33 The emerging Local Plan identifies that the Bluewater Regional Shopping Centre, which

intentionally has no food superstore, will form an integral part of a new area of major development

at Eastern Quarry and Ebbsfleet towards the end of the Plan period.

4.34 In terms of specific policies, Amendments to the Draft Deposit Plan (April 2004) identifies under

Policy R1 (which replaced Policy R1 in the Second Deposit Draft) that retail development will follow

the sequential approach through which proposals for comparison goods development will be

permitted at Dartford Town Centre, followed by land south of Watling Street Dartford (proposed new

neighbourhood centre), existing district and local centres and in new local centres within major new

mixed-use developments. With regard to Bluewater, Policy R1 states that:

‘Proposals for comparison goods development will also be permitted at Bluewater and the identified

North eastern edge of centre policy area if: a) there are no available, suitable or viable sites within the town centre; b) there is a proven need for retail floorspace; and c) the development would not harm the vitality and viability of the town centre.’

21

4.35 Significantly, reference to development at Bluewater up to a maximum of 10,000 square metres

identified in the Second Deposit Draft has been removed.

4.36 Furthermore, the Amendments to the emerging plan identify that: ‘It is important that Bluewater

remains an attractive location for high quality retailers to ensure that the centre does not compete directly with Dartford and Gravesend town centres. The Kent and Medway Structure Plan: Deposit Plan identifies Bluewater as a regional centre and provides for this role to be safeguarded subject to any additional development not prejudicing the sub-regional centres in North Kent and the role of the principal town centres in North Kent as the prime focus for local retail, services, cultural and leisure

facilities.’ (Paragraph 7.8.5b).

4.37 Moreover, the emerging local plan identifies that by providing additional leisure facilities at

Bluewater will increase visitor numbers and help to maintain Bluewater’s role as a regional

shopping centre. However, leisure facilities should not be located at Bluewater if they can be viable

in town centres or identified edge of centre locations. Indeed, policies within the plan identify that

leisure facilities at Bluewater should aim to complement other leisure uses found in Dartford Town

Centre and elsewhere in the Borough. In addition, paragraph 7.8.5c highlights that: ‘Leisure uses

should also enhance the experience for visitors to Bluewater without conflicting with it’s primary retail function and the adequacy and availability of the car parking provision which supports it. The existing three villages at Bluewater should act as focus for new leisure facilities, facilitating connectivity between the retail triangle and its landscaped setting. This also creates potential to develop active corridors from Bluewater into the surrounding communities.’

4.38 Furthermore, in order to encourage better usage of existing car parking as well as greater usage of

public transport, cycling and walking, Policy R2 limits car parking to 13,000 spaces, including the

200 associated with the a proposed hotel. On this basis, paragraph 7.8.5f states that: ‘This may

require the enhancement of public transport services and facilities serving and within the site. The enhancement of Greenhithe Station is a priority to reflect its role as a key interchange for Bluewater.’

4.39 In terms of additional development at Bluewater, the Local Plan identifies that the Council wishes to

ensure that future developments will not detract from the quality of the scheme or its landscaping.

Accordingly, a masterplan will be sought prior to the submission of any planning applications. The

masterplan should demonstrate:

• That the level of development provided for by Policy R2 should be accommodated within the site

taking account of the masterplan principles set out in Appendix 13a;

• How the masterplan principles have guided the form and landscaping of the proposed

development, including its interrelationship with the existing shopping centre and hotel

permission; and

22

• The measures that will be taken to encourage greater public transport patronage and non-car

usage, including:

o Safeguarding the proposed alignment for Fastrack and making a financial contribution

to ensure its delivery;

o Enhancing public transport links within the site;

o Providing improved pedestrian and cycling links into the centre; and

o The enhancement of Greenhithe Station.

4.40 Accordingly, Policy R2 ‘Bluewater’ identifies that the following policy approach will be adopted:

‘1. Additional comparison goods floorspace (up to a maximum of 10,000 square metres gross external area over and above that permitted or trading at 30 June 2001) and leisure floorspace will be permitted where it is demonstrated through a masterplan that the overall level of development can be accommodated on the site and will: a) comply with the masterplan principles set out at Appendix 13a; b) not detract from the existing landscaped setting; c) not generate a requirement for additional car parking spaces; d) not generate any additional traffic that cannot safely and efficiently be accommodated on the existing highway; e) enable and promote increased patronage by public transport f) safeguard the Fastrack route, provide a financial contribution to ensure the delivery of the safeguarded Fastrack route at Bluewater and dedicate the land required for that purpose; g) provide for the extension of public transport services and bus stops within the site; h) make provision for improved pedestrian and cycle links into the site from Bean Road across the main entrance road following existing desire lines and make provision for improved cycle parking;

i) maintain a dedicated shuttle bus service to and from Greenhithe Station or some equivalent service that fulfils that objective; and

j) provide public transport stops and services to ensure that no facilities within the site are more than 400 metres from them.

2. the amount of food and convenience floorspace will be limited to that permitted or trading at 30 June 2001;

3. proposals for additional hotel and conference facilities over and above that permitted at 30 June 2001 and change of use to hotel and conference uses (use class C1) will not be permitted; 4. proposals for additional car parking provision, over and above the existing 13,000 spaces, will not be permitted’.

4.41 This policy aims to provide for future development at Bluewater, although such development must

be complicit with the overall objectives outlined in the Local Plan.

23

4.42 The Dartford Local Plan Review Second Deposit Draft indicates that Bluewater is bounded by a

number of different land-uses. To the east of the site lies Eastern Quarry whilst to the north sits

Stone Castle, both of which are large strategic sites which are allocated for significant future

housing development under Policy H1a. In addition, Policy LRT5 also applies to the sites which

stipulates that new sports and recreational development will be encouraged and in particular

outdoor recreation facilities. To the south of Bluewater land is designated as being greenbelt by

Policy GB1. To the west of the site lies a large area of existing residential development designated

as part of the existing urban area. Additionally, a small tract of land to the south of the shopping

centre is reserved for use in the future development of the Fastrack public transport system.

Future Development Possibilities 4.43 The emerging Local Plan identifies that Bluewater Shopping Centre is bounded by a variety of land

uses, most notably Green Belt (Policy GB1) to the south together with land not suitable for

development, which restricts significant expansion.

4.44 Furthermore, Lend Lease on behalf of the owner of Bluewater considered the potential for

Bluewater to be identified as an established town centre. In this respect, whilst Dartford Borough

Council consider that Bluewater has an important role in the Thames Gateway regeneration and

deserves special recognition (reflected in the emerging local plan), the Council do not consider that

Bluewater should be given town centre status. Indeed, the opportunity for Bluewater to form a town

centre is limited by the physical constraints of the site, as Bluewater is bonded by chalk cliffs on

three sides. However, Lend Lease managed to persuade the Council to allow for a modest

increase in the retail provision within the centre and the provision of a more substantial leisure

component, as reflected in the Deposit Draft Local Plan. In stating their case, Lend Lease argued

that no further development at Bluewater would result in the centre slipping down the retail

hierarchy and consequently having a detrimental impact on Dartford Town Centre and other nearby

lower tier centres. However, the emerging Local Plan was abandoned in favour of the LDF process.

Therefore, the policy of Local Plan policy allowing for a modest increase in floorspace at Bluewater

was tested in Inquiry.

4.45 In terms of recent developments/proposals it is evident that Bluewater is located about four

kilometres from the planned Ebbsfleet station on the new high speed rail link between London and

the Channel Tunnel. Furthermore, new residential developments are proposed to the north of the

site at Stone Castle, and to the east of the site on Eastern Quarry as discussed previously.

4.46 The emerging Local Plan identifies that outline planning permission was granted for a 150-180 bed

hotel, including meeting facilities, health and fitness facilities, and a maximum of 200 car parking

24

spaces at land adjacent to the north west lake. It is the intention that this should be a four star

quality hotel to complement and build upon the existing quality of Bluewater.

4.47 In addition, proposals for a 51,000 sq m exhibition and events venue at Bluewater have recently

been submitted. The application has been brought forward by Developer Lend Lease Retail on

behalf of Bluewater owner BlueCo. The proposals include reconfiguring existing areas as well as

enhancing informal dining spaces to provide more seats. The plan aims to develop a year round

consumer-orientated leisure facility connected to the existing centre.

25

5 MEADOWHALL, SHEFFIELD

General Description of the Centre and Surrounding Area 5.01 Meadowhall, which opened in September 1990, is located approximately five kilometres north of

Sheffield City Centre in the Lower Don Valley, South Yorkshire, on the site of a former steelworks.

5.02 The mall is crescent shaped (Figure 5.1) and spreads over two floors, covering a site area

(including car parks) of 2,000 acres. The centre consists of six themed areas: High Street; The

Arcade; Park Land; Market Street; The Lanes;

and the Oasis Food Court, which contains seating

for over 2,250 diners. In addition, The Source has

recently been added which comprises an IT

Learning Centre, conference facilities,

employment services, a research library, a gym

and aerobics studio and a crèche, occupying a

floorspace of approximately 3,000 sq. m. Figure 5.1: Aerial View of Meadowhall

5.03 The shopping centre contains over 270 stores, more than 30 restaurants and an 11-scren cinema

complex. In total, Meadowhall has a leasable area of over 130,000 sq m with the largest retailers

being Marks & Spencer, Debenhams, House of Fraser and Bhs. It also contains a transport

interchange, which incorporates a railway station, bus station and Sheffield Supertram stop.

Accessibility by private car is good with the shopping centre being located in close proximity to the

M1 motorway (Junction 34), whilst Meadowhall also has its own internal dual carriageway ring road

and is surrounded by 12,600 free parking spaces.

5.04 The area surrounding Meadowhall is predominantly

in employment use (including industrial use),

although some offices together with residential

properties are located nearby (Figure 5.2). However,

it is evident to note that residential properties are

located a significant distance from the shopping

mall. Furthermore, given the topography of the

surrounding area there does not appear to be

notable trips undertaken by foot to the shopping centre from the outlying residential area.

Figure 5.2: Surrounding Uses

26

Planning History 5.05 The initial application (LPA Ref: 86/572P) was superseded by a later application (LPA Ref:

86/572P), which although almost identical, identified 929 sq m of additional retail floorspace. The

proposed development was for 91,974 sq m (gross) of retail floorspace (including a 9,290 sq m

supermarket), 6,503 sq m exhibition hall and 21,368 sq m of leisure floorspace. A number of

conditions were attached including that no more than 20% of the sales floorspace of any shop unit

of a size greater than 465 sq m shall be used for the sale of food. After outline planning permission

was initially granted for retail, the permission was re-issued in March 1987 (LPA Ref: 87/411P) to

include amendments to conditions relating to phased opening of shops and leisure elements.

5.06 A further outline consent (LPA Ref: 87/412P) dated March 1987 extended the consent on the site to

include the land to the west of Vulcan Road, which effectively gave consent to the existing site.

Later in 1987, outline planning permission (LPA Ref: 87/1605P) was granted for leisure and

recreational development to be built on the site adjoining Sheffield Road. This allowed this element

of the overall scheme to be taken from the main shopping buildings and relocated to an ‘island site’.

5.07 In addition, planning permission (LPA Ref: 87/1606P) was granted for a further 9,755 sq m of retail

floorspace and 1,858 sq m of Class A2 space to be added to previous consent (LPA Ref:

CA87/411P). A retrospective application (LPA Ref: 89/8091P) for 3,763 sq m of retail floorspace

was approved in 1989 (despite the Council considering that the additional retail floorspace would

have a detrimental impact on the vitality and viability of established centres) which provided an

amendment to the approved scheme. The application proposed an extension of 3,066 sq m.

5.08 Outline planning permission was also granted in 1989 (LPA Ref: 89/8098P) for a leisure building

within the Meadowhall development. Although planning permission existed for 21,368 sq m of

leisure in the initial application, this subsequent application sought to specify the proposed uses,

which included a cinema, bowling centre, nightclub, snooker hall/club, public houses and water

parks.

5.09 Additionally, further planning permissions included consent for the extension of the Market Street

entrance by 3,355 sq m (gross) for leisure and cafeteria uses (LPA Ref: 91/8058P) and in

September 2001 permission was granted for the extension of Meadowhall to form a cinema

complex and construction of play/amenity area at The Oasis. This comprised some 3,734 sq m

(gross) of floorspace.

27

Relevant Planning Policy Regional Spatial Strategy

5.10 Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS), which has been based on the Selective Review of Regional

Planning Guidance 12 (2001), was published in December 2004 and provides a spatial framework

to inform the preparation of Local Development Frameworks and Local Transport Plans. It provides

a broad strategy for the development and use of land in Yorkshire and the Humber that is relevant

to 2016 and beyond.

5.11 In terms of retailing, the RSS identifies that major retail developments will be located within main

centres and further out-of-centre retailing will be resisted. In this respect, Policy SOC3 provides a

framework for consideration of all forms of retailing and leisure in the region, stating inter alia that:

‘a) No further out-of-centre regional or subregional shopping centres of large-scale expansion of

those that exist, including Meadowhall and White Rose should be permitted.’

5.12 On this basis, RSS identifies that additional out-of-centre regional or sub-regional facilities in the

region would put at risk the continued vitality and viability of town and city centres which provide a

full range of commercial, leisure, cultural and social facilities and generally accessible by means

other than the car.

5.13 Furthermore, RSS identifies that the two largest out-of-town centres in the region are Meadowhall

and White Rose and development plans should: ‘…make it clear that large-scale extensions

(including the cumulative effect of smaller extensions) will not be allowed and define the relevant scale in terms of floorspace (this will depend on local circumstances, such as the size and nature of the

existing centre).’ (Paragraph 8.21).

5.14 Furthermore, the Yorkshire and Humber Assembly are currently preparing, in partnership with

regional stakeholders, a ‘new’ RSS. In this respect, Draft RSS ‘The Yorkshire and Humber Plan’

was submitted to Government in December 2005 and it is intended that a Revised RSS will be

published in Autumn 2007. The Draft RSS sets out the scale, priorities and broad locations for

change and development in the region over the period to 2021.

Unitary Development Plan

5.15 Sheffield City Unitary Development Plan (UDP) was adopted on March 1998 and covers the period

up to March 2008. The UDP recognises that Sheffield will be promoted as a regional centre for

jobs, shopping, commerce, public services, higher education, leisure, culture, entertainment and

tourism by making the most of opportunities available in different parts of the City.

28

5.16 In this respect, Policy S2 identifies that the city centre and Lower Don Valley will have important

complementary roles and a balance will be maintained which will:

a. promote regeneration of the city centre as the major commercial and cultural centre of the

city; and

b. promote the regeneration of the Lower Don Valley, through the development of industry,

business and large scale uses which could not be accommodated in the city centre; and

c. lead to a more efficient and effective use of roads and public transport; and

d. locate facilities where they would be most accessible for potential users.

5.17 Accordingly, the UDP identifies Sheffield City Centre as the principal commercial centre in South

Yorkshire, and as such the thrust of the plan is to regenerate and enhance the city centre.

However, the UDP recognises that Sheffield City Centre has declined in recent years as a shopping

destination, with the impact of Meadowhall identified as a contributing factor. Whilst Meadowhall is

identified in the UDP as serving an important function as a regional shopping centre, improving the

range and quality of comparison goods shopping in the Sheffield sub-region, it is considered that

significant additional development would harm the prospects of regeneration in the city centre

(referred to as the Central shopping Area in the UDP). Consequently, shopping policies in the UDP

aim to direct investment to the city centre and achieve a balance between Meadowhall and the city

centre. In this respect, the UDP acknowledges that major non-food shopping development should

be concentrated in the city centre and the district shopping centres, so as to sustain and enhance

these centres, reduce the need to travel and enable access by a range of different types of

transport. Therefore, the Plan strategy will entail promoting sites for such development in existing

centres but closely restricting development elsewhere.

5.18 Policy S1 ‘The City Centre and the Location of Major Shop Developments’ identifies that major

retail development will be promoted in Sheffield’s Central Shopping Area in order to facilitate

regeneration and strengthen its role as the principal commercial centre of South Yorkshire.

5.19 Specific guidance on development at Meadowhall is outlined in Policy S8 which identifies what kind

of uses are deemed appropriate within the centre, including: Shops (A1), offices used by the public

(A2), food and drink outlets (A3), Business (B1), Hotels (C1), Community facilities and institutions

(D1) and leisure and recreation facilities (D2). Conversely, a number of uses are deemed to be

unacceptable including General Industry (B2), warehouses and open storage (B8), residential

institutions (C2), housing (C3), car showrooms, garage and transport depots and scarp yards.

Furthermore, Policy S8 states that:

29

‘Proposals for major non-food development will not be permitted where they would undermine the Plan strategy of concentrating such development within the Central Shopping Area and District Shopping Centres by:

a. significantly and harmfully increasing the retail draw of Meadowhall; or b. directly facilitating relocation from the Central Shopping Area of forms of retailing fundamental to

its continuing vitality and viability; or c. significantly and harmfully expanding forms of retailing fundamental to the continuing vitality and

viability of existing Centres’.

‘Proposals for non-retail development will be permitted only provided that: a. it would not undermine the vitality and viability of the City Centre as a whole; and b. it would not jeopardise private-sector investment needed to safeguard the vitality and viability of the

City or put at risk the strategy for regeneration of the Central Shopping Area; and c. there would be sufficient capacity in the surrounding road network to manage the traffic generated;

and d. the traffic generated would not result in a significant increase the number and length of customer

trips’.

5.20 Whilst the UDP recognises that Meadowhall both complements and competes with Sheffield City

Centre, because of the vulnerability of the city centre the impact of Meadowhall needs to be

carefully considered. Given this, further major development at Meadowhall should be considered

against the need to restore retail and investor confidence in the city centre, and to maintain and

enhance its vitality and viability. As such, small-scale development like the expansion of existing

stores will be permitted (subject to a number of criteria) as the impact it would have on the Central

Shopping Area is considered likely to be negligible. However, mall extension or reconfiguration of

the shopping centre to accommodate new business is considered likely to have a detrimental

impact on the city centre and would not be permitted.

5.21 Furthermore, Sheffield City Council is currently preparing the Sheffield Development Framework

(SDF), which will be the City’s portfolio of local development documents, collectively covering the

whole of Sheffield District except for the area in the Peak Park. Once adopted, the SDF will replace

the UDP.

5.22 The Local Development Scheme was published in March 2005 and approved by the Secretary of

State; it sets out what documents will be prepared over the next three years. It indicates that the

Core Strategy will be the first of the planning documents of the SDF, although the Preferred Options

for the Core Strategy has been published (although this carries limited weight). With regard to

retailing and Meadowhall, the Preferred Options reflects government guidance on town centres and

retailing and the Council’s existing commitment to the New Retail Quarter in Sheffield City Centre,

30

which is a retail-led mixed-use regeneration scheme in the Core Retail Area. In this respect, the

Preferred Options identifies the city centre as the most suitable centre for infrequent purchases of

non-food items, since it is the most accessible centre for most people. Accordingly the city centre is

identified to be at the top of the hierarchy of centres within Sheffield.

5.23 The Preferred Options for the Core Strategy identifies that Meadowhall is a successful regional

shopping centre but that its expansion could harm the prospects of investment in the city centre

and other town centres. Accordingly, Preferred Option PS5 states that:

‘There will be a strong focus on regenerating the City Centre and developing the New Retail Quarter.

Only limited retail development will take place at Meadowhall. Leisure and employment development that cannot be accommodated in the City Centre will be appropriate at and around Meadowhall.’

5.24 This approach reflects advice contained in draft Regional Spatial Strategy, which requires that there

should be no large-scale expansion at Meadowhall. This is entirely consistent with the need to

regenerate the city centre, which is a key part of the Sheffield Development Framework spatial

strategy, and other town centres in the city region. On this basis, paragraph 6.58 states that: ‘…the

City Centre should be given priority. However, large-scale commercial leisure development may not be suitable in the City Centre and the Lower Don Valley, and Meadowhall in particular, is one of the most accessible locations for such development.’

5.25 Significantly, the Preferred Options for the Core Strategy identifies that a number of options have

been rejected including:

• No expansion: no retail and leisure development at and around Meadowhall;

• Expand Meadowhall as a local facility with district centre status; and

• Only limited retail and leisure development needed for Meadowhall to maintain its present role

and share of the regional market.

5.26 Furthermore, the City Polices document will set out policies and criteria to guide planning advice

and decisions. The Emerging Options for the City Policies (February 2006), which has been

published for consultation identifies, under Emerging ES4 ‘Development at Meadowhall’, that the

following option is being considered (which reflects Policy S8 of the adopted UDP):

‘In the Meadowhall Shopping Areas the following uses will be: Acceptable

• Minor development needed for the operation of existing: - Shops (A1) - Offices used by the public (A2)

31

- Cafes and restaurants (A3) - Drinking establishments (A4) - Take-aways (A5) - Leisure uses (D2)

• Business (B1)

• Hotels (C1)

• Community facilities and institutions (D1) Unacceptable

• Other retail development (A1-A5)

• General Industry (B2)

• Housing (C3)

• Car showrooms Proposals for uses not listed will be decided on their individual merits.

5.27 In this respect, the Emerging Options identifies that minor development will consist of refurbishment

and redevelopment and lead to not more than a limited increase in net floorspace. Possible options

for defining appropriate levels of growth might be:

a. No increase.

b. 1,850 sq m over a five year period – equivalent to the amount of retail floorspace permitted

by outline and full planning permissions over the last ten years.

c. a maximum of 200 sq m per unit – equivalent to the allowance for mezzanines in the

consultation paper on the Control of Mezzanines.

32

Future Development Possibilities 5.28 Policy LR4 of the UDP designates land designated as land to the north, east and west of

Meadowhall as an area of Open Space, which will be protected from built development. To the

south-east, south-west and north-east of the shopping centre, land is designated for general

business with special industries usage, under Policy IB5: Development in General Industry Areas.

To the west of the site is the Wincobank residential area, which is undesignated in the UDP,

although it is within the City Boundary. Immediately to the west of Meadowhall is an area being

utilised for industrial and warehousing purposes. To the south of the shopping centre is

undesignated industrial land, whilst to the east beyond the strip of Open Space is an area of

existing housing, which is classified in the UDP under Housing Policy H11: Nether Edge and

Broomall.

5.29 In terms of further development, British Land, who owns Meadowhall, has developed a strategy to

promote better integration and a mixture of uses around the centre, with housing as a central facet.

However, this mixed-use plan was not well received by Sheffield City Council and as yet has not

progressed past the application stage. In addition, so far, there is no explicit ambition expressed by

British Land for Meadowhall to be identified as a defined town centre. Whilst the Council

recognises the important role which Meadowhall performs in providing comparison goods shopping

for Sheffield, they consider that expansion at Meadowhall would harm prospects for further

investment in the city centre. Accordingly, town centre status would not be supported by the

Council.

33

6 THE TRAFFORD CENTRE, MANCHESTER General Description of the Centre and the Surrounding Area 6.01 The Trafford Centre is located approximately nine kilometres west of Manchester City Centre, close

to Junctions 9 and 10 of the M60 motorway. The

shopping centre is served by 10,000 free car

parking spaces, a bus station and a taxi rank. The

Trafford Centre, which opened in September 1998,

covers 150 acres and includes 118,766 sq m of

retail floorspace and 29,954 sq m of catering and

leisure floorspace. Developed by Peel Holdings,

the centre is designed around three interconnected themed areas. These are the Regent Crescent,

which offers fashion and lifestyle retailers, Peel Avenue, containing high street names and The

Orient Food Court and leisure area.

Figure 6.1: Exterior of the Trafford Centre

6.02 The centre comprises 280 stores of which six are large space using anchor stores: Bhs; Boots;

Debenhams; John Lewis; Selfridges; and Marks & Spencer (which is currently being redeveloped).

In addition, leisure provision includes a food court (containing 36 restaurants), a 20-screen cinema,

a ‘Laser Quest’ and an 18-lane bowling alley.

6.03 The surrounding area comprises a mix of uses including an Asda superstore, a B&Q Warehouse

and Trafford Retail Park; located to the west of

The Trafford Centre, beyond the M60 motorway.

A hotel and office development is located to the

west of the shopping centre (Figure 6.2). Much of

the area beyond these areas is used for

employment/industrial uses, including a number of

trading estates. There is a number of vacant

brownfield sites in close proximity to the Centre. Figure 6.2: New Office Development

Planning History 6.04 Planning applications relating to the Trafford Centre site date from 1986, originally including: plans

for a Lake/Marina; a heritage museum; an urban farm; a multi-purpose community hall; and an

exhibition centre and hotel.

34

6.05 A planning application was submitted in 1986 for the erection of a sub-region centre comprising

approximately 92,900 sq m (gross) of retail floorspace, restaurants, leisure and entertainment

facilities together with 8,000 parking spaces, roadways and service areas, new vehicular access

and widening and alterations to existing highways; in addition to the provision of landscaped areas

and a lake.

6.06 Three planning applications for major retail developments in the Greater Manchester area were

being considered at this time. An Inquiry Inspector concluded that the building of one major

shopping centre in the western area of Greater Manchester would not cause unacceptable damage

to the vitality and viability of any existing centre. However, it was noted that the development of

more than one centre would cause unacceptable damage to existing centres. In March 1994, the

Inspector recommended that outline planning permission be granted for The Trafford Centre and

approval was upheld by the House of Lords in 1995.

6.07 Since the completion of The Trafford Centre, planning permission has since been granted for its

extension to accommodate John Lewis.

Relevant Planning Policy Regional Spatial Strategy

6.08 RSS for the North West (RPG13) was adopted in March 2003 as Regional Planning Guidance for

the North West. This document has as its overall aim to encourage sustainable development

patterns and physical change in the North West. It is envisaged that this will be achieved through

the delivery of seven key objectives, which include supporting enhanced economic competitiveness

and growth, supporting an urban renaissance in cities and towns, and providing enhanced

accessibility in the Region through a fully integrated transport network.

6.09 In order to achieve this, Policy DP1- Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings, which forms one of

the four Core Principles, seeks to ensure that new development and other infrastructure investment

is focused where the most effective use of land and effective use of transport can be achieved. A

sequential approach to new development will be adopted in order to do this, whereby new

development will be directed towards existing urban areas in the first instance. In addition, Policy

DP4 seeks to ensure that investment in the Region promotes sustainable economic growth and

competitiveness.

6.10 The RPG recognises the bi-polar nature of the North West, and the dominant Regional poles being

Manchester/ Salford and Liverpool. Together they form the North West Metropolitan Area. The

RPG indicates that, out of a number of possible future spatial development choices, a ‘balance

growth’ option emerged, which will see growth and investment focused on Manchester/ Salford and

35

Liverpool and their surrounding inner areas. In the wider metropolitan area, priority will be given to

development which supports the regeneration of these two city centres.

6.11 Policy EC8 Chapter 4 of the RSS for the North West (Economic Growth and Competitiveness with

Social Progress) relates directly to town centres and retail development:

‘Development plans, town centre management initiatives and other strategies should recognise the continued need to protect, sustain and improve all of the town and city centres in the Region…by: • encouraging new retail, leisure and/or mixed-use developments within existing defined town and city centre boundaries…’

6.12 The RSS necessitates that the sequential approach is followed when assessing proposals for new

retail and leisure development, and a clear need for the proposal should also be demonstrated.

However, the Policy notes that no additional need for new, or expansion of existing, out-of-centre

regional retailing or leisure floorspace has been exhibited.

6.13 The text which supports this Policy highlights that out-of-centre facilities such as The Trafford

Centre do not provide the full range of uses which would be found in a town or city centre.

Furthermore, the text recognises that such amenities are not located so as to encourage

sustainable development or social inclusion. Accordingly, the plan indicates that it would not be

appropriate to redefine existing major out-of-town retail centres like The Trafford Centre as town or

district centres in development plans and extension or intensification of activities at these places

should be avoided, if it would be detrimental to existing centres or undermine regeneration

priorities.

6.14 A replacement Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the North West is being prepared currently by

the North West Regional Assembly. The production process for this document was launched in

July 2004, with the draft RSS being submitted to the Government in January 2006. Public

consultation on the Draft Submitted North West Plan (the RSS) started March 2006.

6.15 The Submitted Draft Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the North West of England aims to deliver

improved, sustainable economic growth and a more competitive and inclusive economy. In order to

achieve a sustainable economy, Paragraph 5.3 indicates that town and city centres will be the

focus for retail and leisure development to support their vitality and viability.

6.16 Policy W5 sets out a retail hierarchy which serves to clarify the expected future roles of different

urban centres in the North West. In this regard, Policy W5 states that:

36

‘Plans and strategies should promote retail investment where it assists in the regeneration and

economic growth of the North West’s town and city centres. In considering proposals and schemes any investment made should be consistent with the scale and function of the centre, should not undermine the vitality and viability of any other centre or result in the creation of unsustainable shopping patterns.’

6.17 Manchester and Liverpool City Centres are designated as the North West’s regional centres, whilst

the RSS identifies that comparison retailing facilities should be supported and enhanced in twenty-

four smaller centres in order to ensure a sustainable distribution of high quality retailing facilities.

The Policy stresses the importance of increasing the number of independent retailers available in

the Region. However, within regard to out-of-centre facilities, Policy W5 reads as follows:

‘There will be a presumption against new out-of-centre regional or sub-regional comparison retailing facilities requiring Local Authorities to be pro-active in identifying and creating opportunities for development within town centres. There should also be a presumption against large-scale extensions to such facilities unless they are fully justified in line with the sequential approach. There is no justification for such facilities to be designated as town centres within plans and strategies.’

6.18 The supplementary text underlines the importance of concentrating development of comparison

retailing in existing centres. The Plan also identifies a growth in retail spending which is expected

to occur in the North West over the plan period. In Greater Manchester this will see a requirement

for up to 880,000 sq. m in additional comparison floorspace by 2021.

6.19 Although The Trafford Centre is seen to be an important retail facility in the Region, within the

context of Policy W5 the expansion of its floorspace in the future will not be permitted.

Unitary Development Plan

6.20 The Trafford Unitary Development Plan (UDP) was adopted in May 1996.

6.21 The proposed revision to the Trafford UDP was adopted for development control purposes in July

2004 and identifies five key priorities which form the overarching aims:

• Economic and community regeneration;

• A safe and sustainable environment;

• Community well-being;

• Lifelong learning; and

• An accessible quality service relevant and responsive to community needs.

37

6.22 Chapter 13 ‘Shopping’ highlights the importance of retailers as a provider of essential services to

the public and of employment. The Council sees shopping centres as catalysts, consolidating a

wide range of service, leisure, cultural and employment activities in addition to retailing. As such,

retail is recognised as having an important role to play in revitalising and regenerating the

Borough’s economy. Furthermore, the introductory section continues by highlighting that

investment in the Borough has reinforced established town centres as well as out-of-centre

locations. The basic objective of the policies and proposals contained in the UDP to provide

convenient access to a range of diverse shops in a comfortable and safe environment.

6.23 The identified town and district centres are expected to remain the major focus for new shopping

development which attracts many trips, whilst the role of local and neighbourhood shopping centres

in meeting day-to-day need is recognised. Although new forms of out-of-centre retailing will be

allowed, where it is shown to have a positive contribution to the range and choice of facilities

available for shoppers, a cautious approach to such developments will be pursued.

6.24 Policy S1 of the UDP (Part 1) indicates that new shopping development will be permitted within

established town, district, local and neighbourhood shopping centres, where it extends choice and

makes shopping more agreeable. New retail development in edge-of-centre and out-of-centre

locations will not be allowed unless supported by clear evidence of need and a sequential approach

having been adopted.

6.25 ‘Policy S2- The Trafford Centre’ states that:

‘the Trafford Centre is not classified as an established town or district centre’.

6.26 As such new proposals for future development on the Trafford Centre site will be considered to be

out-of-centre development and will need to conform to Proposal S11- Development Outside

Established Centres. This applies to The Trafford Centre resulting from its status as an out-of-

centre development. This Proposal states the following: ‘Proposals for retail development not on land within town and district centres…will not be permitted unless all the following factors apply:

i. There is a demonstrable need for further retail development locally that cannot be met by existing provision in the Borough; ii. It can be demonstrated that a sequential approach to site selection has been adopted, giving first preference to sites within town and district centres, followed by edge-of-centre sites at town and district centres, sites within local and neighbourhood centres, and only then by out-of-centre sites; iii. The scheme would be highly accessible by a choice of means of transport allowing for the minimisation of car use;

38

iv. The development would not lead to the sporadic siting of comparison goods shopping units along a road corridor; v. There is no realistic chance of the site being developed for any other use for which it may be allocated specifically in this Plan; vi. The development meets the requirements of other Proposals in this Plan, particularly Proposals D1 and D2.

In all cases it will be necessary to demonstrate, by means of an impact study to a methodology acceptable to the Council, that the development would not have a serious adverse effect on the vitality and viability of any town or district centre within or outside Trafford’.

6.27 However, this excludes development already permitted in the UDP, specifically the development of

leisure and sporting facilities and the completion of the Regional Sports Centre complex, adjacent

to The Trafford Centre.

6.28 The supporting text indicates that this proposal seeks to ensure the orderly development of large

stores on appropriate sites to avoid damaging the vitality and viability of existing centres. Therefore

proposals must demonstrate a quantitative need of retail capacity and a qualitative need in terms of

the benefits which the shopping facilities will bring and their contribution towards achieving the

Council’s regeneration priorities.

6.29 Policy S3 seeks to secure environmental and infrastructure improvements in any new development

in the Borough.

6.30 The Revised Trafford UDP highlights the types of uses which surround The Trafford Centre. It

indicates that, through Policy TCA1, land immediately adjacent to The Trafford Centre is reserved

for further development of sports and leisure uses, development of a high amenity mixed use

scheme, the consolidation or improvement of existing industry, or the development of non food

bulky goods retail warehousing. However, the plan stipulates that no need for further retail

expansion has been demonstrated, or is expected to be demonstrated during the plan period.

Despite this, the Council stresses that it is keen to build on the high quality shopping, leisure and

sporting facilities which are already present in The Trafford Centre. To the west, the Trafford Centre

is bounded by the ‘Trafford Park Core’ employment area (Policy TP1) which preserves this land for

the use of business, industry, and storage and distribution. No other uses will be permitted. To the

south of the Trafford Centre lies land protected as ‘Linear Open Land’ (Policy OSR6) which will be

safeguarded as a mainly undeveloped area of open land for public and private ownership. To the

east are existing houses and some industry, with a small amount of land being allocated for retail

park development under Policy S12. In addition, land to the north is preserved for use as new open

space or for outdoor recreational proposals in line with Policy TPA1 outlined above, and residential

development will also be permitted under Policy H3. Throughout the vicinity of the Trafford Centre,

39

planting of trees will be encouraged through Proposal ENV15: Community Forest. A corridor of land

has also been safeguarded for the Trafford Park Metrolink route, which will see the Metrolink

extended to The Trafford Centre under Proposal T11- High Quality Public Transport Network

Improvements.

6.31 The new statutory development plan for Trafford will consist of a portfolio of local development

documents that will collectively deliver the spatial planning strategy for each Council area, which

will called the Local Development Framework (LDF). As a prelude to its production Trafford

Council has produced a Local Development Scheme (LDS) which was published in March 2005

and covers Trafford from 2005 to 2008. The LDS sets out which documents will be produced for the

final LDF. Part of the final document will be Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD), one of

which will specifically relate to the Trafford Centre. The Trafford Centre Area Development

Guidelines SPD will set out guidance to ensure that the development of the area is integrated

physically and functionally with development in adjoining areas. Specifically, it will cover four areas:

physical form; landscape provision; car parking; and public transport. The LDS envisages that this

document will be adopted and published in October 2006.

Future Development Possibilities

6.32 Planning permission has recently been granted to extend the shopping centre by some 18,581 sq

m, in order to provide additional retail floorspace (to be known as ‘Barton Square’), which will open

in early 2007. In addition, the scheme will include a further 630 free parking spaces. It is intended

that Barton Square will target the high quality home market with a variety of units offering furniture,

kitchens, bathrooms, home furnishings and other items that are not currently available in The

Trafford Centre. The £70m development will be linked to The Trafford Centre by a gazed bridge.

6.33 Planning permission has been granted for the construction of a 600 metre canal linking Trafford

Boulevard with the Manchester Ship Canal. The new canal will create the potential to build

waterside apartments and offices alongside the new spur on a section of vacant land. When

completed, the canal will provide water taxis linking Manchester City Centre, Salford Quays and

The Trafford Centre. It is estimated that building work will take around a year, although no start

date has yet been set.

6.34 In addition, since the construction of The Trafford Centre, Peel Holdings has been actively pursuing

mixed use development (excluding retail) proposals on land which remains undeveloped adjacent

to the current shopping centre. An original planning application for development on this greenfield

site was ‘called-in’ and subsequently withdrawn in favour of Peel Holdings pursuing the allocation

of sites through the Trafford UDP. In order to justify this development, Peel Holdings considered

promoting a town centre strategy but were unwilling to actively pursue a strategy which would see

40

the shopping centre remodelled to achieve better integration and connection, or would cause the

loss of free car parking spaces. Allocation of the adjoining land for development was secured in the

Draft UDP, which was supported by Trafford Council, but was rejected at a later stage by an

Inspector, largely due to the sequential test not having been observed. The justification for the

allocation was based solely on regeneration grounds.

6.35 From our discussions with Trafford Council, it is evident that the Council is producing Trafford

Centre Area Development Guidelines document, albeit this is in the very early stages. The Council

has indicated that any move to redefine The Trafford Centre as a town centre would be resisted.

41

7 LAKESIDE, THURROCK General Description of the Centre and Surrounding Area 7.01 Lakeside Shopping Centre is located in the Borough

of Thurrock (southwest Essex) in close proximity to

the M25 (junction 30 and 31) and the A13. Lakeside

opened in October 1990 and was developed on part

of the 68ha Motherwell Way pit chalk quarry. The

centre contains 132,297 sq. m of floorspace, of

which 123,644 sq m (gross) is retail floorspace,

which includes 15,300 sq. m of permanent market

stalls at Lakeside Pavilion.

Figure 7.1: Pedestrian Footbridge

7.02 Lakeside is built over 120 acres and has 13,792 free car parking spaces. The site is well served by

public transport and incorporates a pedestrian bridge (Figure 7.1), which links the shopping centre

with Chafford Hundred railway station. Significant residential development at Chafford Hundred

has taken place (4,500-5000 houses) to the east of Lakeside. In addition, there has been the

development of local shopping facilities (including a Sainsbury’s), schools and community facilities

as part of the wider residential scheme. Whilst it is evident that a significant local population is

located within a short distance from Lakeside Shopping Centre, few people were observed to walk

from the surrounding area due to the unattractiveness of the walk (under the A126) and the

necessity for a train ticket to use the pedestrian walkway.

7.03 Shopping within the centre is contained in two main shopping malls over two levels, with a food

court incorporated on a third level. The centre contains four department stores (Marks & Spencer,

House of Fraser, Debenhams and Bentalls), over 30 cafes and restaurants, a seven-screen cinema

and a 26 acre lake and diving school complex.

7.04 Lakeside Retail Park is located adjacent to the shopping mall and includes more than 40 retailers in

units of floorspace 123,578 sq. m and a further

4,350 car parking spaces. Retailers include IKEA,

PC World and Tesco Extra, together with a number

of restaurants/ drive-thrus, a bingo hall, a cinema

and a number of car showrooms. Collectively, the

shopping centre and retail park is termed the

‘Lakeside Retail Zone’ by Thurrock Council. On the

periphery of the retail park, towards the M25 Figure 7.2: Surrounding Industrial Uses

42

motorway is an extensive employment/distribution area (Figure 7.2). The retail floorspace (including

shopping centre) is the largest concentration retail floorspace in Europe.

Planning History

7.05 Thurrock Council received in 1984, two planning applications for regional shopping centres in West

Thurrock. Capital and Counties and Lakeside Trading Estate Limited, proposed 107,000 sq. m

(gross) of retail floorspace and parking for 8,000 cars at Lakeside. It was anticipated the

development would act as a catalyst for the area and create 4,000 jobs. Town and City submitted

an alternative proposal on the Dolphin Quarry site, to the west of the M25 motorway. The Secretary

of State for the Environment ‘called-in’ both applications in September 1986 after Thurrock Council

informed the Secretary of State, of an intention to approve one of the applications.

7.06 A Public Inquiry was held in 1987 and a consortium of local authorities opposed the development.

The Inspector appointed an Assessor to report on the various retail impact studies submitted. The

Town and City proposal for the Dolphin Quarry was withdrawn at the start of the Inquiry.

7.07 The Inspector and Assessor’s reports concluded that Lakeside would affect the role and vitality and

viability of Grays Town Centre, with Grays becoming more of a local shopping centre than a district

centre. It was acknowledged that although the vitality and viability of Grays would be affected,

overall shopping provision in the area would improve. It was considered that surrounding towns and

centres would lose a certain amount of trade, but not significant amounts to warrant refusal.

7.08 Planning permission was granted in April 1987 subject to a number of conditions, restricting gross

floorspace at each shop to 2,500 sq m and no more than 5,000 sq m (gross) of retail floorspace for

the sale of food goods.

7.09 Since the initial application was approved, there have been a number of further extensions. In

1992, an additional 3,000 parking spaces were provided at Lakeside Shopping Centre through

construction of three multi-storey car parks.

7.10 Planning permission was granted in 1999 for the demolition of the Lakeside Trading Estate and the

erection of three retail warehouse units with a total gross floor area of 9,350 sq. m. Also in 1999,

planning permission was granted for IKEA to extend their two storey retail unit by 5,695 sq m.

Further planning permission was granted in 2001 for IKEA and in 2002 planning permission was

granted to Tesco to extend their store by 2,500 sq. m.

43

Relevant Planning Policy Regional Planning Guidance

7.11 Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) for the South East is set out in RPG9 (2001), which covers the

period up to 2016. This guidance has an overriding vision of encouraging economic success

throughout the Region, ensuring a higher quality of environment with management of natural

resources, opportunity and equity for the Region’s population, and a more sustainable pattern of

development. The focus of policies in RPG9 are on enabling urban renaissance, promoting

regeneration and renewal, concentrating development in urban areas, promoting a prosperous and

multi-purpose countryside and promoting wider choice in travel options, thereby reducing the

reliance on the private car.

7.12 In this respect, one of the main principles outlined in RPG9 is focusing development within urban

areas through making them more attractive, accessible and better able to attract investment.

7.13 In this respect, Policy Q5 of RPG9 identifies that:

‘The Regions existing network of larger town centres should be the focus for major retail, leisure and

office developments, to support an urban renaissance, promote social inclusion and encourage more sustainable patterns of development.’

7.14 RPG9 acknowledges that town centres have suffered from the last recession and the diversification

to out-of-centre retail developments. In order to address this, RPG9 identifies that there is a need

to focus retail development in town centres and to avoid further development in out-of-centre

locations.

7.15 RPG9 distinguishes between different parts of the Region, namely London, the Thames Gateway,

Priority Areas for Economic Regeneration (PAER), the Western Policy Area and Potential Growth

Areas. In this respect, the location of Lakeside Shopping Centre falls within the Thames Gateway,

which is identified by the guidance as a regional and national priority for regeneration and growth,

with the potential to make a contribution to the Region’s economy. However, despite Lakeside

having the largest concentration of retail floorspace in the region, it is not referred to in RPG9.

7.16 The new South East Plan is being drafted by the South East Regional Assembly and the South

East Plan Part 1: ‘Core Regional Polices’ was presented to Government on 29 July 2005, following

extensive public consultation and approval by the Assembly’s annual meeting on 13 July 2005.

The Plan sets out a vision for the region from 2006 through to 2026, focusing on housing, transport,

economy and the environment. The full plan, to include Part 2: ‘Sub-Regional Details’, will be

submitted for Government approval in 2006.

44

7.17 The emerging South East Plan identifies a vision for the South East of: ‘…sustained improvement in

its quality of life over the period to 2026, measured by the well being of its citizens, the vitality and its economy, the wealth of its environment and the prudent use of natural resources.’

7.18 With regard to town centres and retailing, Section D8 of the emerging South East Plan reflects

guidance contained in PPS6 of promoting the vitality and viability of town centres. Policy TC2 sets

out a strategic network of town centres; unlike Bluewater, Lakeside is not identified as a ‘Primary

Regional Centre’.

7.19 The emerging South East Plan identifies that the network of town centres is an important element

of the spatial strategy. The role and regeneration of these centres should not be undermined by

large-scale out-of-centre retail development. Indeed, paragraph 1.43 states that: ‘No need has been

identified for any further out-of-centre regional or sub-regional shopping centres or large-scale extensions to existing centres during the period to 2026. However, if there are no sequentially suitable sites it may be appropriate to consider an intensification of development on existing out-of-centre

sites.’ (Our emphasis).

7.20 Indeed, Policy TC4 (‘Creating and Supporting Town Centres’) reflects that there has been no need

identified for any further out-of-centre regional or sub-regional shopping centres or large-scale

extensions to existing centres. In this respect, Policy TC4 states that: ‘The role and regeneration of

town centres should not be undermined by an intensification of uses on out-of-centre development.’

Structure Plan

7.21 In April 2001 Essex County Council and Southend-on-Sea Borough Council adopted a

Replacement Structure Plan for the period 1996 to 2011. Following local government re-

organisation in April 1998, the administrative area of Thurrock Council no longer forms part of the

‘plan area’ of the replacement Structure Plan; in this respect Thurrock Council is preparing a

Unitary Development Plan.

Local Plan

7.22 The Thurrock Borough Local Plan was adopted in September 1997 and provides the Council’s

policies and proposals for land use in Thurrock up until 2001. Although the end date of the Plan

has passed, it currently forms part of the development plan for Thurrock (in combination with Essex

Structure Plan) and provides the basis for decisions on land use planning.

7.23 The Thurrock Borough Local Plan identifies three core strategic aims, which are:

• To protect and enhance the environment of Thurrock;

45

• To encourage new development which adds quality and provides social benefits; and

• To tackle the Borough’s traffic problems.

7.24 The strategy of the Plan develops these aims through 13 objectives for the Borough. With regard

to retail development, Objective 7 is:

‘To seek to maintain the role of Grays and the other local centres, and to restrict further new out of

centre development while recognising Lakeside as a sub-regional shopping centre.’

7.25 The maintenance of the vitality and viability of trade in existing shopping centres is seen to be of

key long-term importance. The strategy identified in the local plan will be to:

(i) Safeguard existing shopping provision by not normally permitting the provision of major

additional floorspace outside existing centres;

(ii) Improve and safeguard shopping facilities in Grays Town Centre in order to maintain its

role as a district centre;

(iii) Maintain the role and viability of the local centres at Tilbury, South Ockendon, Socketts

Heath, Aveley, Stanford-le-Hope and Corringham; and

(iv) Retain essential neighbourhood shopping facilities.

7.26 Policies in the local plan are seeking to maintain the retailing offer in smaller centres and in Grays

Town Centre by preventing future out-of-centre retail development which could adversely affect

them, whilst at the same time recognising Lakeside as a sub-regional centre. On this basis, Policy

SH1 ‘Major Retail Developments’ states that:

‘In the light of the cumulative impact on existing shopping centres of retail and retail warehousing

facilities at Lakeside and other recent and proposed large-scale retail developments in and around Thurrock, planning permission will not be given for any new major retail developments outside existing and proposed shopping and town centre in the Borough, as defined on the Proposals Map, unless it can be shown that there would be no further impact on the viability and vitality of existing centres in the Borough.’

7.27 Policy SH2 restricts any further floorspace within the Lakeside Retail Zone for the sale of food.

This policy reflects the Inspector’s recommendation and the planning conditions imposed, in

granting retail development at Lakeside, limiting food sales to 5,000 sq. m, in order to limit impact

on food shops throughout the Borough.

7.28 The Thurrock Unitary Development Plan (UDP) was placed on deposit in March 2003 and provides

a single document that was intended to replace the existing Local Plan, detailing how the Council

46

ought to develop up to 2016. However, Thurrock Council decided in September 2004 that work on

the UDP would be suspended. The deposit UDP has not been withdrawn formally as yet.

7.29 The UDP provides an update of local policy guidance and is a material consideration. The UDP

identifies a number of strategic aims, including:

To retain the existing hierarchy of centres within Lakeside identified as a sub-regional

shopping centre, opposing further out of town retail developments, subject to a sequential test approach, and promoting the enhancement of existing town centres to improve the range of shops and related facilities accessible to local people.’

7.30 Policies in the UDP seek to concentrate new development in existing centres, in order to sustain,

enhance and improve them. Strategic Policy USP25: ‘Hierarchy of Centres’ identifies Lakeside as

the only sub-regional shopping centre, with Grays identified as a Principal Town Centre.

Accordingly, Grays Town Centre and the Lakeside Centre area are identified as locations for

additional bulky and non-bulky retail comparison floorspace.

7.31 Moreover, Policy USP26 identifies that proposals for new major retail and other town centre

developments, which attract large numbers of people, will be determined on demonstrable need or

capacity for the development and on a sequential basis in the following order:

‘1. Town centre sites, where suitable sites or buildings for conversion are available; 2. If development cannot be accommodated within a town centre then it should be located on a

suitable site on the edge of the town centre; 3. If development cannot be accommodated on a town or edge of centre site it should be located

at a district centre or possibly local centre; and 4. If development cannot be accommodated on suitable sites in the search sequence in 1 to 3

above, then Lakeside and out of centre sites elsewhere within the urban area may be considered, provided they are accessible by a choice of means of transport, take into account appropriate travel patterns and car usage and have no other significant detrimental impact on the environment.’

7.32 Chapter 9 of the Thurrock UDP relates specifically to shopping and town centres, and polices

reflect the strategic aim outlined above. In this respect, apart from small scale extensions to the

regional shopping centre to meet local need, the UDP identifies that any large scale allocation of

comparison shopping at Lakeside would impact upon adjoining centres and involve the likely

requirement to re-designate existing employment land allocations to accommodate retail expansion.

47

Indeed, paragraph 9.3.6 states that: ‘It is considered in principle that Lakeside should not be the

focus for further retail allocation from within the sub region and any additional floorspace requirement should be distributed to existing sub-regional town centre and major areas of housing development, based on principles of sustainable development and the need to protect the vitality and viability of existing centres. On this basis therefore there is unlikely to be the need for major allocation of retail floorspace within the Lakeside Retail Zone.’

7.33 In order to form retail policy, the Council commissioned retail consultants to undertake a Borough

wide retail study (2000) to assess the need for additional retail provision during the period of the

Plan up to 2016. The study identified that nearly all the floorspace requirement identified was in the

Grays/Lakeside area of the Borough. On this basis, the local plan aims to ensure that there is a

choice of sites appropriate for the demand and capacity for retail development and sites suitability

in terms of availability and physical constraints. Accordingly, the Council has identified that most of

the required comparison retail provision up to 2011 will be located in Grays Town Centre. However,

significantly, paragraph 9.3.14 states that: ‘An element of the required retail provision, including

bulky retail warehousing could be absorbed by redevelopment in the out of town Lakeside Retail Zone (including the Lakeside Shopping Centre) subject to unsuitability and unavailability of sites elsewhere and the impact on the vitality and viability on the borough’s town centres.’

7.34 Policy STC1 outlines that any new retail development will be subject to certain criteria, including a

need for the development being proven, the application of the sequential approach, potential impact

and accessibility (as reflected in national planning guidance). This policy seeks to restrict further

large-scale shopping schemes, due to the affect Lakeside has had on established town centres,

most notably Grays. Indeed, the UDP identifies that the potential cumulative impact of further

development at Lakeside together with other developments, including Bluewater Shopping Centre,

will almost certainly affect the vitality and viability of Grays Town Centre and other shopping centres

in the Borough.

7.35 Policy STC2 restricts the provision of convenience goods floorspace at Lakeside (in common with

Policy SH2 of the Local Plan) to no more than 5,000 sq m. With regard to further commercial

entertainment facilities, Policy STC14 states that:

‘It is the Council’s intention that Grays Town Centre will continue to be a principal centre for

entertainment and cultural facilities…Where development proposals cannot be accommodated within Grays Town Centre in applying the sequential approach to site selection the Council will expect developers to consider sites within the district and local centres and Lakeside, and the mixed use areas as identified on the Proposals Map.’

7.36 In this respect, the UDP identifies some types of leisure facilities, such as ice rinks, ten-pin bowling

and multi-screen cinemas, which would be suitable for development within the Lakeside Retail

48

Zone. On this basis, the Lakeside Retail Zone has already proved attractive to multi-screen cinema

complexes and other leisure proposals would also be welcome in this area subject to satisfactory

access and parking provision.

7.37 The Proposals Map contained within the Thurrock Unitary Development Plan highlights that the

Lakeside Retail Zone includes Lakeside together with a number of retail parks which lie to the west

of the shopping centre. Also within this Retail Zone is a lake designated for watersports usage

under Policy LRT12, which lies immediately adjacent to the west of the shopping centre. Land to

the north of Lakeside is designated as greenbelt under Policy GB1-13, whilst land to the south is

preserved for various employment uses including a hotel (Policy EMP14), New Industrial and

Commercial Development (Policy EMP2), and Development within Primary Industrial and

Commercial Areas (Policy EMP1). To the east of the shopping centre lies land is reserved for both

new residential properties (Policy HOU1) and existing residential (Policy HOU9).

7.38 The Thurrock UDP was not fully completed, and the Council have commenced their Local

Development Framework (LDF) in accordance with the new development plan system. In this

respect, the Council has prepared a Local Development Scheme, which was approved by the

Secretary of State in April 2005. It is a project plan that identifies the development plans the Council

will prepare and sets out the timescales for their production. The Scheme also identifies the policies

in the adopted Borough Local Plan (1997) and the adopted Essex First Review Minerals Plan

(1996) that will remain ‘saved’ policies for at least three years until replaced by policies in the new

development plan documents. Discussions with the Council suggest that the emerging LDF will

resist further retail development in the area south of the existing retail concentration, but instead

seek to diversify uses by the introduction of high tech industry, offices, further large-scale

commercial leisure uses and a possible hotel/conference centre. It is understood that the Council

would be unlikely to support housing in this location.

Future Development Possibilities 7.39 Further retail development at Lakeside is constrained by restrictive planning policies that are

imposed on out-of-town retail developments together with limited development land available.

Indeed, for the Lakeside Shopping Centre the only way that they are currently able to expand is

upwards. In this respect, an extra 1,858 sq m of space is to be added to the current centre in the

form of a rooftop extension. Planning permission has just been granted for a new scheme that will

be built along the eastern edge of Lake Alexandra. The scheme is known as the Boardwalk scheme

and is made up of nine restaurants and cafes, totalling 3,900 sq m, four retail units making up 836

sq m and another restaurant and children’s leisure area of 1,022 sq m.

49

7.40 Within the retail warehousing parks, we are unaware of any major new developments that are

taking place, or that are currently going through the planning process. The only project that is in

the pipeline is plans for a ‘Pod’ unit to be erected in the Junction Retail Park, which will act as a

landmark for the site and will be around 186 sq. m. It will contain an A3 user together with a

climbing wall.

7.41 Significantly, representations to the Examination in Public (EiP) on the emerging RSS have been

made by both the Borough Council and the Local Development Corporation, objecting to Lakeside

being omitted from the emerging RSS as a key retail centre, given its importance to the region and

its ability to assist in the regeneration of the area. The stance of the Development Corporation is

that an enhanced Lakeside Basin, associated with a vibrant Lakeside Shopping Centre will

stimulate regeneration of the Development Corporations area. Furthermore, the Borough Council’s

submission to the EiP supports an increase in the retail content of Lakeside as long as it is

concentrated within the present retail boundary and caters for Borough needs only. It also allows

for ancillary uses such as small scale commercial leisure uses and restaurants and the use of the

lake for leisure purposes.

7.42 Lakeside Shopping Centre, owned by Capital Shopping Centres, has to date not formally

expressed interest to the Council to establish the shopping centre as a town centre. It is

understood that Capital Shopping Centres believe there is a need to examine its role beyond the

local area as it operates as a ‘regional centre’ and would like it to become a mixed-use town centre

location. Capital Shopping Centres is keen to provide increased linkages to Chafford Hundred and

the Development Corporation is working currently on a Spatial Plan for the Thurrock area. Future

thinking for Lakeside concerns how it can contribute towards wider regeneration. However, the

Spatial Plan is at the initial stages so it is difficult to assess where this may lead, although it is

significant to note that all three options of the emerging Spatial Plan propose a strengthened focus

for shopping at Lakeside and the introduction of a broader range of land uses, including housing,

commercial and leisure uses.

50

8 METROCENTRE, GATESHEAD

General Description of the Centre and Surrounding Area

8.01 The MetroCentre is a large, purpose built Regional Shopping Centre, covering a gross floorspace

of 154,000 sq. m on 135 acres. It is located in the metropolitan Borough of Gateshead, in the

Northern Region of England.

Figure 8.1: The New MetroLand Theme Park

8.02 The shopping centre contains an indoor shopping

mall surrounded by a number of retail parks and

freestanding units. The mall spans over two

floors, which are divided into quadrants. The

lower level comprises primarily national multiples,

whilst independent retailers and non-retail uses

are located on the upper level (The Forum, The

Village, Garden Court and Mediterranean Village).

In addition to retailing, the MetroCentre contains an 11-screen cinema, a Megabowl and the new

MetroLand Theme Park (Figure 8.1), which is Europe’s biggest indoor amusement park.

Figure 8.2: A neighbouring retail park

8.03 The MetroCentre is adjoined by major retail warehousing (including the Metro Retail Park, Figure

8.2), which generally comprises bulky goods

retailers including IKEA and B&Q. Beyond the

retail area, much of the surrounding area is

industrial, although a small parcel of land to the

south-west of the MetroCentre is allocated in the

Gateshead Unitary Development Plan (UDP) for

residential development. Existing residential

areas are located within close proximity to the

MetroCentre, although the shopping centre is not well linked with these.

8.04 The MetroCentre is well served by public transport, having its own bus and railway station. It is

also highly accessible by car with over 10,000 dedicated parking spaces, with another 1,100 having

been added recently following the opening of an extension to one of the four quadrants.

Planning History 8.05 The site of the current MetroCentre Shopping Centre was formerly used to deposit pulverised fly

ash (PFA) from Dunston Power Station. This ceased with the closure of the existing power station

51

in 1981, and subsequently the site was no longer required for that purpose. In order to encourage

development and investment the site was included in an Enterprise Zone in 1981 (Gateshead No.

2, Cross Lane/Dunston Enterprise Zone Scheme), and in 1982 Gateshead Metropolitan Borough

Council, in conjunction with the then County Council, commissioned the University of Manchester

to report on how the site could be reclaimed.

8.06 In light of the Manchester University report, the Council commissioned Donaldsons to investigate

viable uses following reclamation. The report favoured a ‘Jumbo Centre’ of large discount retail

units. The private sector showed little interest initially in developing the site.

8.07 Higher value retailers proved more attractive to developers and the MetroCentre was developed

and initially comprised 43,200 sq m of retail and commercial floorspace.

8.08 Outline planning permission was granted (Ref: GD/EZ/688/83/DM) for a 4,647 sq m foodstore at

Cross Lane, Dunston in July 1984.

8.09 Planning permission was granted, in 2000 following a Public Inquiry, for an extension to the

MetroCentre of 34,670 sq m (gross) floorspace (LPA ref: 531/96). The extension comprises

Debenhams store and 27 other retail units, together with associated 1,650 multi-storey car parking

spaces.

8.10 In July 2003 approval of reserved matters was given for the construction of a new public transport

interchange, dedicated busway and bridge link over a re-aligned Scotswood View and the

Newcastle/ Carlisle Railway line to Handy Drive (LPA Ref: DC/03/00655/REM).

Relevant Planning Policy

Regional Planning Guidance

8.11 Regional Planning Guidance for the North East (RPG1) was published in November 2002. With

effect from September 2004, this document became the statutory Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS)

for the region, covering a period up until 2016.

8.12 The vision which underpins this document is to deliver a dynamic economy, promote health and

ensure equality for all. The key themes through which this vision will be realised are stated as

being regeneration, opportunity, accessibility and conservation. Priority is give through the focus on

regeneration to enhancing town and city centres to introduce a mixture of uses to enhance their

attractiveness to users. In general development will be encouraged on sustainable sites in built up

areas, particularly that land which has been previously development

52

8.13 The Plan’s approach towards town centres and retail is detailed in chapter 4 of the document,

within which the MetroCentre is acknowledged as an out-of-centre Regional Shopping Centre.

8.14 Policy TC1- Town Centres states that:

‘Development plans and other strategies should ensure that town centres continue to be the focus for a wide range of activities and uses that will maintain and enhance their vitality and viability, encourage

investment and support sustainable development.’

8.15 Following on from this, paragraph 4.97 highlights Newcastle, Sunderland and Middlesbrough as

containing higher order services and functions which are not found in smaller centres. Meanwhile

the MetroCentre is seen as containing a good provision of higher-order retail facilities, but a more

limited range of other functions. Moreover, it attracts a low proportion of visitors by public transport.

As such, Policy TC2: Hierarchy of Centres indicates that development plans should set out a

hierarchy of existing centres which:

‘reflects the current role of the Metro Centre as an existing out-of-centre regional retailing facility.’

8.16 At the same time the hierarchy should reflect the importance of Newcastle, Sunderland,

Middlesbrough and Darlington whilst enhancing the vitality and viability of existing town and city

centres in the Region.

8.17 Policy TC3 stresses that town and city centres should be the focus for most new retail

development. Consequently development plans should seek to protect the vitality and viability of

existing centres.

8.18 Policy TC4: Traffic Management centres on the need to local authorities to take an integrated

approach to transport in order to improve the accessibility of town centres. Accordingly,

development plans should:

‘promote the improvement of public transport to existing town and out-of-centre retail and business

developments, including the Metro Centre.’

8.19 Retailing is addressed by a number of separate policies in the Plan. Policy RD1- Retail

Development states that once a need for retail floorspace has been established, sites within

existing centres should first be considered. In addition to the requirement of a sequential approach

to site selection and a need for development being shown, new retail developments must be

located where they are accessible by a range of means of transport.

53

8.20 With regard to out-of-centre facilities, the Plan considers that new retailing development at such

locations could jeopardise the continued vitality and viability of existing centres, countering the aims

of the desired urban renaissance scheme. As a result, additional retail development at out-of-

centre facilities including the MetroCentre would not aid the aims of the plan and should

consequently be carefully considered. It adds that there is not considered to be scope for further

major out-of-centre retailing developments in the Region in the Plan period. To this end, Policy RD3

– Out-of-Centre Shopping Centres states that:

‘Development Plans should not make provision for new out-of-centre retail development of regional or sub-regional significance.’

8.21 It is evident that the Regional Spatial Strategy is currently under review and the submission draft of

the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East was published in June 2005. It covers the period

up until 2021 and beyond. The vision for this document aims to see an increased quality of life in

the region, together with a healthy economy.

8.22 The draft Plan is underpinned by four key principles: to promote urban and rural renaissance; to

ensure sustainable development; to allocate land based on the sequential approach; and to follow

a plan, monitor and manage mechanism for new development.

8.23 The Tyne and Wear Sub-Region, of which the MetroCentre is part, is seen to exhibit a polycentric

settlement pattern whereby development is focused on the core areas of Sunderland and

Newcastle. Retail and leisure development is recognised as being a key component of the Sub-

Regional economy. However, in order to enact an urban renaissance, the focus for retail

development during the plan period should be existing town and city centres, whilst further retail

development at out-of-centre locations should be avoided. In respect of the MetroCentre,

paragraph 2.35 continues by stating that:

‘the MetroCentre clearly plays a significant regional employment and shopping centre role, but should

only be considered for further development subject to the test of need; the sequential approach and impact; and in the context of integration with the social and physical infrastructure of Gateshead.’

8.24 Within a section of the Plan entitled ‘Urban and Rural Centres’, reference is made to a retail and

leisure needs assessment conducted in 2002. This study acknowledges the role the MetroCentre

plays in offering higher-order facilities but a more limited range of other functions, and a limited

proportion of visits by public transport. Because of these factors, and because the influence of the

shopping centre extends beyond the boundaries of the Region, it is seen to differ from other retail

centres in the Region.

54

8.25 Specific guidance on the approach to the MetroCentre is contained in Policy 26- MetroCentre which

states the following:

‘Gateshead Unitary Development Plan and Local Development Framework should ensure that any proposals for the extension to or redevelopment of the MetroCentre are justified in terms of the need for the development within its immediate and wider catchment areas, the sequential approach; and the impact on the vitality and viability of other urban and rural centres. Any new development proposals should result in better integration with the surrounding area and also promote better accessibility to multiple destinations by non-car transport modes.’

8.26 Policy 27 deals with both out of centre retail and leisure development. It considers that further

development of such facilities would not aid the enhanced vitality and viability of town centres,

which is a central aim of the plan. Therefore the Policy states that:

‘No further provision should be made in Local Development Frameworks for new out-of-centre retail and leisure development of regional or sub-regional significance.’

Unitary Development Plan

8.27 The Gateshead Unitary Development Plan (UDP) was adopted in November 1998 and replaced all

previous development plans for the Borough Council area.

8.28 With regard to retail development, the UDP identifies that new retail development has continued to

be concentrated around the MetroCentre, where further development has taken place to the west

of the main complex. Despite this development at the MetroCentre, there has been very little

change in the total shopping floorspace in the shopping centres elsewhere in the Borough.

8.29 The overall policy in terms of retail development outlined in the adopted UDP is to ensure that all

centres are accessible by public transport and improve the environment to provide pleasant

conditions for shoppers and to encourage new investment and development. Accordingly, Policy

S1 states:

‘A full range of retail and other shopping centre uses will be sought within an attractive environment,

accessible to all residents of the Borough. New development, including ancillary areas and access, must be of good-quality design.’

8.30 With regard to existing centres, the UDP (paragraph 7.10) identifies the MetroCentre as: ‘…a major

regional shopping centre providing complementary service to that of Newcastle City Centre, principally durable goods shopping facilities for a large catchment area. This role is reinforced by

leisure facilities, an hotel and office uses.’ Significantly, the UDP identifies that the MetroCentre is

55

located on previously developed land within the urban area ‘…and therefore also acts as a local

centre for the immediate catchment area.’ (Paragraph 7.10).

8.31 In this regard, the UDP considers that future changes at MetroCentre should be appropriate to its

role as a regional shopping centre in relation to existing town centres. They should also assist in

achieving greater sustainability, including the encouragement of environmentally-friendly means of

transport. Accordingly Policy S2 states: ‘MetroCentre is an established regional shopping centre. Support will be given to the continuation of

this role where this does not undermine the vitality and viability of existing centres and where it maximises the opportunity to use means of transport other than the car.’

8.32 The UDP identifies a MetroCentre boundary, which proposed and extends from the main complex

west to the River Derwent, within which is proposed potential future development consistent with

the development plan strategy. In this respect, paragraph 7.11 states that: ‘Retailing is considered

in principle to be a suitable use within this area, and the development of appropriate employment uses such as commercial, office or leisure would also further enhance the range and balance of facilities within the centre. Residential development is not considered to be appropriate, except where it is incidental to an employment use.’

8.33 The UDP identifies that it is necessary to ensure that proposed new developments and extensions

to or redevelopment of existing buildings are consistent with polices which protect existing centres,

promotes accessibility by public transport. On this basis, Policy S3 states that:

‘Within the MetroCentre boundary, the development of retailing and appropriate employment uses will

be permitted where it can be demonstrated that they: a) accord with the development plan strategy; b) do not undermine the vitality and viability of existing centres; c) contribute towards achieving improved accessibility by public transport, cycling and walking;

and d) further a reduction in dependence on the private car.’

8.34 With regard to applying the sequential approach, in accordance with national planning policy,

priority is given to locations within or on the edge of town centre. Failing the availability of suitable

sites, development within the MetroCentre boundary is the preferred location for new retail

development within the Borough.

8.35 Policy S5 of the UDP identifies that the external environment of the centre has been upgraded

recently and further landscaping is required. The UDP considers that given the location of

MetroCentre, adjacent to the A1 (the main transport route through Tyneside) and its prominent

56

setting, the external appearance should be one of regional importance. In this regard, Policy S5

states that: ‘The external environment of the MetroCentre and its setting should be improved, including the

provision of further landscaping and pleasant pedestrian routes between different parts of the development. Landscaped areas should be provided along the MetroCentre boundary and along distributor roads within the boundary.’

8.36 Other policies within the UDP seek to support and enhance Gateshead Town Centre in providing a

continuing and improved local shopping role (Policy S6).

8.37 The Council is reviewing the UDP and has produced a Local Development Scheme (LDS) The LDS

document presents a program of work for the next three years that will see the production of the

Local Development Framework. The existing Gateshead UDP will form the development plan

document between 2004 and 2007, whilst it is envisaged that the revised Gateshead UDP will be

adopted in March 2007, whereupon it will be saved for three years up until 2010. A Re-Deposit

Draft Replacement Plan (January 2006) has been produced by the Council. This identifies a spatial

strategy (which was agreed by Council in October 2003), where the main aim is to promote

development where it is needed and in the most sustainable manner possible. To this end, Policy

STR1 identifies seven area action plans (including MetroCentre) in order to facilitate development.

8.38 The emerging UDP identifies that: ‘The main emphasis at the MetroCentre and surrounding area is on

continuing commercial investment alongside improved transport infrastructure, whilst diversification is proposed on the west, south-west and eastern peripheries, including residential development.’ (Paragraph 4.13). On this basis, subject to the relevant tests, the Council will support

improvements to the regional shopping centre. Indeed, the Council acknowledge that the recent

improvement to the public transport interchange, including the new Centrelink and shuttle bus

services have made the MetroCentre and surrounding area a more sustainable location.

8.39 Moreover, paragraph 4.15 states that:

‘Integrating and encouraging better links between the MetroCentre with the surrounding area is a

priority. A mixture of commercial, residential and hotel uses is encouraged through the allocation of missed-use sites wither side of the River Derwent to the west, and at Market Lane to the south-west,

whilst land to the east and north of the MetroCentre is protected for employment uses [and] a

masterplan for the Derwent West Bank site, including a pedestrian and cycle bridge across the River Derwent, has been submitted by developers. Nature conservation interests on the periphery of the area will be considered.’

8.40 In relation to retail development, Policy STR10 seeks to: ‘To support the role of the MetroCentre

within both a consolidated regional shopping centre destination, and a defined shopping centre

57

hierarchy.’ The supporting text to this policy identifies that the MetroCentre is included as an out-of-

centre destination in the shopping centre hierarchy, with an appropriate policy indicating the

sequential approach if additional floorspace is proposed. A key objective of the plan is better

integration of the MetroCentre within the surrounding area.

8.41 Retail and Commercial Leisure development is specifically dealt with in Chapter 10 of the emerging

UDP and Policy RCL1 identifies the retail hierarchy, with the Gateshead Town Centre Primary

Shopping Area at the top of the hierarchy, and the MetroCentre, and the adjoining Retail World,

designated as existing out-of-centre destinations.

8.42 Policy RCL2 identifies that approximately 9,000 sq m (gross) of new convenience floorspace and

5,000 sq m (gross) of new comparison floorspace is required in the next five years to 2011. This

will come forward primarily as part of the redevelopment strategies for Gateshead Primary

Shopping Area and Blaydon District Centre.

8.43 Further development at the MetroCentre is dealt with specifically in Policy RCL8. This Policy

states: ‘The MetroCentre is an established regional shopping centre. Proposals here will also be

assessed in terms of the extent to which the proposed development:

• Improves the appearance of the MetroCentre; and

• Promotes better integration with the surrounding area.’

8.44 Any further retail development at the MetroCentre must be justified fully against the tests outlined in

national and regional policy. The boundary of the MetroCentre, as identified by the proposals map,

incorporates the Hanington Works site which is now identified for mixed-use development (Policy

MU2), including residential, employment and hotel uses. On this basis, the emerging UDP identifies

that the approach will be to broaden the range of uses neighbouring the MetroCentre, and improve

the latter’s integration in the surrounding area.

8.45 Further explanation of the Council’s approach to the MetroCentre is contained in adopted

Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) 10: MetroCentre Development Guidelines (January

1999). The Council is currently reviewing this document and intends to replace it an early stage

with new Interim Policy Advice.

8.46 The Gateshead UDP Deposit Draft Replacement Plan denotes that land to the north and west of

the MetroCentre be used for employment development under Policies JE2.8 and JE2.9.

Additionally to the east of the shopping centre, much of the land is protected under Policy JE1 for

existing industrial usage, as it is seen to be a Primary Employment Area. The area to the west of

the shopping centre is designated for mixed-use purposes through Policy MU1, which will allow

58

office, residential and hotel development here. Beyond this land is again earmarked for

employment development through Policy JE2.7. To the south of the MetroCentre beyond the A1

Gateshead Western Bypass a small amount of land is again reserved for mixed use development

(Policy MU1) as well as housing development (H3). However, the majority of land which lies to the

south of the shopping centre is protected as greenbelt by Policies ENV32, ENV33, ENV36 and

ENV47.

Future Development Possibilities

8.47 The MetroCentre is owned by Capital Shopping Centres who have on a number of occasions

extolled the benefits of pursing a town centre strategy for the shopping centre. However they have

yet to go down this route, and it is thought the owners will not do so in the immediate future

especially given the recent retail expansion which the centre has undergone.

8.48 From our discussions with Gateshead Council it is apparent that the Council has no intention to

define the MetroCentre as a town centre. Although this has previously been considered as an

option it was rejected, and as a result the Council would not be supportive of proposals to

designated it as such. Notwithstanding this, the Council wishes to integrate the shopping centre

better with its surroundings, and has recently reallocated a piece of land adjacent to the centre for

office and residential uses as outline above. The Council seeks to maintain and support

MetroCentre’s role as a regional shopping centre and does not forbid retail development outright.

Further retail development will be considered on a case by case basis and will be subject to all the

uses tests as determined by national retail guidance.

59

9 CRIBBS CAUSEWAY, BRISTOL Description of the Centre and Surrounding Area

9.01 Cribbs Causeway is located on the northern outskirts of Bristol just off Junction 17 of the M5 and

within 4 miles of the M4/M5 interchange at Almondsbury. The area is bounded by Highwood Lane

to the north, Cribbs Causeway dual carriageway to the west and by open land adjacent to Filton

Airfield to the south. The area today extends to approximately 87ha. The area has been

developed over the last 25 or so years having initially developed as a smaller number of out-of-

town stores.

9.02 The centre-piece of Cribbs Causeway is the indoor

shopping mall (Figure 9.1), which opened in 1998.

The Mall contains some 140 individual retail units on

two levels; it is anchored by John Lewis and Marks

and Spencer stores. It also includes 17 cafes and

restaurants and a 1,200 seat food court comprising 15

food outlets. There are 7,000 free car parking spaces

and it is the south west’s largest out-of-centre

shopping centre. 1.7 million people live within a 60 minute drive of the shopping centre, and annual

footfall is 11 million.

Figure 9.1: The Indoor Shopping Mall

9.03 Cribbs Causeway includes leisure facilities comprising a Hollywood Bowl, a Fitness First Health

Club and various restaurants. There is a large number of out-of-town retail warehouse units

including: DFS; Allied Carpets; Curry’s; B&Q; Comet; Argos; Halfords; Makro; PC World; and Toys

R Us. There are also several motor dealers and a Premier Travel Inn hotel. Cribbs Causeway

comprises 80,000 sq. m gross of retail and leisure floorspace.

Planning History 9.04 The Cribbs Causeway Development Area was

previously agricultural land. The first substantial

development to be built within the area was a Carrefour

Hypermarket (now operated by Asda/Wal-Mart, Figure

9.2) that was granted planning permission at appeal in

November 1976. This comprised a retail unit with a

sales area of 8,361 sq m with an additional 7,759 sq m

of storage, and ancillary. Figure 9.2: The Asda Walmart store

60

9.05 The former Northavon District Council identified Cribbs Causeway for development through the

production of the Cribbs Causeway Development Brief in 1981. This Brief originally set out land

use proposals for the area including regional warehousing, retail warehousing, industry, a hotel,

distributor roads and landscaping.

9.06 In 1984/85 84ha of the Cribbs Causeway development area was granted outline planning

permission by Northavon District Council for retail, warehousing and light industrial development in

accordance with the Development Brief.

9.07 An outline planning application for the shopping centre was refused by the Secretary of State

(SOS) following a Local Inquiry in 1988. In response to this refusal Northavon District Council and

the applicants applied to the High Court for the decision to be overturned in February 1989 the

decision was quashed.

9.08 Following the quashing of the original decision, a second Local Inquiry opened in November 1989;

the SoS granted outline permission for the extension of an existing retail park to create a regional

shopping centre totalling approximately 650,000 sq ft (60,408 sq m) gross with associated leisure

facilities including a multi-screen cinema, together with related car parking and highway works.

Highway works have involved the extension of the road network to form a route around the regional

shopping centre and the improvement/upgrading of the existing roads from Cribbs Causeway

(A4018) to the retail park. Construction of the Mall commenced in Autumn of 1995 and opened in

March 1998.

9.09 Northavon District Council granted outline permission in November 1993 for the development of

approximately 30 acres of land for leisure uses, including a multiplex cinema, bowling alley and

night club, restaurants and associated car parking.

9.10 In July 1998, South Gloucestershire Council (replacing Northavon District) granted outline planning

permission for the erection of a 106 bedroom hotel with associated car parking and landscaping on

land off Catbrain Lane, Cribbs Causeway. Reserved matters pursuant to this outline permission

was granted in April 2002.

9.11 More recently, in June 2004, South Gloucestershire Council granted planning permission to Redrow

Homes (SW) Ltd. for the erection of 71 dwellings.

61

Relevant Planning Policy

Regional Planning Guidance

9.12 Regional Planning Guidance for the South West (RPG10) was published in September 2001, and

sets out a broad strategy for new development to 2016 and beyond. The overarching objective of

this document is stated to be to achieve stable high levels of growth, whilst ensuring that the

benefits of this growth are evenly distributed amongst the Regions population. In addition the vision

for the Region places emphasis on the importance of supporting the priorities of sustainable

development.

9.13 Policy SS1 of the RPG identifies growth strategies for four Sub-Regions in the South West. Cribbs

Causeway falls within the Northern Sub-Region, the aim for which is to support the areas role as

the main focus for growth in the Region. A number of Principle Urban Areas (PUAs) are identified

subsequently which are seen as offering the opportunity for accommodating most new

development in a sustainable manner. In the Northern Sub-Region the PUAs are Bristol, Bath,

Weston-super-Mare, Gloucester, Cheltenham and Swindon.

9.14 Policy SS3 stipulates the strategy for the Northern Sub-Region. The Plan seeks to build on the

economic strengths present in the area in order to foster economic growth. As part of this

appropriate retail facilities in sustainable locations will be encouraged.

9.15 Section 5 of the Plan concerns the Economy. In respect of town centres the Plan notes that the

South West has seen retail investment which has favoured high order centres at the expensive of

declining local services in urban and rural area alike. The development of out-of-centre retailing

facilities is seen to have diverted expenditure and investment away from traditional centres. The

Plan acknowledges that retail investment is expected to grow in the region over the plan period,

particularly in terms of comparison goods floorspace. In line with the sequential approach, such

development will be directed towards existing centres.

9.16 In line with the above, Policy EC6: Town Centres and Retailing states that retail developments

which attract large numbers of people should be focused in existing centres and PUAs. Retail

development will be encouraged within such centres in order to maintain and enhance their vitality

and viability. This will be done by applying the sequential approach to new retail proposals and

requiring that the need for them be demonstrated. Specifically with regard to Cribbs Causeway,

Policy EC6 states:

‘Any proposal to extend or redevelop the existing regional shopping centre at Cribbs Causeway

should be brought forward and fully justified in a future review of Regional Planning Guidance.’

62

9.17 Draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West was published in January 2006 and covers the

period 2006 to 2026, and is intended to replace RPG10. The vision for the Region set out in this

document aims to ensure that a successful economy combined with a quality physical environment

provides a high quality of life for the Region’s population.

9.18 As part of this vision, Policy SD4 entitled ‘sustainable communities’ aims to support the role of

cities, towns and villages through supporting uses appropriate to their role and function, and

reducing the need for residents to travel. A spatial hierarchy of centres has been produced, which

is based on a centres function and role as opposed to purely on its size. 22 Strategically Significant

Cities and Towns are identified which will be the focus for investment and development.

Additionally three broad Sub Regional aims are revealed, the area in which Cribbs Causeway falls

has been identified is being part zone in which the Plan seeks to realize its potential. This principle

will form the basis for policy production.

9.19 Section 4 of the Plan specifies Sub Regional emphasis. The Bristol Spatial Strategy states in

relation to Cribbs Causeway that opportunities for redevelopment will be pursued to enhance its

role for local communities in the light of planned development in Bristol, arrived at achieving an

urban renaissance.

9.20 Section 8 contains guidance on town centres. Policy TC1 iterates that new development will be

concentrated on the 22 Strategically Significant Cities and Towns identified. The supplementary

text to this Policy acknowledges that Cribbs Causeway does not relate well to the Strategically

Significant Cities and Towns located in the South West. Additionally due to its status as a major

visitor attraction it attracts large numbers of journeys by private car. Accordingly pressure for further

development of this shopping centre and other out of centre retail facilities will be resisted, with the

sequential approach being adopted to assess retail proposals. This approach will see the priority

location for new retail development being previously development sites within established town

centres.

Structure Plan

9.21 This document was jointly prepared by South Gloucestershire, Bath and North East Somerset,

Bristol City, and North Somerset Councils. It was adopted in September 2002 and covers the

period up to 2011. Under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the document remains

a ‘saved’ plan until September 2007.

9.22 Contained within Chapter 4: Policies for Employment, Housing, Shopping and Recreation are the

Plan’s policies towards future retail developments in the Plan area. It recognises Cribbs

Causeways status as a regional shopping centre, which has increased competitive pressures on

established centres in the area as a result, and competes for trade with Bristol City Centre, Weston-

63

super-Mare and other centres. Policy 38 identifies a hierarchy of town centres within which Cribbs

Causeway does not fall.

9.23 Policy 39 states that:

‘Proposals for further retail development at Cribbs Causeway will only be permitted where compatible with the criteria for out-of-centre retailing in Policy 40 and where such development: 1 contributes to improving the integration of the area by providing opportunities for circulation by alternatives to the car; 2 provides for significant improvements to public transport serving a wide area; and 3 does not have adverse implications for traffic congestion within the area or on adjacent highway links and does not lead to an increase in private car use.’

9.24 Policy 40 in relation to new retail development indicates that this should be located so as to

reinforce the existing centres within the urban area. It stresses that the sequential test approach

should be adopted, and that provision will not be made for new factory outlet centres or regional

shopping centres outside existing centres.

Local Plan

9.25 The over-arching aim of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan, which was adopted in January

2006, is to ensure that development and change is consistent with the concept of sustainable

development. The introduction of the plan outlines the Council’s aspirations in relation to Cribbs

Causeway, which it hopes will provide a recreational, retail and cultural focus for the area which is

complementary to, as opposed to competing with, the role of the existing local centres. The

shopping centre site is identified as being within the Bristol Northern Fringe area of the Borough.

9.26 The overall aim of Chapter 9: Town Centres and Retailing is to ensure that residents in the plan

area have easy access to a range and choice of retail, community and service facilities. This

echoes the strategy promoted by the Regional Planning Guidance and the Structure Plan which is

to ensure that retail needs are met within established town centres and restrict further development

at Cribbs Causeway. This is explored in greater detail later.

9.27 The retail hierarchy excludes Cribbs Causeway. It is considered as an out-of-centre location and

retail proposals will be subjected to the sequential approach. The Council’s policies towards the

out-of-centre retailing are contained in Policies RT5 and RT6 of the Local Plan.

Policy RT5 forbids retail and leisure uses outside of identified town centres unless:

‘A. There is a need for the development which could not Reasonably be accommodated within a town

centre, and,

64

B. It is no greater in scale than is required to meet the need identified; and C. It is in proportion to the role and function of the proposed location; and

D. There are no more central, or sequentially preferable sites available or likely to be available within five years, to meet the need identified; and

E. It would not, when considered with any other recently completed developments, outstanding planning permissions or retail allocations in the catchment area, have an unacceptable impact on the vitality and viability of established town, district, local or village centres, and would not prejudice the implementation of proposals to achieve a town centre at Bradley Stoke: and,

F. It would be accessible to public transport users, pedestrians, cyclists and those with special mobility needs; and

G. Development would not have unacceptable environmental or transportation effects, and would not prejudice residential amenity; and

H. It would, include residential, community or employment generating spaces on upper floors.’

9.28 The supporting text to Policy RT5 reiterates that the sequential test will be followed. The aim of this

policy is cited as being to maintain the role of existing town centres. As such a qualitative and

quantitative need for any new retail floorspace proposals will need to be demonstrated.

9.29 Policy RT6 states that:

‘RT6 retail development, including the redevelopment of existing buildings, at the Cribbs Causeway, Longwell Green and Filton Abbeywood retail parks, as defined on the proposals map, will only be permitted where:

A. It would meet needs which cannot be met in sequentially preferable locations; and

B. It would make a positive contribution towards improving non-car circulation within the retail park; and

C. It would make a positive contribution towards improving the physical and visual integration of the retail park; and

D. It would be accessible to public transport users, pedestrians, cyclists and those with special mobility needs.’

9.30 The supporting text indicates that development which is acceptable in principle at an out-of-centre

location in terms of Policy RT5 will only be considered acceptable at the three retail warehouse

parks located in the Plan area where it would make a positive contribution to redressing the

environment and transportation problems which the area experiences. As such the Council will

impose a condition restricting the scale of development and range of goods to be sold to those for

which a need has been demonstrated, so as to limit the impact on the vitality and viability of

traditional retail centres.

9.31 The supporting text contains greater detail on the Council’s vision for Cribbs Causeway, which is to

65

see it complement, rather than compete with, the Borough’s existing local centres. Improvements

to some of these local centres are seen as being accompanied by changes to Cribbs Causeway,

which through adjustments to the physical form and the type of uses, could provide a focus for the

whole North Fringe area. Crucial to this idea is better integration with the surrounding area and

communities, which would enable Cribbs Causeway to provide a focus for shopping, recreational

and cultural activities.

9.32 This document also contains a proposals map which places Cribbs Causeway in context with the

wider area. Land to the east of the site is earmarked for mixed-use development for employment

and residential purposes under Policies H1 (4), E1 and M1. To the north lies an area safeguarded

for employment under Policy E4 (3). Land to the west of Cribbs Causeway lies an existing retail

park. Policy RT6 reserves the area for retail development but it stipulates that such development

must be subject to the sequential approach and allow accessibility by a range of means of

transport. Land to the south of the shopping centre is occupied by Filton Airfield.

9.33 The Council has published recently a Local Development Scheme for South Gloucestershire which

covers the period September 2004 to August 2007. It was published in April 2005. This document

details how the Council plans to prepare the full Local Development Framework (LDF) which is

required under new planning legislation, and what will be contained within it. This document

indicates that the finalised LDF will be adopted in April 2007, but makes no specific mention of

Cribbs Causeway Shopping Centre.

Future Development Possibilities

9.34 An application is currently under consideration by South Gloucestershire Council for further

residential development at Cribbs Causeway. The Council has indicated that there are no other

planning applications currently under consideration. Officers are not aware of other development

proposals in the pipeline.

66

10 BRENT CROSS, BARNET General Description and Surrounding Area

10.01 At the time of its opening in 1976, Brent Cross formed the first large enclosed shopping centre in

the UK. It followed a US model for shopping centre design. It underwent a major refurbishment in

1995. The shopping centre is located in the suburbs of North West London in the London Borough

of Barnet. It is approximately seven miles north of London’s West End.

10.02 The site is located close to several major routes, including the M1, A41, and A406 North Circular

Road (Figure 10.2), and within easy reach of the M25 and the A40/ M40. It has 6,800 free car

parking spaces. It has its own bus station, is situated close to two tube stations, and near to a

Thameslink station.

Figure 10.1: The John Lewis Store

10.03 The centre comprises 117 restaurants and stores

and receives approximately 20 million visitors per

year. It is 81,300 sq m of gross retail and leisure

floorspace over two levels. The fashion-led mix of

shops ensures that the centre continues to enjoy

high rents, which are second in the country to

Oxford Street in Central London. Key anchor stores

include John Lewis (Figure 10.1), Marks and

Spencer, Waitrose and Fenwick’s. 7 million people live within its catchment area.

Figure 10.2: The John Lewis Store

10.04 Brent Cross suffers from site area limitations, as it is located within an existing conurbation. The

shopping centre is bounded by residential properties

to the west and north, with further properties to the

east. Local residents can access the shopping

centre by foot using footbridges. Whilst the

shopping centre is primarily accessed by private car,

it is evident that a number of people access the

centre by foot. Behind this road to the south is an

elongated area of railway land at Cricklewood which

extends to some 36ha and consists mainly of unused railway sidings and vacant land, as well as

some commercial and industrial uses, dispersed residential blocks and retail units (including Toys R

Us and Tesco). This underused area presents a significant opportunity for major development

within the Borough.

67

Planning History 10.05 An outline application for a 27,870 sq. m retail expansion of the shopping centre, was called-in by

the Secretary of State in September 1998, on the grounds that the application might not conform to

Government guidance on retail development, transport matters and strategic planning in London.

The Inspector did not accept Brent Cross as an established town centre, despite it being classed as

a Regional Shopping Centre by RPG3. The Inspector concluded that Brent Cross did not fulfil many

of the typical functions expected of a town centre and furthermore did not act as a focus for the

community in a significant way. It was essentially considered to be a single function shopping

centre, not a town centre.

10.06 The scheme was opposed by Cricklewood Regeneration Limited (CRL) who own the land to the

south of the A406. CRL considered that the proposed development would have a detrimental

impact upon the potential regeneration in Cricklewood. They considered that the proposed

development should be considered in conjunction with proposals for the remainder of Cricklewood

area so as to achieve a comprehensive regeneration scheme. The Inspector considered that given

the preliminary nature of the CRL proposal there was no justification for rejecting extension

proposals on the basis of their wider impact on regeneration. Notwithstanding this, the SoS refused

to grant planning permission in December 2003, and agreed with the Inspector that Brent Cross did

not function as a centre as defined by PPG6, and that sequentially preferable sites were available.

10.07 As a result of the SoS decision, the owners of Brent Cross realised that assertions about the town

centre status of Brent Cross were unlikely to be accepted in the future unless any future proposal

was well related to the wider regeneration area to the south on the A406. Accordingly a series of

discussions were undertaken with CRL and a steering group was formed comprising the Brent

Cross owners, CRL, the Greater London Authority (GLA) and the Borough of Barnet. As a result of

these discussions a strategy emerged based around the following principles:

• Designs should be produced to show how Brent Cross could be opened out to include streets

and squares as well as a mixture of uses, and how public transport could be enhanced. A

study was commissioned by Edaw in order to do this;

• Future retail development might be justified at Brent Cross but would need to be verified by an

independent retail study;

• With alterations the sustainability of Brent Cross could be enhanced and its strength as an

investment focus could be better used to generate benefits for the surrounding area;

• With further retail development, funds would be generated to secure the key infrastructure

necessary to bring forward the regeneration of the Cricklewood Rail Lands;

• Brent Cross and CRL working together would be mutually beneficial; and

68

• The proposition required strategic backing by the emerging London Plan.

10.08 The GLA was satisfied that the above strategy would bring clear sustainability benefits, meet

emerging retail needs and provide a catalyst for the regeneration of the Cricklewood area.

Accordingly a policy to this effect was included in the draft London Plan, published in June 2002,

which allocated Brent Cross/ Cricklewood as an Opportunity Area, with the potential for

redevelopment as a new town centre.

Relevant Planning Policy Regional Planning Guidance

10.09 Regional Planning Guidance 3 (RPG) was published in 1996 and provided a comprehensive

statement of regional strategy for planning in London. It was intended to provide a framework for

the preparation of Unitary Development Plans and suggest ways the London Boroughs could

contribute to promoting competitiveness and regeneration.

10.10 With regard to town centres and retailing, RPG3 (paragraph 5.6) identified that: ‘Within London the

regional shopping centres of Brent Cross should be supported , but any future development should be

linked to an enhanced role for public transport to serve its catchment area.’ However, it is important

to note that given the nature of the development, Brent Cross Shopping Centre was not regarded

as a town centre, but rather a regional shopping centre, which was defined in RPG3 as: ‘…major

concentrations in excess of 50,000 m2 of high quality wide ranging specialist of comparison shopping, generating a substantial proportion of turnover from an area covering several Boroughs and areas

outside London.’ (Table 5.2, RPG3). Therefore, any further retail development at Brent Cross

would have been subject to the retail tests outlined in PPG6.

10.11 However, it is significant to note that the draft London Plan was published in June 2002 for public

consultation, and was considered by a Government-appointed panel in an Examination in Public

(EiP) in March 2003. Significantly, at the EiP the Government Office for London took a close

interest in the Brent Cross issue, which was proposing the development of Brent Cross Shopping

Centre as a town centre. However, at the EiP the Government Office were reassured about the

emerging approach when it became clear from the text of the London Plan that it was not claimed

that Brent Cross was a town centre, but that it would emerge as a town centre through the

implementation of a regeneration strategy.

10.12 Accordingly, the final London Plan was published in February 2004, which set out the spatial

development strategy for the London area until 2026. The London Plan identifies a number of

objectives, which policies within the UDP should take into account. In addition, the London Plan

identifies a number of ‘Opportunity Areas’ (Policy 2A.2), which includes Cricklewood Brent Cross. In

69

this respect Opportunity Areas have been identified on the basis that they are capable of

accommodating substantial new jobs or homes and their potential should be maximised. Typically,

each can accommodate 5,000 jobs or 2,500 homes or a mix of the two, together with appropriate

provision of other uses such as local shops, leisure facilities and schools.

10.13 Further policies within the London Plan seek to strengthen the role of town centres (Policy 3D.1), by

including UDP policies to, inter alia:

• Encourage retail, leisure and other related uses in town centres and discourage them outside

town centres;

• Improve access to town centres by public transport, cycling and walking; and

• Enhance the quality of retail and other consumer services in town centres.

10.14 Moreover, Policy 2A.5 sets out an over-arching approach to support and regenerate town centres,

which states that:

‘The Mayor will work with sub-regional partnerships to implement a polycentric strategy for London’s

development by promoting the strategic importance of London’s town centres in accommodating economic growth, meeting the needs of Londoners and improving the sustainability of London’s development. A robust strategy for town centres in each sub-region will be developed through the Sub-Regional Development Frameworks, taking into account the relationship with town centres in adjoining sub-regions and in the regions adjoining London, to provide strategic direction for development of the network of centres.’

10.15 In this respect, the London Plan identifies that London has a complex pattern of town centres,

identifying five broad types of centres: international, metropolitan, major, district and local and

neighbourhood centres. It is evident that Brent Cross is not identified as a centre in the London

Plan (Annex 1), although neighbouring Cricklewood is classified as a district centre.

10.16 In terms of the five sub-regions identified in the London Plan, Brent Cross falls within the North

London sub-region, which comprises the Boroughs of Barnet, Enfield, Haringey and Waltham

Forest. Policy 5E1 identifies a number of strategic priorities for North London, including, amongst

others, the need to:

‘promote and intensify retailing, services, employment, leisure and housing in town centres and

opportunities for mixed use development.’

70

10.17 Policy 5E.2 of the London Plan identifies a number of Opportunity Areas in North London, in which

the Mayor will work with partners to draw up planning frameworks. The Cricklewood/Brent Cross

area is identified as an Opportunity Area and paragraph 5.125 states that:

‘This area combines the expanse of former railway land to the north, and the industrial land to the east

of Cricklewood Station, together with Brent Cross regional shopping centre across the A406 North Circular Road. Subject to its development as an integrated entity, the planning framework should seek the redevelopment of Brent Cross as a town centre complementing the roles of other centres nearby. This should be informed by an independent assessment of need for and impact of further retail development. Redevelopment as a town centre would entail an extension of town centre activities beyond retail including housing with no increase in current parking levels. The planning framework should make provision for at least 5,000 additional homes together with local ancillary services and a rail station on the Cricklewood site. Any new development should be contingent upon provision of improved public transport and accessibility across the area.’

10.18 The policy in the London Plan is guiding Brent Cross Regional Shopping Centre into an established

town centre role. The London Plan identifies that the development of Brent Cross as a town centre

should not compromise the potential of Wood Green, Wembley, Harrow and other centres to

provide sustainable access to higher quality goods and services.

Unitary Development Plan

10.19 The Barnet Unitary Development Plan (UDP) was adopted in 1991 and covered the period 1991 to

2001. Consequently, the UDP is now out-of-date particularly in retail planning terms, given that the

lifetime of the UDP was 15 years for the strategic policies and 10 years for detailed policies.

Therefore, the Council recognised that there was a need for changes to policies that follow

changes in national, regional and London-wide Planning Policy since 1991.

10.20 Accordingly, the Council have published the Barnet Unitary Development Plan Revised Deposit in

March 2001 during the course of this Study the UDP was close to adoption, the plan was finally

adopted on the 19 May 2006. With regard to retailing, the Adopted UDP identifies that the Borough

contains a large number of district and local town centres together with London’s only regional

shopping centre at Brent Cross. Policies in the Adopted UDP seek to regenerate and revitalise the

Borough’s town centres recognising their importance with regard to the local economy, significant

employment locations and as potential focal points for a sustainable development pattern in the

Borough. Therefore, to ensure the vitality and viability of Barnet’s town centres are maintained and

improved, the following policies will apply:

‘GTCR1 – The council will seek to ensure that new retail and other major trip generating development

is located so as to sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of the borough’s town centres.’

71

‘GTCR2 – The council will seek to ensure that all residents of the borough have ready access to wide range of goods, services and facilities in their nearest towns.’

‘GTCR3 – The council will seek to ensure that the quality of the environment of town centres is

enhanced.’

10.21 Specific policies relating to town centres and retailing are outlined in Chapter 11 of the Adopted

UDP. In this respect, the Adopted UDP identifies that Brent Cross Shopping Centre is the only

regional shopping centre in the hierarchy in the Retail Hierarchy of Barnet (Table 11.1). Indeed,

Brent Cross is identified to be the only regional shopping centre in London and performs a different

function to the Borough’s town centres. Furthermore, given its regional importance within the

Borough, the Council considers that there is justification for a specific policy approach in the retail

planning strategy for the Borough.

10.22 Policy relating to general retail development in the Borough seeks to sustain the vitality and viability

of existing town centres (as reflected in national and regional planning policy). Policies emphasise

that applications for retail and high trip generating development will need to demonstrate that the

sequential approach has been applied.

10.23 With regard to new retail development, the Council commissioned consultants to undertake a retail

capacity study to identify need for new retail development in the Borough. This study has informed

the strategy for the location of new retail development. The study found that considering needs

within the Borough alone, there was limited capacity for further retail development in the Borough,

although it identified North Finchley and Edgware Town Centre as being prime locations for

meeting this need. With regard to Brent Cross Shopping Centre, although the Adopted UDP

identifies that it does not currently perform as wide a range of functions as a typical town centre, it

is defined as a type of town centre in RPG3 in its typology of London town centres. In addition, its

role in the region’s hierarchy is well established. Furthermore, paragraph 11.3.4 states that: The

Council therefore considers that Brent Cross Shopping Centre remains a primary location for new comparison retail development. Because of its specialised function on London’s retail hierarchy, and the need to renew its fabric and infrastructure, the council supports further development at the centre.’

(Our emphasis). However, any new development should make a positive contribution to improving

the centre’s public transport accessibility and encourage a modal shift from car use to public

transport.

10.24 In addition, Brent Cross Shopping Centre falls within the Council’s Cricklewood/West Hendon

Regeneration Area. Therefore, the Adopted UDP identifies that the Council will expect that an

extension of Brent Cross and development of its immediate environs will:

72

1. Complement the role of Brent Cross as a type of town centre, and

2. Contribute to the balanced regeneration of Cricklewood/West Hendon.

10.25 The UDP identifies that the planning policy framework for this area will be set out in separate,

detailed guidance. In this respect, in accordance with the recommendations of the UDP, the

Cricklewood, Brent Cross and West Hendon Regeneration Area Development Framework, which

became Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) in April 2004, was produced jointly by the

Greater London Authority and Barnet Council. This is a visionary document, which allocates a

significant expanse of land to the west and south of Brent Cross Shopping Centre as a

regeneration area.

10.26 The SPG establishes principles for the redevelopment of the area based on the planning

framework promoted through the UDP, including additional retail floorspace. It indicates a phased

development of the regeneration area with retail floorspace forming part of the early phase of

development in order to meet identified need, secure environmental and sustainability

improvements and fund the provision of infrastructure.

10.27 The SPG serves to guide and inform future development in the area, and sets out plans to expand

Brent Cross into adjacent land formerly used for offices and regenerate the surrounding area. This

will lead to the creation of a new town centre. It is envisaged that Brent Cross will be integrated with

new uses based around a network of streets and squares, of which the existing mall will become an

integral part to allow uninterrupted pedestrian movement into and through the new town centre. As

such, a major retail expansion will occur with new types of shops coming in as part of a new high

street. As part of this change, a transit system is proposed between Brent Cross Shopping Centre,

Cricklewood Station and Brent Cross underground station, via the new town centre.

10.28 Accordingly, Policy TCR1 indicates that the preferred location for new retail development is: ‘first,

within the primary and secondary shopping frontages of the major district town centres and the main shopping areas of the district town centres as defined on the proposals map and at Brent Cross

regional shopping centre (primarily for comparison goods).’ (Our emphasis).

10.29 Furthermore, Policy TCR4 states that: ‘The council will support additional retail development at Brent

Cross subject to: i. the provision of significantly enhanced public transport improvements; ii. the provision of enhanced pedestrian and cycling links to the surrounding area; iii. significant improvements to the setting and environment of the centre; iv. measures to encourage shoppers and employees to access the centre by means other than by

private car; and v. floorspace within the development being primarily used for the sale of comparison goods.’

73

10.30 This policy reflects the importance of Brent Cross Shopping Centre in terms of delivering

regeneration benefits. The Council considers that the development of Brent Cross will help achieve

wider objectives, and therefore the future development is not just important for the local community,

but for Barnet and London as a whole.

10.31 It is significant to note that following the publication of the draft London Plan (June 2002) and the

designation of Brent Cross as an Opportunity Area, the Council prepared an additional chapter to

the UDP to specifically deal with the Cricklewood/West Hendon Regeneration Area. During the

preparation of this chapter, progression of the remaining UDP was effectively put on hold. In this

respect, the draft of an additional chapter was approved in January 2003. The chapter

(‘Cricklewood, West Hendon and Brent Cross Regeneration Area’) seeks to set out a formula for

regenerating the areas of Cricklewood, West Hendon and Brent Cross.

10.32 Given the scale and importance of the regeneration area, the additional chapter identifies that the

Council will require a comprehensive, rather than piecemeal approach to redevelopment,

recognising that developments will proceed by separate detailed planning applications. In addition,

the chapter identifies that the regeneration of the area provides an opportunity for the

transformation of Brent Cross in a sustainable manner. Indeed, the Council considers that the

benefits provided through the regeneration of this part of North London justify additional retail

floorspace. In terms of identifying a new centre, paragraph 1.15a states that: ‘A mix of uses will be

expected on different floors on individual sites as well over the area to create synergy. The key components of the new town centre must include improved public transport access, a mix of uses including residential, businesses, a greater variety of shops and services, leisure, sports facilities, restaurants, hotels and community facilities (including primary healthcare facilities) as well as the additional retail floorspace.’

10.33 Subsequently, the Council identify that Brent Cross will be able to develop an evening economy

that will improve the vitality and viability of the new town centre. However, in order to maintain an

attractive centre, the ground and first floor of the existing floorspace will remain primarily in retail

use. As a result of the development, the Council considers that Brent Cross will eventually perform

the function of a major town centre serving a catchment area wider than the Borough.

Furthermore, the additional chapter identifies that the town centre will be developed so as to allow

safe and convenient access on foot and public transport. Consequently, a major element of the

scheme will be the development of a new bridge over the North Circular for pedestrians and

cyclists. Further improvements necessary also include improvement of the existing bus station.

Accordingly, Policy C6 states that:

74

‘The council will support additional retail development at Brent Cross as part of a new town centre extending north and south of the North Circular Road (A406) subject to:

1. The need for additional floorspace being justified by the regeneration of the Cricklewood, West Hendon and Brent Cross Regeneration Area as defined on the proposals map and supported by the results of a retail impact assessment;

2. The provision of a broad range of uses, to include homes, business units, leisure, entertainment, restaurants, hotels, community facilities and open space, in a pedestrian-friendly environment;

3. The provision of significant public transport improvements; 4. The provision of enhanced pedestrian and cycling links to the surrounding areas; 5. Significant improvements to the setting and environment of the centre; 6. Measures to encourage residents, shoppers and employees to access the centre by means

other than by private car; and 7. Floorspace within the primary frontage as defined on the proposals map being predominantly

class A1 uses.’

10.34 The additional chapter and SPG were incorporated in the Barnet UDP, which was subject to a

Public Inquiry in March 2004 and the Inspector’s Report was subsequently published in November

2004. In this respect, almost all the Inspector’s recommendations are considered by the Council to

be acceptable although in many cases the report recommended that no changes should be made

to the Revised Deposit Draft UDP. In light of this, the Inspector fully endorses the evolution of

Brent Cross into a mixed use town centre. Indeed, he noted that the proposals fulfil the main

caveats stated within the London Plan. Furthermore, the Inspector concluded that the

recommendations of the North West London Retail Study were accurate and that an additional

55,000 sq m of comparison retail floorspace could be supported, without impacting upon existing

centres in the catchment area.

10.35 Consequently, the Proposed Modifications prepared by Barnet Council in response to the

recommendations in the Inspector’s Report were approved in June 2005, and the UDP was formally

adopted on the 19 May 2006. In this respect, the Modifications to the UDP acknowledge that Brent

Cross is seen as an Opportunity Area in the North London Sub-Region. Given this Policy GCcrick

states that:

‘The Cricklewood, Brent Cross and West Hendon Regeneration Area, as defined on the proposals map,

will be a major focus for the creation of new jobs and homes, building upon the area’s strategic location and its key real facilities. All new development will be built to the highest standards of design as well as to the highest environmental standards. A new town centre, developed over the plan period, will be fully into the regeneration scheme.’

10.36 In respect of retail development, the Modifications incorporated the conclusions of the comparison

retail assessment, as recommended by the UDP Inspector. Accordingly, Policy C6 states:

75

‘The council will support additional retail development at Brent Cross as part of a new town centre

extending north and south of the North Circular Road (A406) subject to: 1) the scale of new comparison retail floorspace falling within the identified requirement of

55,000 m2; 2) the provision of a broad range of uses, to include homes, business units, leisure,

entertainment, restaurants, hotels, community facilities and open space, in a pedestrian-friendly environment;

3) the provision of significant public transport improvements; 4) the provision of enhanced pedestrian and cycling links to the surrounding areas; 5) significant improvements to the setting and environment of the centre; 6) measures to encourage residents, shoppers and employees to access the centre by means

other than the private car; 7) floorspace within the primary frontage as defined on the proposals map being predominantly

class A1 uses; and 8) any proposal for retail floorspace (in addition to criterion 1 above) will need to be assessed

against the tests contained in PPS6, other polices in this UDP, and any overall limits for the scale of convenience retail floorspace that area supported by the results of a retail impact assessment.’

Future Development Possibilities

10.37 In accordance with regional and local planning policy, the owners of Brent Cross and Cricklewood

Regeneration Limited are working together to prepare a comprehensive planning application for the

regeneration of the area.

10.38 A Revised Brent Cross and West Hendon Development Framework have been published

(December 2005) to guide the development of the site. The overall regeneration strategy proposes

a new town centre with major shopping and leisure developments, around 10,000 new homes

(including more than 5,000 homes within the Brent Cross and Cricklewood area), a new market

square, a new foodstore, a new bus station, a new high quality transport system from Brent Cross

Shopping Centre and Brent Cross underground station via the new town centre, and new

pedestrian link bridges. It is expected that when complete the regeneration area will become home

for around 20,000 people.

10.39 In total, the proposed regeneration scheme comprises 420,000 sq m of business space, 27,000 sq

m of leisure floorspace, 55,000 sq m of non-food retail and 20,000 sq m of convenience goods

retailing. A new high street will also be incorporated to integrate the north and south side of the

A406 North Circular Road.

76

11 WHITE ROSE SHOPPING CENTRE, LEEDS General Description and Surrounding Area

11.01 The White Rose Shopping centre opened in 1997 and

is located 4 miles to the south west of Leeds City

Centre. It was developed on a 24.5 hectare site

bound by Dewsbury Road/ Millshaw Road to the east,

the Leeds-Huddersfield railway to the west and

Arlington Business Park to the north. Greenbelt land

is to the west and south of the site.

11.02 The White Rose Shopping Centre is within easy reach of

parking spaces provided. The shopping centre contains o

area of approximately 60,400 sq m, including the anchor

11.03 The White Rose Shopping Centre (Figure 11.1) is located

properties, although other uses include a public house an

contains large units together with smaller units within a co

centre is close to settlements of Beeston, Hunslet and Mi

people walking from the surrounding residential area.

Planning History 11.04 A large part of the site currently occupied by White Rose

by a sewage treatment works. In terms of the current sho

87/23/59) for retail development of 60,387 sq m together

centre and car parking was submitted in February 1987. T

determination and a Public Inquiry was held from October

Council opposed the development principally on the grou

on the city centre. However, outline approval was granted

1989. The approved application included:

• 60,387 sq m (gross) lettable retail floor area;

• 7,748 sq m garden centre;

• 10-screen cinema;

• A four-storey hotel; and

• 4,900 car parking spaces.

77

Figure 11.1: Entrance to the White Rose

the M62, M1 and A653, with 4,800

ver 100 shops covering a total floorspace

stores of Debenhams and Sainsbury’s.

in close proximity to residential

d post office. The shopping centre

vered shopping mall. The shopping

ddleston (all 2 miles). There is evidence of

Shopping Centre was formerly occupied

pping centre, a planning application (Ref:

with hotel, multi-screen cinema, garden

he applicant appealed against non-

to December 1987, at which the City

nds of the impact of out-of-centre retailing

by the Secretary of State in January

11.05 An application for reserved matters of siting and means of access was approved in November 1990

(Ref: 90/23/00177). However, the existing outline application was renewed in September 1991 and

an application for approval of reserved matters to the outline application (Ref: 87/23/59) was made

in April 1994 by White Rose (Leeds) Ltd (Ref: 23/126/94/RM). This proposal consisted of:

• 55,282 sq m retail floor area;

• 12,260 sq m supermarket;

• 11,700 sq m department store;

• Eight major shopping units;

• 58 shops units;

• Food court;

• Coach stop area;

• Bus station; and

• And 4,964 spaces for cars.

11.06 Further applications include the removal of Condition 12 (Ref: 28/388/94/FU) of the initial outline

planning permission (Ref: 87/23/59), which stated that: ‘Trading shall not commence from the site

until specified off site highway works have been completed to the satisfaction of the LPA.’

Relevant Planning Policy

Regional Spatial Strategy

11.07 Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS), which has been based on the Selective Review of Regional

Planning Guidance 12 (2001), was published in December 2004 and provides a spatial framework

to inform the preparation of Local Development Frameworks and Local Transport Plans. It provides

a broad strategy for the development and use of land in Yorkshire and the Humber that is relevant

to 2016 and beyond.

11.08 In terms of retailing, the RSS identifies that major retail developments will be located within main

centres and further out-of-centre retailing will be resisted. In this respect, Policy SOC3 provides a

framework for consideration of all forms of retailing and leisure in the region, stating inter alia that:

‘a) No further out-of-centre regional or subregional shopping centres of large-scale expansion of

those that exist, including Meadowhall and White Rose should be permitted.’

11.09 On this basis, RSS identifies that additional out-of-centre regional or sub-regional facilities in the

region would put at risk the continued vitality and viability of town and city centres which provide a

full range of commercial, leisure, cultural and social facilities and are generally accessible by means

other than the car.

78

11.10 Furthermore, RSS identifies that the two largest out-of-town centres in the region are Meadowhall

and White Rose and development plans should: ‘…make it clear that large-scale extensions

(including the cumulative effect of smaller extensions) will not be allowed and define the relevant scale in terms of floorspace (this will depend on local circumstances, such as the size and nature of the

existing centre).’ (Paragraph 8.21).

11.11 Moreover, the Yorkshire and Humber Assembly are currently preparing, in partnership with regional

stakeholders, a ‘new’ RSS. In this respect, Draft RSS ‘The Yorkshire and Humber Plan’ was

submitted to Central Government in December 2005 and it is intended that a Revised RSS will be

published in Autumn 2007. The Draft RSS sets out the scale, priorities and broad locations for

change and development in the region over the period to 2021.

Unitary Development Plan

11.12 The Leeds Unitary Development Plan (UDP) was adopted in 2001 and covers development within

the Borough up until 2006. In terms of strategy it contains a number of strategic aims, policies and

objectives. Of relevance to this study is Strategic Aim 5 which aims to:

‘ensure that a wide range of shops is available in locations to which all sections of the community, including those without access to private cars, have access by a choice of means of transport’.

11.13 The supplementary text iterates that the Council will seek to promote appropriate shopping

development in locations which are the most accessible to all the community, particularly those

without access to a car.

11.14 Chapter 9 entitled ‘Shopping Policies’ contains the Councils aims with regards to retailing in the

Borough. It should be noted at this juncture that no specific mention is made of the White Rose

Shopping Centre in this chapter or indeed in the Plan as a whole, except for a passing

acknowledgement that historic planning permission for the sub-regional centre exists. Chapter 9

states that the Council’s primary objective in terms of retail is to ensure that an adequate provision

of modern forms of retailing and related facilities is available and accessible to all members of the

community. In addition the need to reduce the need to travel is stressed, together the promotion of

public transport. Reference is made to Strategic Policy 7 which states that priority will be given to

the maintenance and enhancement of existing city and town centres. As such the main aim of

shopping policies is to focus development these centres, and major retailers will be directed

towards them.

11.15 Within this document Leeds City Centre is recognised as a regional shopping centre serving a wide

catchment area. This is acknowledged by Policy S1 which indicates that the city centres role as a

regional centre will be promoted and enhanced though the Plan. Policies S2 to S4 identify a

79

number of town centres and they set out plans to enhance and promote them, whilst ensuring that

a high level of environmental quality is maintained. Policy S5 relates specifically to major retail

developments outside the centres identified in the preceding policies, and states that such

development will normally not be permitted unless: it cannot be accommodated in existing centres;

it will not undermine the vitality and viability of existing centres; it addresses deficiencies in

shopping facilities; and it does not entail the use of land designated for other purposes. However,

the plan continues by highlighting that during the plan period there is unlikely to be a need to

accommodate a significant increase in retail floorspace, although several small areas where

potential exists for limited new convenience retailing are named.

11.16 The proposals map contained in the adopted Leeds UDP (August 2001) states the White Rose

Shopping Centre in the surrounding area. To the west and south and land is designated as both

Greenbelt (Policy N32) and as a priority area for improving green space provision (Policy N3). To

the north of White Rose land is currently undesignated but is utilised for industrial purposes.

Beyond these industrial uses are undesignated existing residential properties and land classified as

green space under Policy N1). The west of the site is bounded by the Millshaw Road, although

behind this a number of land uses are prevalent. To the south-west of the shopping centre land is

reserved for proposed open space (N5), although beyond this lies existing greenbelt land. To the

north west of the shopping centre two small sites are designated as existing supply of local

economy (Policy E3) and existing housing supply (Policy H3). Behind this exists residential

properties, some of which adjoin the shopping centre.

11.17 In addition to the adopted Leeds UDP, a Leeds UDP Review- First Deposit (2003) and a Review

Revised Deposit (2005) have been produced which contain alterations to the approved UDP.

These documents propose no change to Chapter 9 on shopping policies and so do not incorporate

new policy relating to the White Rose Shopping Centre.

11.18 In addition, it is evident that Leeds City Council has yet to produce much in terms of the emerging

Local Development Framework (LDF). However, the Core Strategy Document, which forms part of

the Local development Framework, sets out the spatial vision and core principles for future

development in Leeds and adoption, is envisaged in July 2008.

Future Development Possibilities 11.19 Land Securities owns White Rose and has considered how they might push the shopping centre

towards town centre status. However, this would be difficult to secure as the shopping centre is

bounded by urban fringe, Greenbelt and significant greenfield land. In addition the centre does not

adjoin any established community and topography on the site is a significant restrictive factor.

Leeds City Council is also resistive to any expansion of the centre. As such, it is extremely unlikely

80

that the shopping centre will be designated as a town centre near future. Indeed, residential, leisure

and business uses would need to be added to the current retail dominated floorspace before further

expansion of the retail ‘offer’ will be considered by the Council.

11.20 From discussions with Leeds City Council the future designation of the shopping centre is unclear.

Through the emerging LDF the position of the shopping centre is to be examined, but no work has

currently been produced in this regard. As such the Council does not currently have any plans to

expand White Rose, and from our discussions it was apparent no expansion of the shopping

centres floorspace is likely to be permitted.

81

12 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Introduction 12.01 From our detailed assessment of the ten highest ranked regional shopping centres in England

(MHE rankings), it is evident that strategies outlined in regional and local planning policy differ

significantly for each. The different approaches being adopted clearly impact upon the overall

status of these regional shopping centres and how their future expansion will be treated. The

differing positions within each centre are summarised below.

Bluewater, Greenhithe

12.02 Bluewater comprises 140,000 sq m of retail floorspace. The use of the centre is restricted by

planning conditions and the centre does not contain a major foodstore.

12.03 Adopted and emerging regional planning policy identifies the importance of Bluewater as a regional

shopping centre and a catalyst for improving the Thames Gateway area of the region. Within the

emerging RSS (South East Plan), Bluewater is identified as a ‘Primary Regional Centre’ where

policies seek to focus major development within the centre. However, any additional retail

development at Bluewater should only be permitted if it maintains its specialist role for comparison

goods shopping. Furthermore, the Deposit Kent and Medway Structure Plan identifies Bluewater as

the only regional centre in the hierarchy and it is intended the hierarchy of centres will generally be

maintained. The emerging Structure Plan identifies that Bluewater is an established out-of-centre

shopping development with a regional catchment extending across Kent and into much of London

and Essex. Over the next twenty years it is expected that Bluewater will mature as a central focus

for development.

12.04 The emerging South East Plan states that no need has been identified for any further out-of-centre

regional or sub-regional centres or large-scale extensions during the period to 2026. Moreover, the

initial Government Response to the emerging South East Plan has raised concerns with regard to

the designation of Bluewater as a defined centre, as they consider it to be an out-of-town retail

development. Furthermore, in terms of accommodating future growth in retail expenditure, policies

in the Structure Plan consider that large scale retail development will be concentrated at the sub-

regional centres (which excludes Bluewater) and any development at Bluewater should not

prejudice investment in sub-regional centres. Therefore, local planning policy identifies that any

further development at Bluewater will be subject to the tests of need, impact and sequential

approach with preference given to sites within existing centres. The local planning authority will

require a masterplan prior to the submission of any major planning application at Bluewater.

82

12.05 Although there is some scope for further retail development at Bluewater, the potential for

Bluewater to be considered as an established centre is restricted by the relative isolation of the

centre and the limited expansion opportunity. Although the local planning authority do not consider

that Bluewater should be given town centre status, as the centre matures and improved integration

with surrounding uses take place (including the proposed new centre at Ebbsfeet) the current

owners of the shopping centre may seek to achieve town centre status. Indeed, policies within the

emerging South East Plan suggest that (although raising concerns with Central Government);

Bluewater may be considered a centre in regional planning policy in the future.

Meadowhall, Sheffield 12.06 Meadowhall comprises130,000 sq m of retail floorspace and is accessible by a variety of modes of

transport, including a tram link with its own dedicated ‘Sheffield Supertram‘ station.

12.07 Neither the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) nor the UDP promote further large-scale expansion at

Meadowhall; it is identified as an out-of-centre regional centre. The retail strategy outlined in the

Sheffield UDP is to concentrate development and investment in Sheffield City Centre, thereby

promoting it as a regional centre. In this respect, whilst Meadowhall is identified in the UDP as

serving an important function, the Council consider that significant additional development would

harm the prospects of regeneration in the City Centre. Whilst additional development at

Meadowhall will be considered by the Council, proposals will not be permitted where they would

undermine the Plan strategy of concentrating development in the City Centre and District Shopping

Centres.

12.08 Accordingly, although the UDP recognises that Meadowhall both complements and competes with

Sheffield City Centre, because of the vulnerability of the city centre, the impact of further

development at the Meadowhall will need to be carefully considered. On this basis, we consider

that it is unlikely that the Meadowhall will achieve town centre status in the short term. Indeed,

discussions with Sheffield City Council indicate that expansion of Meadowhall would harm

prospects for further investment in the city centre. However, in the longer term, once the

regeneration of the city centre is fully established and if better integration of Meadowhall and

surrounding uses is achieved (as proposed by the current owners) there may be the potential

achieve town status, although this is still considered to be unlikely.

The Trafford Centre, Manchester 12.09 The Trafford Centre comprises approximately 119,000 sq m of retail floorspace, in addition to

leisure development.

83

12.10 Regional planning policy identifies that there is no need for new, or the expansion of existing out-of-

centre regional retail floorspace. Furthermore, the RSS identifies that out-of-centre facilities such

as The Trafford Centre do not provide the full range of uses which are found in town or city centres.

Accordingly, the RSS identifies that it would be inappropriate to redefine existing major out-of-

centre retail centres like The Trafford Centre as town or district centres. This same approach is

advocated in the recently published Draft RSS, which identifies the importance of concentrating

comparison goods retailing in existing centres.

12.11 Similarly, the Trafford UDP does not identify The Trafford Centre as an established town or district

centre and as such new proposals will be considered to be out-of-centre development and will need

to conform with relevant policies (excluding development already permitted), including a

demonstration of need, sequential approach and impact.

12.12 Although planning permission has recently been granted to extend The Trafford Centre (Barton

Square), polices within both regional and local guidance seeks to restrict further development at

The Trafford Centre. Indeed, discussions with Trafford Council have indicated that any move to

redefine The Trafford Centre as a town centre will be resisted. However, the owner is currently

seeking the allocation of much of the surrounding land for a variety of uses (excluding retail), which

will diversify the range of uses surrounding The Trafford Centre. Furthermore, the proposed

Metrolink extension to serve the Trafford Centre will improve accessibility. Consequently, in the

long term, should the surrounding uses be allocated, the Council and or the Regional Assembly

may consider that there is the potential for The Trafford Centre to be identified as a defined centre

in its own right.

Lakeside, Thurrock 12.13 Lakeside Shopping Centre comprises more than 123,000 sq m of retail floorspace together with

significant retail floorspace at the adjoining retail parks. Unlike many of the identified regional

shopping centres identified as part of this assessment, the shopping centre is surrounded by a

significant amount of retail floorspace.

12.14 Unlike nearby Bluewater, Lakeside is not identified in the emerging RSS (South East Plan) as an

important retail destination. Consequently, representations have been made by both the Borough

Council and the current owners addressing this.

12.15 Accordingly, any further retail development at Lakeside would be subject to the relevant tests of

need, sequential approach and impact. Indeed, local planning policy is seeking to focus future

investment to Grays Town Centre, which is acknowledged by the Council to have been adversely

affected by the Lakeside development.

84

12.16 It is significant to note that emerging planning policy (LDF) identifies that whilst further retail

development at Lakeside will be resisted, a diversification of uses will be considered. In this

respect, a Spatial Plan for the Thurrock Urban Regeneration Company area is being developed,

which reflects the objectives locally of diversifying uses. On this basis, we consider that there is the

potential for Lakeside to follow a similar route to that adopted at Brent Cross of linking development

at Lakeside to the wider regeneration objectives, acting as a catalyst. Furthermore, significant

residential development that has taken place (Chafford Hundred) together with proposals to

diversify existing uses and improve integration between the centre and surrounding area. It is

considered that over time the characteristics of the Lakeside will change, reflecting the character of

more typical town centres. The potential impact of any future expansion at Lakeside on nearby

towns (particularly Grays) will be an important consideration for the Council.

MetroCentre, Gateshead 12.17 The MetroCentre comprises 154,000 sq m of floorspace and is located adjacent to the A1 (M) and

significant provision of retail warehousing. Although the MetroCentre has a broad range of higher-

order retail facilities, it contains a more limited range of other functions; it is identified as an out-of-

centre regional retailing facility.

12.18 Regional planning policy seeks to concentrate development within established town centres in

order to maintain and enhance their vitality and viability. Further development at the MetroCentre

should only be considered subject to the test of need, the sequential approach and impact.

However, policies in the emerging RSS are seeking to improve integration with surrounding uses

and promote better accessibility by a variety of modes of transport.

12.19 Although the option to define the MetroCentre as town centre was previously considered by the

Council, this was rejected and as a result the Council would not be supportive of proposals to do so

in the short to medium term. Notwithstanding this, the Council wishes to better integrate the

shopping centre with its surroundings through diversifying land uses nearby and improving

accessibility. Subsequently, in the long term they may be scope to identify the MetroCentre as a

defined centre in the future. However, significant development is restricted by the existing highway

network including the A1.

Cribbs Causeway, Bristol 12.20 Cribbs Causeway comprises approximately 60,000 sq. m of floorspace and includes a number of

associated leisure facilities. Cribbs Causeway is the smallest regional shopping centre identified in

this study.

85

12.21 In accordance with national planning advice, the RSS seeks to focus development within existing

centres. The emerging RSS identifies that opportunities for redevelopment of Cribbs Causeway will

be pursued to enhance its role for local communities. The Borough Council have identified a vision

for Cribbs Causeway which seeks to develop its complementary role rather than compete with local

centres in the Borough. Consequently, the Council are seeking better integration with the

surrounding area and communities, which would enable Cribbs Causeway to provide a focus for

shopping, recreational and cultural activities in the area.

12.22 There have been no formal moves by the owners of Cribbs Causeway or South Gloucestershire

Council to identify the shopping centre as a defined town centre.

Brent Cross, Barnet 12.23 Brent Cross is identified as the longest established regional shopping centre reviewed as part of

this study and was the first large enclosed shopping centre in the UK. The shopping centre

comprises 81,300 sq m of retail floorspace. Unlike many of the other regional shopping centres

reviewed, Brent Cross is located within the urban area and is surrounded by a variety of uses,

including housing. The centre is accessible by foot from surrounding areas.

12.24 Brent Cross Shopping Centre is identified as part of a new town, acting as a centre to the wider

regeneration of the area. Adopted UDP policy identifies that the Council will support additional

retail development at Brent Cross as part of the town centre. The Council considers that the

benefits provided through regeneration of this part of North London justify additional retail

floorspace. The owners of Brent Cross together with Cricklewood Regeneration Limited are

preparing a planning application for the comprehensive regeneration of the area including

expansion at Brent Cross.

White Rose, Leeds 12.25 The White Rose Shopping Centre comprises more than 60,000 sq m of retail floorspace; it is a mix

of large and small format retail units.

12.26 Regional planning policy seeks to restrict large-scale expansion of the White Rose Shopping

Centre as RSS considers that additional out-of-centre regional or sub-regional facilities in the

region would put at risk the continued vitality and viability of town and city centres. Whilst the

owners of the White Rose Shopping Centre have previously considered trying to achieve town

centre status, significant expansion and better integration within the surrounding area is restricted

by surrounded land uses, which includes Greenbelt and significant greenfield land. Furthermore,

86

discussions with the Council indicate that they would resist any expansion of the centre. On this

basis, it is considered unrealistic that White Rose Shopping Centre will achieve town centre status.

Indeed, a significant increase in the diversity of uses will be necessary (e.g. residential, leisure,

business, etc.) before the Council will even consider White Rose as a defined centre.

Overview 12.27 Brent Cross is identified as forming a new town centre as part of a wider regeneration area.

Furthermore, further development and enhancement of Lakeside is also considered an option by

the Borough Council and the Development Corporation as part of a wider regeneration scheme.

Bluewater is identified as a ‘Primary Regional Centre’ in the emerging RSS where further retail

development should be focused, although the Government has expressed a number of concerns

regarding this identification. Notwithstanding this, it is significant to note that both Bluewater and

Lakeside are located within the Thames Gateway where a growth strategy is in place to serve a

substantial growth in population. Given this, it is likely that there will be increased pressure for

expansion of both these centres these centre to help accommodate the significant growth identified

in the South East.

12.28 Elsewhere, it is evident that regional and local planning policy is restricting further expansion of

existing centres, most notably at Meadowhall and White Rose. Indeed, in respect of Meadowhall it

is evident that the Council are seeking significant investment and regeneration of Sheffield City

Centre, which is acknowledged to have suffered following the development of Meadowhall.

Accordingly, polices within the development plan seek to focus development within the new Retail

Quarter within Sheffield City Centre. With regard to the Trafford Centre and the MetroCentre,

neither of these centres are considered defined centres within development plan policy; it is evident

that both have been successful in expanding their retail offer in recent years. Therefore, whilst

policies within the respective development plans seek to concentrate development in established

centres but both Councils have allowed significant retail development to occur. Furthermore, there

is significant scope to diversify surrounding land uses and improve accessibility by a variety of

modes of transport.

12.29 WYG’s research indicates that there appears to be growing recognition that some existing out-of-

centre shopping centres may have a role to play in delivering regeneration initiatives or contributing

to supporting growth strategies. Indeed, this particularly relevant at Lakeside and Bluewater

shopping centres, which are located in The Thames Gateway, which identified as a significant

growth area in the South East.

87

Implications For Future Strategy For Brierley Hill

12.30 As can be seen from the research undertaken to date with regards to the major free standing retail

destinations in England, there are a number of different approaches being taken at the regional and

local level with regard to the future role and evolution of regional shopping centres. There is clearly

a strong impetus to further enhance and expand the existing shopping malls at Brent Cross,

Lakeside and Bluewater to not only meet the needs of the growing population but to establish

themselves as centres in their own right. Whilst the success of both Lakeside and Bluewater in

pursuing such a strategic approach has yet to be fully tested, it would appear that particularly in the

case of Bluewater the Government has expressed concerns similar to those expressed about Merry

Hill in the past. With regard to Brent Cross it would appear that there is greater support for the

emergence of this shopping mall as an established centre linked to the wider regeneration of the

area and the fact that the centre integrates well with the existing urban area and is accessible by

forms of transport other than the private motorcar.

12.31 The approach currently being taken at Brent Cross has similarities with regard to the strategy now

being pursued for Brierley Hill and therefore it would be important for the consortium to keep a

‘watching brief’ on developments at Brent Cross which could equally be applied to Brierley Hill in

the future. Clearly, policies have been developed at the local level to control the future growth of

Brent Cross to ensure that other wider regeneration objectives are achieved as part of any future

retail expansion. This again is very similar to the approach being developed within the Black

Country whereby the growth and expansion of Merry Hill will not only be controlled to allow other

established centres to expand but to also ensure that other wider regeneration benefits such as

improving public transport accessibility can be achieved.

12.32 Given the position with the other regional shopping malls, it is likely that the owners of the centres

will be carefully watching how other strategies are progressed, before considering approaches to

gaining town centre status in the future. Whilst the Trafford Centre is not recognised at present as

an established centre within the regional hierarchy, it is evident that future emerging residential and

office development surrounding the centre and a potential tram link could mean that a similar

strategy maybe pursued in the future. The same could apply to The MetroCentre and Meadowhall

although Sheffield City Council are currently pursuing a strategy which seeks to rejuvenate the city

centre following the impact of Meadowhall rather than supporting any future expansion in the short

to medium term.

12.33 In summary, whilst it is evident that there is still uncertainty as to the Government’s view on

regional shopping malls becoming established centres in their own right, the position being

advanced for Brierley Hill is clearly not unique. Whilst it is evident that the Government maybe

concerned about setting precedence for the future, the shopping centres which offer the best

88

opportunity to integrate with the existing urban area, are accessible to all and offer significant

regeneration benefits would appear to be in the strongest position in terms of justifying their status

as established centres. It would appear that Brent Cross is a strong example of this and is

particularly well advanced in creating a new established centre. Positively, there are clear

similarities between the Brent Cross situation and Brierley Hill. On this basis it would be important

for the consortium to regularly review progress with regard to Brent Cross and at the earliest

possible stage understand the Government’s acceptance of such a strategy. However, it is

significant to note that unlike Brent Cross, the future development at Merry Hill/Brierley Hill will

result in a downgrade of an existing strategic centre (Dudley). Therefore, whilst the local strategy

identified for Brierley Hill is not considered to be unique, it is evident that the spatial planning

strategy of downgrading an existing centre is.

89