To answer questions asked by members of the public after notice in accordance with the motion passed by the Council at its meeting on 19 February 2008 (minute 102 refers) on any matter in relation to which the Cabinet has powers or duties or which affects the District.
Minutes:
(i) The following public question was asked by Ms L Collier on behalf of Ms K Gilroy:
“What evidence can Epping Forest District Council provide to support the assertion by Allies and Morrison Urban Practitioners that a supermarket will bring increased footfall to Epping, and how this can be reconciled with the traffic survey commissioned by the Council which found that a new supermarket would simply siphon off existing customers from Epping’s current supermarkets and would bring no new trade to the town?”
The Portfolio Holder for Asset Management & Economic Development gave the following response:
“The question refers to the statement which appears in paragraph 5.7 and following paragraphs of the Intermodal traffic modelling report. This is a background technical document to the project rather than a primary consultation document.
This section of the report notes that it is generally accepted that stores siphon off trade from other competing stores in the area. However, it goes on to note that the Roger Tyms Study reports around 50% loos of trade to other centres. The point of this explanation is to demonstrate that, because of the high proportion of outbound shopping experienced by Epping, the conventional orthodoxy is not likely to be directly applicable. A new store may therefore be expected to increase trade in the town by retaining spend in Epping which would otherwise be lost to competing stores elsewhere.
On this basis, the traffic modelling has been conducted on the basis that 40% of trips to the store would represent new trips to Epping rather than trips to existing stores. This equates to more shoppers in the town centre.”
(ii) The following public question was asked by Mr A Long:
“Could the statement by Steve Walker (Allies and Morrison Urban Practitioners) that an anchor store could only be a supermarket and not a department store due to cost, be expanded upon with some financial explanation?”
The Portfolio Holder for Asset Management & Economic Development gave the following response:
“A major supermarket will typically pay upwards of around £20 per square foot gross for space, yields are keen to improve the scheme viability. They do not require any financial premium to be enticed to a store location, and indeed will sometimes pay an additional premium to secure a store. As you know, there has been strong demand from food store operators to locate in Epping for a number of years now. Department stores almost always pay a rent at below market value. This can be as low as £2 per square foot based on the net area, although it is commonly between £6 and £10 per square foot net.
For this form of development to be a viable proposition, then department store led schemes need to be supported by a considerable amount of additional, smaller unit shopping floor space. As a very rough proxy, this can be in the order of 150,000 to 200,000 square feet of supporting retail floor space, although of course it varies from scheme to scheme. And on top of this, they very often demand hefty premiums running into many millions of pounds based on the argument that without the anchor department store, there would not be a scheme at all.
That is why there are very few department led town centre schemes in the pipeline in the UK. They don’t often stack up financially save for in the very largest, strongest retailing centres. To add to this, and critically, there is no identified demand from a department store to locate in Epping. And I cannot see this changing. Epping is too small, and offers a small retail shopper catchment to support a department lad scheme. Other department stores are also quite close and accessible, such as at Chelmsford.
Beyond the financial arguments spelt out above, there is also a planning rationale with local authorities tasked with planning appropriately for retail development, and this means having regard to the sequential test to site selection and the town centre’s first rule.
This response was given on the basis of previous experience in similar situations. For most locations, supermarkets and housing development are the only profitable forms of development which could reasonably be expected to generate a good capital receipt (land value) for the Councils. This is important for the project given the need to generate a capital receipt for the public sector land owners to help cover the cost of community infrastructure projects. Commercial development could also be expected to help to deliver additional benefits such as public realm improvements through Section 106 payments. By contrast, department stores, recognising that they play an important anchor role and therefore have the whip hand in negotiations, often request rent-free periods or up-front payments to attract them to a location.
Given that this project is based on the need to generate a capital receipt for the public sector, the inclusion of a department store rather than a food store would have a major impact on the value of the sites. It should also be noted that the value of the incentive offered to a department store would probably not be the deciding factor – they are simply unlikely to register Epping as within the range of centres they would consider investing in. Studies such as the English Heritage document ‘Retail Development in Historic Areas’ point to he increasing polarisation of centres with fewer larger centres gradually attracting more comparison retail at the expense of smaller centres.
It is not possible to offer figures or calculations which illustrate this issue in the context of Epping – it has not featured on the list of options explored by the team as it is regarded as so far beyond what mat be possible. As an example, a developer on another project in a town of similar size is understood to have paid £1million to attract a New Look store to anchor a development.
A further point to consider would be the urban design implications of a department store. The consultation process identified that people have concerns about the impact of the scale and massing of a food store and the potential impact of traffic and deliveries. A department store is likely to have all the same problems as a food store. Many department stores now also feature a food hall.
I would add that Epping once had Pynes as a kind of department store, albeit operating on more than one site, but that eventually closed. Chelmsford lost Allders, and that site was vacant for a considerable period before becoming a furniture only store; Chelmsford aspires to a John Lewis, but it is a challenge even given the scale of Chelmsford.”
(iii) The following public question was asked by Mr A Long:
“(For Councillor Whitbread) Given your election pledge to support the views of the local people, and your public opposition to a supermarket, how do you intend to protect the interests of Epping residents when it would appear that any brief for the St John’s site includes a supermarket, despite overwhelming public response against it?”
The Leader of the Council gave the following response:
“As you heard this evening, I still believe exactly what I put in my consultation response because I, as a resident of Epping, saw what happened the last time we had a major supermarket open in the town, and it had a profound effect on the high street at that time. I have no reason to disbelieve that that would happen again in my personal opinion. However, even though I am the Leader of the Council, I am one of 58 Councillors who will eventually decide upon the Design Statement. But, my personal opinion has not changed and I will argue my corner and argue for what people have told me locally – not just in St John’s Road but across the whole of Epping.”
(iv) The following question was asked by Ms F Long:
“Will EFDC consider purchasing the Essex County Council portions of the St John’s Road site with a view to buying time to consider an appropriate use?”
The Portfolio holder for Asset Management & Economic Development gave the following response:
“No, we won’t consider purchasing it given what we anticipate the cost to be.”
(v) The following question was asked by Mr S Harding:
“What weight does he Cabinet attach to the overwhelming majority of consultation respondents who do not support a supermarket on the St John’s Road site?”
The Portfolio Holder for Asset Management & Economic Development gave the following response:
“It was quite clear that there was a majority of respondents who didn’t support some form of supermarket and clearly Cabinet will take that into consideration when they make their decision.”
(vi) The following question was asked by Mr S Harding:
“Given the rejection by consultation respondents of a supermarket on the St John’s Road site and support for leisure, community and adult education uses, will Epping Forest District Council accelerate the preparation of the Local Plan to allocate land use on the site in accordance with residents’ identified wishes and thereby provide some protection against inappropriate or unwanted development on the site?”
The Portfolio Holder for Asset Management & Economic Development gave the following response:
“On the question about accelerating the Local Plan, given the recent decision regarding the timescale for consultation and all the procedures that such a Local Plan has to go through, the importance of this site was considered to justify the consideration and adaptation of a site-specific brief. The Local Plan will relect on the decisions taken concerning the brief, and will reflect on the evidence from the Roger Tym study, but it cannot be so accelerated to be quicker than this brief.”
(vii) The following question was asked by Ms L Collier:
“At a public meeting organised by residents on 17 March, Colleen O’Boyle assured residents that options 2 and 3 in the St John’s Road consultation were viable. At a briefing held at Epping Town Hall attended by Chris Whitbread, Anne Grigg and other EFDC Councillors on 18 July, Steve Walker from Allies and Morrison Urban Practitioners stated that the only viable options were 1 and 4, and that he had opposed consulting on other options. Given this admission, why was money and time wasted on a consultation that gives the impression of choice to residents when in fact there is none?”
The Portfolio Holder for Asset Management and Economic Development gave the following response:
“The consultation was not predicated on inviting people to choose between options. The team was guided to include the four options which were presented as they had previously been in public circulation and so it was felt appropriate to give people the opportunity to review them. However, it was felt necessary to point out in the consultation material that some of the options were not considered financially viable to ensure that people were offering their comments on an informed basis. Whilst the Councils involved may ultimately choose to follow one of the less viable options, it was felt important to identify that this would come with a significant cost burden and so may prove less deliverable.
Consultation on the four options has been very helpful to the project team and ahs allowed for a broad ranging discussion around the issues. It was made clear at the July meeting that the outputs from the consultation process are having a significant impact on the draft development brief and EFDC regards it as an important and worthwhile process. Consultation on fewer options would not have had an impact on the cost of the process.”
The Director of Corporate Support Services added the following comments:
“I recall the evening of 17 March very well, it was a very feisty meeting and I quite simply did not assure residents that options 2 and 3 were viable; in fact I said quite the opposite and that possibly contributed to why the meeting did become feisty. All the consultation documentation explained the four options were there but that some were more viable than others and some were simply not viable without large sums of money from public bodies – most predominantly EFDC. So I’m sorry if anyone was confused by anything I said on that evening but I absolutely did not indicate that options 2 and 3 were viable, and the advice I have been given by those who are consulting on this project is that they are not without hose injections of money.”
(viii) The following question was asked by Ms A Wheeler:
“What discussions have taken place between supermarket retailers and EFDC Councillors, Officers or Consultants engaged by EFDC regarding the redevelopment of the St John’s Road site in Epping?”
The Portfolio Holder for Asset Management & Economic Development gave the following response:
“Chris Pasterfield, Head of Estates, has met City Grove on 6 July 2012 and Waitrose during the consultation period.”
(ix) The following question was asked by Ms A Wheeler:
“How is it possible to reconcile protecting the historic character and scale of Epping with the proposal for a large supermarket in a residential setting on St John’s Road? If so, with who?”
The Portfolio Holder for Asset Management & Economic Development gave the following response:
“Considering the use of this site (which adjoins not only residential but also commercial uses and community use sites) one issue is how does one keep Epping where it is as a town in the retail hierarchy; if you gradually let it slip down the hierarchy, or let more buildings become vacant, then that is not cherishing its heritage.
This comment applies to consultation with supermarkets etc.
Allies and Morrison Urban Practitioners has not had any contact with supermarket retailers regarding this site. It is likely that CBRE has had contact with supermarkets, but at an early stage of the project to assess potential demand and not in the form of any negotiations about the potential development.
We believe that it is possible to reconcile supermarket design with an historic market town such as Epping. The site in question benefits from a location just off the High Street which helps to limit the impact whilst the topography ensures that the impact of parking can be kept to a minimum whilst managing the cost. An important aspect of the design will be ensuring that the form of the elevation relates to the fine grain nature of the historic building pattern found in the town centre. Also, whereas most town centre supermarket schemes would be expected to have several floors of housing above them we have specifically not included this here to ensure that the scale of the street elevations is kept down.
Here are good examples of supermarket development (and development with other bulky uses) in historic locations. Wee would recommend the English Heritage publication ‘Retail Development in Historic Areas’ and the CABE study on the design of supermarket-led development as useful good practice guidance.
With regard to the suitability of a food store on St John’s Road, it is not clear if this is to do with architectural character, retail impact or traffic impact. I think the highways impact is most probably behind this which would lead to the following response:
The character of St John’s Road varies along its length. Whilst to the north of Bakers Lane it is a residential street, the southern part of the street relates primarily to the town centre with a number of public, civic and commercial uses. Importantly, it already provides the main access to the town centre car parks and also accommodates a significant amount of large service vehicles. The options explored to date aim to minimise the impact of traffic on St John’s Road. The current option for a food store would provide car park access off the High Street rather than St john’s Road to minimise the impact of new car trips whilst the servicing is designed to be as safe as possible, with no requirement for reversing onto or off the road.
If the impact is related to architecture and massing, this ahs already been dealt with above.
If the concern is to do with the spread of commercial uses, this should be highlighted as a key opportunity for the expansion of the town centre as identified in the Roger Tym study.”
The Director of Corporate Support Services added the following comment:
“I think that it is important to answer the last question which was has any contract been signed with anybody, and the answer is No; there is no contract signed with anybody, including a supermarket of any size or nature.”
(x) The following question was asked by Ms F Long:
“Is it appropriate to build a large superstore on a residential road containing many young families and a primary school at the bottom of the road?”
The Portfolio Holder for Asset Management & Economic Development gave the following response:
“Many supermarkets have been built in District centres surrounded by roads with young and other families, and schools somewhere nearby thus providing services to those residents.”
The Leader of the Council thanked the members of the public for attending the meeting and asking their questions.