SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS LTD SOUTH …€™s supermarkets ltd south oxfordshire core strategy...

SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS LTD

SOUTH OXFORDSHIRE CORE STRATEGY

MATTER 4: TOWN CENTRES AND SHOPPING

(CHAPTER 8)

TUESDAY 19TH

JULY

JUNE 2011

1

1. Introduction

Scope and Purpose

1.1 This Statement has been prepared on behalf of Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd in

relation to Matter 4 (Town Centres and Shopping) (Chapter 8) of the South

Oxfordshire Core Strategy. Sainsbury’s is a key investor in South Oxfordshire

having stores in both Thame and Didcot and is keen to provide further investment

within the District. In particular, Sainsbury’s is currently preparing a planning

application for a supermarket on the Cattle Market site in Thame town centre.

1.2 The issues that are examined in this Statement reflect the questions asked in the

Pre-hearing Note (31st May 2011), which are considered below.

Question A

1.3 In defining the hierarchy of centres, Policy CST1 identifies these to comprise ‘Major

District Centre’, ‘Minor District Centre’ and ‘Larger Villages’. Such definitions are

inconsistent with the categories of retail centres set out at Annex B of PPS4.

1.4 Accordingly, for the Council to refer to categories of retail centre that are

inconsistent with national planning policy guidance is unsound. Such a policy

introduces ambiguity and makes it more difficult to ensure compliance with the

requirements of PPS4 when assessing proposals for retail development.

1.5 Furthermore, Policy CST1 defines minor district centres as town centres serving a

‘local catchment area’. It is notable that the Council’s own retail study (paragraph

5.12) identifies that Thame has a wide influence on shopping patterns within the

District, which is not dissimilar to Didcot or Henley. Accordingly, there does not

appear to be a clear distinction between major and minor district centres as set out

in the Core Strategy.

1.6 We recommend that the wording of Policy CST1 be amended to reflect categories

of retail centre set out in Annex B to PPS4 and that there is no useful purpose in

distinguishing between major and minor district centres.

Question B

1.7 The quantitative floorspace requirements set out in the Core Strategy (Chapter 8)

outline the amount, type and location of retail and town centre uses in the District

through to 2027 (Class A1 to A5). This has been informed by the South

2

Oxfordshire District Council Retail and Leisure Needs Assessment (RLNA)

completed in February 2009 (CD09/12) and subsequent update in November 2010

(CD09/13).

1.8 In reviewing these documents it is clear that the RLNA fails to provide a robust

evidence base to support this part of the Core Strategy (including the quantitative

aspects in Table 8.1). Therefore, this element of the Core Strategy is not justified.

1.9 Firstly, we do not believe it is appropriate to assume that the current market share

of existing centres within the District will remain constant through to 2027,

particularly given the RLNA acknowledges that significant shopping trips are being

made to competing facilities elsewhere. The Core Strategy (paragraph 4.11, 2009

Study) acknowledges that the retail offer of Henley, Thame and Wallingford is

declining. Therefore, it will be important for policies within the Core Strategy to

seek to address this decline.

1.10 Secondly, in terms of the level of ‘need’ identified (Table 8.1) we have significant

concerns with the broad approach adopted, particularly in terms of the need for

additional convenience goods floorspace.

1.11 When considering the ‘need’ for additional retail floorspace, PPS4 (Policy EC1)

states that local planning authorities should take full account of both quantitative

and qualitative need. Significantly, PPS4 places equal weight on quantitative and

qualitative issues.

1.12 The RLNA ‘need’ assessment places greater weight on quantitative need, with

limited assessment being provided on the qualitative need, despite guidance

contained in PPS4. Indeed, the 2010 Update only assessed quantitative need and

did not provide an updated qualitative assessment.

1.13 In considering qualitative issues, PPS4 (policy EC1.4.d) states that local planning

authorities should:

“assess whether there is provision and distribution of shopping, leisure

and local services, which allow genuine choice to meet the needs of

the whole community [and] take into account the degree to which

shops may be overtrading and whether there is a need to increase

competition and retail mix.” (Our emphasis)

1.14 PPS4 places notable emphasis on local authorities to consider wider qualitative

issues, namely choice, overtrading and competition. Despite this, we believe that

the RLNA (both the 2009 Study and 2010 Update) failed to fully take into account

3

qualitative issues when assessing the need for additional retail floorspace.

Therefore, the need assessment provided does not reflect guidance in PPS4.

1.15 Given this, we outline below our concerns with the approach adopted in the RLNA.

Although we do also have some concerns with the comparison goods needs

assessment, our greater concern relates to the approach undertaken in assessing

need for further convenience floorspace. Therefore, for the purposes of this

Statement our assessment has focused on the need for additional convenience

floorspace.

Allowance for overtrading / Increased Competition and Consumer Choice

1.16 The 2009 RLNA (Paragraph 7.61) acknowledges that overtrading can contribute to

quantitative need. Despite this, although the RLNA does make some reference to

the trading performance of existing stores, the assessment assumes that existing

convenience goods provision throughout the District is trading at equilibrium (i.e.

no allowance for floorspace trading above or below expected levels).

1.17 We question the robustness of this approach given guidance in PPS4. Such an

approach does not assess whether there may be an over or undersupply of

provision within particular parts of the District. For example, when considering the

need for additional convenience goods floorspace in Thame, although the RLNA

identified that the existing Waitrose store dominates shopping patterns, particularly

within the northern part of the District (being the most popular store in the District

and the only main food shopping in Thame) and is trading some 40% (or £10

million) above expected levels, the Study concludes that there is no reason to

address the dominance of this store. Accordingly, the level of ‘need’ identified by

the RLNA for Thame is limited as it is based only on growth in expenditure. This is

despite PPS4 highlighting (paragraph 10) that one of the key objectives of the

Government is for increased competition between retailers and enhanced

consumer choice to meet the needs of the entire community. This is also reflected

in Policy EC4 of PPS4, which states that local planning authorities should

proactively plan to promote town centre environments and provide consumer

choice.

1.18 The approach advocated in the RLNA and subsequently reflected the Core

Strategy does not reflect PPS4 objectives. Instead, the approach set out in the

Core Strategy means that a number of stores within the District will continue to

maintain their dominance at the expense of providing better distribution of facilities

and improved consumer choice in line with the objectives of PPS4.

4

1.19 The survey evidence would suggest that there is a need to improve the

convenience goods offer in Thame in order to provide better competition and

consumer choice. This is also reflected in other centres in the District. However,

the approach adopted in the RLNA means that the floorspace requirements has

not been based on an appropriate ‘need’ assessment that focuses equally on

quantitative and qualitative issues.

1.20 In addition to our concerns with the broad approach adopted, we also question a

number of assumptions that underpin the findings of the RLNA. Given these

concerns, we have undertaken our own assessment of ‘need’ (Appendix 1 to this

Statement).

Revised Retail Need Assessment

1.21 There are key differences between the approaches adopted for the RLNA and our

assessment, which are explained in Appendix 1 and can be summarised as:

The inappropriateness of making an allowance for growth in Special Forms

of Trading within the convenience goods sector (e.g. online shopping).

The best practice of assessing the trading performance of all facilities

within each of the four main centres within the District, rather than only five

stores. Such an approach allows for a better understanding of the trading

performance of existing centres/facilities.

A realistic approach to the level of spend directed to small shops (as

identified by the RLNA household survey), which we consider has been

overstated.

Trading Performance of Existing Convenience Facilities

1.22 Our revised assessment (Table 5 at Appendix 1) demonstrates that the main

facilities within the District are trading much stronger than that suggested by the

RLNA.

1.23 In particular, the existing Waitrose store in Thame is identified to be trading very

strongly. The strong trading performance of this store is reflective of the lack of

competition in this part of the District (as also identified by the RLNA). Our

analysis identifies that of the total convenience goods expenditure currently

directed to facilities within Thame (c. £52 million), almost 70% (or £36 million) is

directed to the Waitrose store. As one of the objectives of PPS4 is to provide

improved consumer choice and competition in the retail sector, we believe this lack

5

of choice should be addressed by the Council as part of their Core Strategy.

Indeed, Policy EC4 of PPS4 states that:

“Local planning authorities should proactively plan to promote

competitive town centre environments and provide consumer choice.”

Retail Need

1.24 Based on our updated assessment, Table 1.1 summarises the quantitative need

for additional convenience floorspace within the District. This is compared to the

findings of the RLNA 2010 Update figures (Table 2.6, Page 7). Importantly, unlike

the RLNA our assessment takes into account over and undertrading of existing

provision and considers fully the market shares and trading performance of all

facilities in each centre.

Table 1.1: Net Quantitative Need for Convenience Floorspace (sq m) - at Existing Market Shares

_________________________________________________________________________

2011 2016 2021 2027 _______________________________________________________________________

Didcot Turley Associates 1,270 2,019 2,919 4,017 RNLA 2010 Update 497 1,285 2,268 3,461

Henley Turley Associates 2,249 2,429 2,675 2,995 RNLA 2010 Update 0 0 145 458 Wallingford Turley Associates 250 472 666 910 RNLA 2010 Update 49 255 453 704 Thame Turley Associates 2,026 2,205 2,358 2,566 RNLA 2010 Update 0 27 255 557 _________________________________________________________________________ Notes: Derived from Appendix 1 & RLNA (2010)

1.25 The approach and methodology adopted in the RLNA (both the 2009 and

subsequent 2010 Update) means that the level of ‘need’ for additional retail

floorspace has been underestimated. Our assessment identifies higher floorspace

requirements than that identified in the RLNA and reflected in the Core Strategy.

1.26 Furthermore, the level of need identified at Table 1.1 is based on existing centres

maintaining current market shares. As previously highlighted, the Core Strategy

identifies that the market share of existing centres is declining, however this has

6

not been addressed. Any increase in market share would also increase the level of

need identified.

1.27 Notably, in considering current shopping patterns it is evident that the survey

evidence suggests that there is scope to reduce the overall distances travelled by

local residents to competing facilities elsewhere. For example, whilst the RLNA

identifies that within Zone 10 (Didcot) existing facilities retain 85% of convenience

spend, the market share reduces to 65% within Zone 2 (Thame) and to 48% in

Zone 9 (Wallingford). PPS4 (Policy EC1) states that local authorities should

ensure that there is appropriate provision and distribution of shopping facilities.

Clearly, the evidence suggests that there is a need to improve retail provision not

only to address growth in expenditure and overtrading but also to provide more

sustainable shopping patterns. However, the approach adopted in the RLNA and

reflected in the Core Strategy is one where this issue has not been satisfactorily

addressed. In this respect, Tables 8A to 8D at Appendix 1 provides a ‘sensitivity

testing’ based on the ‘need’ identified for additional floorspace based on realistic

increases in market share by 2021. Importantly, by allowing for increases in

market share this will address the decline in market share of centres within the

District as identified elsewhere in the Core Strategy.

1.28 Given this, we do not believe the quantitative aspects set out in the Core Strategy

have been informed by robust evidence base that is consistent with PPS4.

1.29 In respect of Thame, it should be noted that the realistic level of convenience retail

capacity identified in this assessment can be partly accommodated at the Cattle

Market site. Redevelopment of this credible town centre site has the opportunity to

redress the shortfall in existing provision, introduce competition and consumer

choice to Thame and thereby meet the aims of objectives of PPS4. As it stands in

Chapter 11 the Council’s position is to prevent this site coming forward for

development for a foodstore, for which we have demonstrated is wholly unjustified

and prevents economic growth within a town centre location. Significantly, PPS4

highlights that local planning authorities should adopt a positive and constructive

approach towards development that will lead to economic development.

1.30 In addition, in considering the future delivery of the Cattle Market Site is important

to note that a draft viability statement undertaken by the DTZ on behalf of the

Council (attached at Appendix 2) demonstrates that the only viable option for the

future delivery of this site is a supermarket. Updated advice we have received

from CBRE confirms the conclusions of the Council’s own draft advice from DTZ

that the only a supermarket is a viable retail option for this site.

7

1.31 Given this, together with the fact that there is a clear need for further convenience

goods floorspace in Thame (as outlined above), we strongly believe that the Core

Strategy position with regard to the Cattle Market site should be revised.

1.32 Importantly, PPS4 (Policy EC3.1) states that local authorities should set: “flexible

policies for their centres which are able to respond to changing economic

circumstances.” Clearly, the approach adopted in the Core Strategy does not

reflect this guidance.

Question C

1.33 The quantitative aspects set out in Chapter 8 of the Core Strategy are unsound.

Therefore, the floorspace figures identified should be revised in line with the

calculations included herein, to better reflect guidance in PPS4.

1.34 As an alternative solution, the detailed floorspace figures in Chapter 8 should be

removed from the Core Strategy to avoid impacting upon the delivery of the

remainder of the Core Strategy. However, this matter will then need to be correctly

addressed in a separate development plan document.

Summary

1.35 Overall, our assessment has demonstrated that the RLNA does not provide a

sound and robust evidence base to inform the Core Strategy. Importantly, its

conclusions fail to reflect guidance contained in PPS4 of taking into account both

the quantitative and qualitative need for additional floorspace.

1.36 We consider the Core Strategy to be inconsistent with national planning policy in

terms of the hierarchy and the quantitative assessment is unjustified being based

on unsound evidence base. Furthermore, the Council’s position with regard to the

Cattle Market site is unjustified and should be revised to take into account

guidance and the objectives of Government policy.

Word count: 2,494

APPENDIX 1: REVISED RETAIL ASSESSMENT

1

APPENDIX 1 – REVISED RETAIL ASSESSMENT

Revised Retail Need Assessment

1.1 There are key differences between the approaches adopted for the RLNA and our

assessment, which are outlined below.

1.2 Firstly, our assessment makes no allowance for growth in Special Forms of

Trading within the convenience goods sector (e.g. online shopping).

1.3 Secondly, our assessment considers the trading performance of all facilities within

each of the four main centres within the District. Such an approach allows for a

better understanding of the trading performance of existing centres/facilities.

1.4 The RLNA assessed the market share and trading performance of only five stores

within the District. The remaining retail destinations not identified were simply

grouped together as ‘stores’ falling in a particular zone within the Study Area (e.g.

‘Stores in Zone 1’). These market shares will include a range of floorspace within

town centres, villages and out-of-centre locations. We question how the RLNA can

accurately assess the needs of the four main centres when their market share or

trading performance has not been identified.

1.5 Furthermore, it is unclear why only a select number of stores have been assessed

as part of the RLNA. The trading performance of the Waitrose stores in

Wallingford and Henley has not been considered despite these stores being similar

in size to the Waitrose store in Thame, which has been considered.

1.6 We believe that the approach adopted in the RLNA is flawed as it fails to identify

the market shares or trading performance of existing facilities/centres within the

District.

1.7 Finally, the level of spend directed to ‘small shops’ (as identified by the RLNA

household survey) has been significantly overstated. The RLNA Update (Table 18

and Table 21 of Appendix 1) has assumed that approximately 31% of all

convenience goods expenditure generated in the Study Area is accounted for by

‘small shops’. This equates to almost £187 million of expenditure in 2007. It is not

clear how this allowance has been derived. Questions within the household survey

relating to what proportion of respondents overall spend is directed to the three

different categories of convenience shopping (Q3 ‘main’, Q5 ‘top-up’ and Q8 ‘small

shops’) identify that on average respondents spend approximately 13% of their

overall grocery spend at ‘small shops’. Clearly, this allowance is lower than that

applied in the RLNA (31%).

2

1.8 The household survey also identified that approximately 60% of respondents

stated that they did not spend money on food and groceries in small shops in town

centre and villages (Q6 of household survey). The fact that over half of

respondents indicated that they do not purchase these types of goods from small

shops further demonstrates that the allowance made for the small shops identified

by the RLNA is overstated. Even an allowance for 13% of spend to small shops

(as assumed for our revised assessment) could be considered an overestimate.

1.9 Importantly, by overstating the level of expenditure directed to small shops, the

RLNA underestimates the level of spend directed to other facilities such as larger

format supermarkets. This leads to the RLNA not accurately reflecting the trading

performance of facilities within the District.

1.10 Given these concerns, we set out below the methodology adopted for our revised

assessment.

Methodology

Study Area

1.11 For consistency purposes and in order to enable the findings of the RLNA

household survey to be utilised, our assessment adopts the same Study Area to

that undertaken as part of the RLNA.

Population and Expenditure

1.12 Again, in order to be consistent with the RLNA, the same population forecasts for

the period 2007 to 2027 for each zone that comprises the Study Area (Table 1).

1.13 Similarly, whilst we do not necessarily agree with the growth rates adopted, growth

in convenience retail expenditure within the Study Area has been based on those

set out in the RLNA Update (2010).

1.14 However, whilst the same growth rates have been applied, unlike the RLNA, no

allowance for growth in Special Forms of Trading within the convenience goods

sector (e.g. online shopping). It is important to note that within this sector most

goods are actually ‘picked’ from stores and contribute to the overall turnover of

existing facilities. This is acknowledged in the RLNA and by Experian (Retail

Planner Briefing Note 8.1, August 2010) the source referred to in the RLNA, who

state that:

3

“Since the non-store retailing figures include supermarkets and other

retailers that source internet goods sales from store space, the share

of non-store retailing is over-stated from the point of view of those

interested in physical retail outlets, particularly for convenience

goods.”

1.15 Given this, making no allowance for growth in Special Forms of Trading is an

appropriate approach to adopt.

1.16 Based on the above approach the level of convenience retail expenditure

generated in the Study Area for 2007, 2011, 2016, 2021 and 2027 for each zone

has been provided (Table 1).

1.17 All expenditure is provided at 2005 prices to be consistent with the RLNA.

Expenditure Split

1.18 In terms of the convenience expenditure split by zone, our assessment has been

based on Questions 3, 5 and 8 of the household survey which sought to identify

what proportion of expenditure is directed to the three types of convenience

shopping destination identified by the household survey (main food, top-up and

small shops). The level of expenditure for each category is summarised at Table

2.

1.19 On this basis, although different for each zone, the average split of expenditure for

each type of convenience goods shopping is as follows:

Main Food Shopping Destination - c. 71% of convenience spend

Top-up Shopping Destination – c. 16% of convenience spend

Small Shops – c. 13% of convenience spend.

Shopping Patterns

1.20 As with the RLNA, the findings of the household survey have been utilised in order

to assess the trading performance of existing centres/facilities.

1.21 As our assessment is looking at the need for additional retail floorspace in each of

the four main centres in the District (Wallingford, Henley, Didcot and Thame) our

assessment of current market shares (Table 3) only takes into account facilities in

these centres (although includes nearby out-of-centre facilities).

4

Centres and Stores Turnover

1.22 The findings of the household survey have been used in order to establish the

trading performance of existing centres and facilities within each of the four main

centres.

1.23 This is then compared to the expected (or benchmark) turnover of existing facilities

based on nationally published data and professional assumptions (Table 5).

Retail Need

1.24 Our analysis (Table 6A to 6D) sets out the capacity for additional floorspace within

each of the four centres based on maintaining existing market shares and taking

into account the trading performance of existing floorspace.

1.25 In addition, we have undertaken a sensitivity test based on allowing for a realistic

increase in market share for each of the four main centres (Table 8A to 8D).


TABLE 1: POPULATION AND CONVENIENCE GOODS EXPENDITURE WITHIN STUDY AREA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total

2007

Population 22,275 12,815 20,339 41,153 19,534 10,000 53,443 18,483 20,551 33,460 30,601 35,850 318,504

Expenditure per head (£) 1,819 1,923 1,891 1,889 1,924 2,020 1,980 1,857 1,955 1,891 1,792 1,806 -

Total Expenditure (£m) 40.53 24.64 38.47 77.72 37.58 20.20 105.83 34.33 40.18 63.29 54.84 64.73 602.33

2011

Population 21,988 13,245 20,118 41,270 19,457 10,287 52,801 18,353 21,156 36,951 32,486 35,784 323,896



2016

Population 21,530 13,690 19,748 41,193 19,263 10,576 51,756 18,102 21,768 40,936 34,574 35,519 328,655



2021

Population 21,267 13,839 19,668 41,109 19,302 10,799 51,179 18,065 21,981 45,796 36,855 35,555 335,415



2027

Population 21,001 14,035 19,610 41,086 19,382 11,076 50,604 18,056 22,267 51,504 39,562 35,661 343,844



Notes:

1. Population and expenditure per head by zone derived from South Oxfordshire Retail and Leisure Needs Assessment Update 2010

2. Allows for Special Forms of Trading at 2.45% in 2007

3. Total expenditure population x expenditure per head

AT 2005 PRICES

Zone


TABLE 2: CONVENIENCE EXPENDITURE SPLIT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total

2007 Expenditure

Main (£m) 29.26 17.69 26.66 56.04 25.36 14.20 75.14 23.48 26.80 47.09 39.87 43.63 425.22

Top-up (£m) 7.09 4.19 6.85 11.42 6.43 3.17 17.46 6.11 7.19 9.75 8.34 10.62 98.61

Small Shops (£m) 4.17 2.76 4.96 10.26 5.79 2.83 13.23 4.74 6.19 6.46 6.64 10.49 78.50

Total (£m) 40.53 24.64 38.47 77.72 37.58 20.20 105.83 34.33 40.18 63.29 54.84 64.73 602.33

Notes:

1. Total expenditure from Table 1

2. Expenditure split based on findings of South Oxfordshire Retail & Leisure Needs Assessment Survey (February 2008) - Questions 3, 5 and 8

3. Total expenditure population x expenditure per head

AT 2005 PRICES

Zone


TABLE 3: CONVENIENCE GOODS SHOPPING PATTERNS

Destination

Main Top-up Small Shops Main Top-up Small Shops Main Top-up Small Shops Main Top-up Small Shops Main Top-up Small Shops Main Top-up Small Shops

Within District

Didcot

Tesco, Wallingford Road, Didcot 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Sainsbury's, Orchard Road, Didcot 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.8% 4.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Co-op, Wantage Road, Didcot 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Local Shops, Didcot 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Sub-Total 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.7% 4.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Thame

Waitrose, Greyhound Lane, Thame 34.2% 33.3% 0.0% 39.5% 29.4% 0.0% 15.3% 16.3% 0.0% 16.8% 9.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Co-op, High Street, Thame 2.6% 11.1% 0.0% 18.6% 44.1% 0.0% 1.4% 7.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Sainsbury's Local, Park Street, Thame 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 17.6% 0.0% 1.4% 9.3% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Local Shops, Thame 0.0% 0.0% 16.1% 0.0% 0.0% 85.7% 0.0% 2.3% 18.4% 0.0% 0.0% 14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Sub-Total 36.8% 46.7% 16.1% 58.1% 91.2% 85.7% 18.1% 34.9% 18.4% 16.8% 14.3% 14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Wallingford

Waitrose, St Martins Street, Wallingford 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.6% 4.7% 0.0% 1.7% 2.4% 0.0% 1.7% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Local Shops, Wallingford 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Sub-Total 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.6% 4.7% 2.6% 1.7% 2.4% 2.6% 1.7% 2.1% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Henley

Tesco, Reading Road, Henley-on-Thames 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 31.7% 14.9% 0.0% 57.1% 26.9% 0.0%

Waitrose, Bell Street, Henley-on-Thames 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 43.3% 21.3% 0.0% 34.3% 53.8% 0.0%

Local Shops, Henley-on-Thames 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 25.6% 0.0% 7.7% 91.7%

Sub-Total 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 75.0% 38.3% 25.6% 91.4% 88.5% 91.7%

Destination

Main Top-up Small Shops Main Top-up Small Shops Main Top-up Small Shops Main Top-up Small Shops Main Top-up Small Shops Main Top-up Small Shops

Within District

Didcot

Tesco, Wallingford Road, Didcot 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.1% 2.3% 0.0% 14.1% 3.7% 0.0% 44.9% 30.3% 0.0% 3.1% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Sainsbury's, Orchard Road, Didcot 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 7.8% 3.7% 0.0% 33.1% 37.1% 0.0% 11.5% 6.0% 0.0% 3.0% 3.8% 0.0%

Co-op, Wantage Road, Didcot 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Local Shops, Didcot 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.3% 0.0% 0.0% 52.9% 0.0% 2.0% 4.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Sub-Total 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.8% 2.3% 0.0% 21.9% 7.4% 10.3% 78.0% 79.8% 52.9% 14.6% 12.0% 4.3% 3.0% 3.8% 0.0%

Thame

Waitrose, Greyhound Lane, Thame 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Co-op, High Street, Thame 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Sainsbury's Local, Park Street, Thame 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Local Shops, Thame 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Sub-Total 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Wallingford

Waitrose, St Martins Street, Wallingford 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 18.6% 11.4% 0.0% 39.1% 51.9% 0.0% 3.4% 2.2% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Local Shops, Wallingford 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.3% 0.0% 0.0% 37.9% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Sub-Total 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 18.6% 11.4% 3.3% 39.1% 51.9% 37.9% 3.4% 2.2% 2.9% 1.0% 2.0% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Henley

Tesco, Reading Road, Henley-on-Thames 15.9% 8.3% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Waitrose, Bell Street, Henley-on-Thames 2.5% 6.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Local Shops, Henley-on-Thames 0.0% 0.0% 14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Sub-Total 18.5% 15.0% 14.3% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Notes:

1. Market shares derived from South Oxfordshire Retail & Lesiure Needs Assessment Survey (February 2008)

2. Excludes 'Don't know / varies', 'Internet / delivered' and 'Don't do this type of shopping'

7 8 9 10 11 12

Zone

Zone

1 2 3 4 5 6


TABLE 4: CONVENIENCE GOODS TURNOVER - 2007

Destination

(£m) (%) (£m) (%) (£m) (%) (£m) (%) (£m) (%) (£m) (%) (£m) (%) (£m) (%) (£m) (%) (£m) (%) (£m) (%) (£m) (%) (£m) (%)

Within District

Didcot

Tesco, Wallingford Road, Didcot 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 1.85 4.8% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 1.33 3.9% 4.03 10.0% 24.11 38.1% 1.58 2.9% 0.00 0.0% 32.90 5.5%

Sainsbury's, Orchard Road, Didcot 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 1.06 2.8% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.40 1.2% 2.36 5.9% 19.18 30.3% 5.07 9.2% 1.70 2.6% 29.76 4.9%

Co-op, Wantage Road, Didcot 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 1.20 1.9% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 1.20 0.2%

Local Shops, Didcot 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.64 1.6% 3.42 5.4% 0.45 0.8% 0.00 0.0% 4.51 0.7%

Sub-Total 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 2.91 7.6% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 1.73 5.0% 7.03 17.5% 47.91 75.7% 7.10 12.9% 1.70 2.6% 68.38 11.4%

Thame

Waitrose, Greyhound Lane, Thame 12.37 30.5% 8.23 33.4% 5.19 13.5% 10.51 13.5% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 36.29 6.0%

Co-op, High Street, Thame 1.56 3.8% 5.14 20.9% 0.85 2.2% 0.27 0.4% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.11 0.2% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 7.93 1.3%

Sainsbury's Local, Park Street, Thame 0.16 0.4% 0.74 3.0% 1.01 2.6% 0.27 0.4% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 2.18 0.4%

Local Shops, Thame 0.67 1.7% 2.37 9.6% 1.07 2.8% 1.47 1.9% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 5.58 0.9%

Sub-Total 14.76 36.4% 16.47 66.8% 8.12 21.1% 12.52 16.1% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.11 0.2% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 51.97 8.6%

Wallingford

Waitrose, St Martins Street, Wallingford 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 1.80 4.7% 1.21 1.6% 0.56 1.5% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 5.07 14.8% 14.20 35.3% 1.82 2.9% 0.58 1.1% 0.00 0.0% 25.24 4.2%

Local Shops, Wallingford 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.13 0.3% 0.27 0.3% 0.15 0.4% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.16 0.5% 2.35 5.8% 0.19 0.3% 0.14 0.3% 0.00 0.0% 3.38 0.6%

Sub-Total 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 1.93 5.0% 1.48 1.9% 0.71 1.9% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 5.23 15.2% 16.54 41.2% 2.01 3.2% 0.72 1.3% 0.00 0.0% 28.62 4.8%

Henley

Tesco, Reading Road, Henley-on-Thames 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.37 1.0% 0.94 1.2% 8.99 23.9% 8.97 44.4% 13.42 12.7% 0.40 1.2% 0.42 1.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 33.51 5.6%

Waitrose, Bell Street, Henley-on-Thames 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.94 1.2% 12.36 32.9% 6.58 32.6% 3.08 2.9% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 22.96 3.8%

Local Shops, Henley-on-Thames 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 1.62 4.3% 2.84 14.0% 1.89 1.8% 0.00 0.0% 0.21 0.5% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 6.56 1.1%

Sub-Total 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.37 1.0% 1.88 2.4% 22.97 61.1% 18.38 91.0% 18.39 17.4% 0.40 1.2% 0.63 1.6% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 63.02 10.5%

Notes:

1. Turnover based on applying market share (Table 3) to available expenditure on a zone-by-zone basis (Table 2)

2. Market share based on overall convenience goods expenditure

AT 2005 PRICES

10 11 12 TOTAL

Zone

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


TABLE 5: EXISTING CONVENIENCE GOODS FLOORSPACE WITHIN FOUR MAIN CENTRES

Destination Convenience Floorspace Sales Density Benchmark Turnover Actual Turnover

(sq m) (£ per sq m) (£m) from Study Area (£m) (£m) (%)

Within District

Didcot

Tesco, Wallingford Road, Didcot 1,906 13,671 26.06 32.90 6.85 26%

Sainsbury's, Orchard Road, Didcot 2,543 9,343 23.76 29.76 6.00 25%

Co-op, Wantage Road, Didcot 153 6,442 0.99 1.20 0.22 22%

Local Shops, Didcot 1,900 5,000 9.50 4.51 -4.99 -53%

Sub-Total 6,502 - 60.30 68.38 8.08 13%

Thame

Waitrose, Greyhound Lane, Thame 2,079 10,997 22.86 36.29 13.43 59%

Co-op, High Street, Thame 920 6,442 5.93 7.93 2.00 34%

Sainsbury's Local, Park Street, Thame 600 9,343 5.61 2.18 -3.43 -61%

Local Shops, Thame 1,420 5,000 7.10 5.58 -1.52 -21%

Sub-Total 5,019 - 41.50 51.97 10.48 25%

Wallingford

Waitrose, St Martins Street, Wallingford 2,118 10,997 23.29 25.24 1.95 8%

Local Shops, Wallingford 865 5,000 4.32 3.38 -0.94 -22%

Sub-Total 2,982 - 27.61 28.62 1.01 4%

Henley

Tesco, Reading Road, Henley-on-Thames 2,160 13,671 29.53 33.51 3.98 13%

Waitrose, Bell Street, Henley-on-Thames 1,451 10,997 15.96 22.96 7.00 44%

Local Shops, Henley-on-Thames 1,140 5,000 5.70 6.56 0.86 15%

Sub-Total 4,751 - 51.19 63.02 11.83 23%

Notes:

1. Convenience floorspace derived from South Oxfordshire Retail and Leisure Needs Assessment Update (November 2010) where available, or IGD (2011) or Turley Associates' estimates

2. Sales densities derived from South Oxfordshire Retail and Leisure Needs Assessment (November 2010) where available or Verdict Grocery Retailers (2010) or Turley Associates' estimates

3. Actual Turnover from Study Area derived from Table 4

AT 2005 PRICES

Difference


TABLE 6A: CONVENIENCE GOODS CAPACITY - DIDCOT

2007 2011 2016 2021 2027

1 Total Available Convenience Goods Retail Expenditure (£m) 602.33 612.40 643.25 676.16 718.29

2 Catchment Area Market Share 11.4% 12.1% 12.9% 13.9% 14.9%

2 Actual Convenience Goods Turnover drawn from Study Area (£m) 68.38 73.97 83.11 93.68 106.95

3 Expected Turnover of Existing Convenience Facilities drawn from Study Area (£m) 60.30 61.27 62.51 63.45 64.60

4 Convenience Capacity (£m) 8.08 12.70 20.60 30.23 42.35

Floorspace (sq m net) 2,540 4,038 5,838 8,026

1,270 2,019 2,919 4,017

TABLE 6B: CONVENIENCE GOODS CAPACITY - THAME

2007 2011 2016 2021 2027


2 Catchment Area Market Share 8.6% 8.5% 8.4% 8.3% 8.1%





TABLE 6C: CONVENIENCE GOODS CAPACITY - WALLINGFORD

2007 2011 2016 2021 2027





Floorspace (sq m net) 250 472 666 910

TABLE 6D: CONVENIENCE GOODS CAPACITY - HENLEY

2007 2011 2016 2021 2027






Notes:

1. Total available expenditure from Table 1

2. Actual convenience goods turnover drawn from Study Area based on 'rolled' forward current market shares as set out at Table 4

3. Expected turnover of existing facilities taken from Table 5 and allows for increased turnover efficiency of +0.4% per annum between 2007 and 2016 and +0.3% per annum post 2016

as identified by the South Oxfordshire Retail and Leisure Needs Assessment

AT 2005 PRICES


TABLE 7: INCREASE IN MARKET SHARE ON A ZONE-BY-ZONE BASIS (2021)

Destination

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Within District

Didcot

Current Market Share 0.0% 0.0% 7.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 17.5% 75.7% 12.9% 2.6%

Revised Market Share 0.0% 0.0% 9.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.0% 22.0% 85.0% 15.0% 3.0%

Thame



Wallingford



Henley



Notes:

1. Existing market share derived from Table 4

2. Increase in market share based on Turley Associates' assumptions

Survey Zone


TABLE 8A: CONVENIENCE GOODS CAPACITY - DIDCOT (INCREASED MARKET SHARE)

2007 2021

1 Total Available Convenience Goods Retail Expenditure (£m) 602.33 676.16

2 Catchment Area Market Share 11.4% 15.9%

2 Actual Convenience Goods Turnover drawn from Study Area (£m) 68.38 107.63

3 Expected Turnover of Existing Convenience Facilities drawn from Study Area (£m) 60.30 63.45

4 Convenience Capacity (£m) 8.08 44.18

Floorspace (sq m net) 8,533

4,266

TABLE 8B: CONVENIENCE GOODS CAPACITY - THAME (INCREASED MARKET SHARE)

2007 2021







TABLE 8C: CONVENIENCE GOODS CAPACITY - WALLINGFORD (INCREASED MARKET SHARE)

2007 2021







TABLE 8D: CONVENIENCE GOODS CAPACITY - HENLEY (INCREASED MARKET SHARE)

2007 2021







Notes:

1. Total available expenditure from Table 1

2. Actual convenience goods turnover drawn from Study Area based on 'rolled' forward market shares - increase in market shares derived from Table 7

3. Expected turnover of existing facilities taken from Table 5 and allows for increased turnover efficiency of +0.4% per annum between 2007 and 2016 and +0.3% per annum post 2016

as identified by the South Oxfordshire Retail and Leisure Needs Assessment

AT 2005 PRICES

APPENDIX 2: DRAFT VIABILITY REPORT BY DTZ ON BEHALF

OF SOUTH OXFORDSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL

mwalter

Rectangle

mwalter

Rectangle

mwalter

Rectangle

BELFAST 028 9089 7400

BIRMINGHAM 0121 233 0902

BRISTOL CARDIFF

0117 989 7000 029 2034 4445

EDINBURGH 0131 557 1099

GLASGOW 0141 248 9233

LEEDS 0113 386 3800

LONDON 020 7851 4010

MANCHESTER 0161 831 1300

SOUTHAMPTON 023 8072 4888

www.turleyassociates.co.uk

SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS LTD SOUTH …€™s supermarkets ltd south oxfordshire core strategy...

Documents

Transcript of SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS LTD SOUTH …€™s supermarkets ltd south oxfordshire core strategy...