|
Supermarkets Meeting
Notes from the supermarkets meeting of 29th Jan, 2010.
We held this PNUK meeting because as is often said, PNUK exists in order not just to talk but to act, and the list below is one set of several ways that action can be taken. So please do have a browse through and see if you, or your colleagues, or your students, can help in some way!
Below are seven key action points, and below that is a more detailed record of the discussions. Thanks to Karen Leach for these and for taking a lead in organising this.
1. Downloadable (as a word file from the menu on the right) is a list of possible research topics, and also skills that planning education needs to deliver - these were where we identified gaps in knowledge of the UK's retail environment. Please a) feel free to suggest more (it could probably benefit from a more academic eye than mine), and b) pass these to students and use them in any other way that is relevant.
2. Helping community groups: Tescopoly are regularly approached by community groups wanting advice, expert witnesses etc. If you might be able to offer this, please contact info@tescopoly.org about this. You can also forward this request to colleagues and contacts who may be able to help (if you would like something more like an 'advert' to pass on, ask Tescopoly). Specifically useful would be expertise on: traffic impacts, PPS4, retail impact assessment, and related legislation.
3. Some participants have also been working on suggestions for model clauses/policies within local development frameworks and hope to circulate this at some stage.
4. Some participants will work further on the implications of PPS4 and hope to circulate this also at some stage.
5. LWM are aiming to look further into offering independent retail impact assessments to community groups.
6. If participants or otherwise would like to start off discussions on a related issue, please do so on the PNUK wiki. Participants have also formed their own emailing list for the time being, for retail specific issues, though we'll see how this works as we go on.
7. We agreed to try to meet again in six months - ie end July, to discuss progress on PPS4 and LDFs amongst other things. If anyone would like to take on the task of organising this, they are welcome! I am happy to arrange it again IF I am around, but that rather depends on funding - I am sure many of you know the feeling.
Thanks for reading and for making things happen.
Notes on PNUK-Supermarkets Meeting, 29.1.2010
Present:
Karen Leach – Localise West Midlands
Michael Bach – planning consultant
Samer Bagaeen - School of environment and technology, Brighton Uni
Shane Brennan – Association of Convenience Stores
Eeva Berglund - MSc on retail planning
Gay Brown - Tescopoly
A. Burak Buyukcivelek - MSc on retail planning, UCL
Bob Colenutt - Northampton Institute of Urban Affairs
Michael Edwards – UCL
Alan Hallsworth - Reader in Retail Management
Tim Marshall - Reader in Planning, Oxford Brooks
Suzanne Natelson - Sustain
Helen Rimmer – Friends of the Earth
Pauline Rowe – Friends of Queens Market
Monika Vykoukal - University of Wolverhampton, school of art and design
Judith Whateley – coordinator, Tescopoly
Karen welcomed everyone and agreed to chair the meeting, with notes taken by Eeva (morning) and Michael E. (afternoon).
After introductions Karen gave a brief overview of Planners Network UK as many were unfamiliar with it: in essence it is a network of people with experience of and interest in planning. It supports efforts to get away from market-driven planning and tries to be a resource for campaigners and researchers who support its aims.
The supermarkets’ role in planning is a key concern for PNUK. Karen explained that the purpose of the day was to establish how PNUK and campaigners could help each others’ efforts to achieve better outcomes for food retail, and to guide appropriate retail development. It was not to be ‘anti-supermarkets’ per se or to discourse at length on personal or campaign experiences.
We agreed to address the core issues:
- the dominance in the retail environment of a few chains
- the loss of retail diversity
We agreed to follow the pre-circulated agenda and share information on the following (numbered as in the agenda):
- policy context
- PPS 4
- Competition test/Commission
- LDF process
- Other
- Campaign and community support
- Tescopoly and identified trends
- Support needed by community groups
And in the afternoon
- What PNUK can offer
- As picked up through the morning but probably to cover research, teaching, lobbying, support for community groups, raising public awareness and support
And finally to go away with some action points. In the course of the morning it was recognised that producing a list of knowledge gaps would be useful.
These points are indicated in bold in these notes. The notes aren’t strictly chronological since some issues were returned to at different points in different contexts. Only where it’s relevant for future action, are speakers named.
4: POLICY CONTEXT AND NATIONAL CAMPAIGNING ENVIRONMENT
- PPS4, Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth, published during the holiday lull, 30.12.2010
The key principles of planning for retail appear not to have fundamentally changed, the Statement continues the town-centre emphasis, but it has a very economic focus. Those who had examined it felt that although accompanied by rhetoric on supporting small shops, actually it is weak on policies to achieve that. Particularly the removal of the ‘needs test’ which existed in its predecessor, PPS6, is of concern. What replaces it, an assessment of impact, is harder to use as clear-cut evidence.
Shane Brennan from ACS (Assn of Convenience Stores) outlined the history of PPS4. It comes out of a series of government actions, including the Barker Reviews, which were driven by narrow economic concerns, not long-term or ecological motivations. Barker presented a picture of developers experiencing problems that are caused by the planning system, a view that’s counter-intuitive and not in keeping with the record of applications proceeding at a pace, except possibly in relation to large-format urban applications.
The ACS have kept and will keep a keen eye on PPS4 including how it could and might be implemented alongside Local Development Frameworks, LDFs. Generally we’re entering a period when everyone is figuring out how this thing is going to work, or be put to work.
Many people expressed their worry that the technical language around the evidence required would cause problems. Also, how can anyone prove a future shift in trading, a future loss for instance, experienced by the small convenience shops? Yet if you leave impact evidence to EiP stage, it’s too late.
Michael Bach explained that the government is in fact promoting plan-led and sustainable development and campaigns should use this, not fight it. The problem is the cumulative effect of large-scale development out of town or edge of town over time still disadvantages town centres. Because the evidence isn’t there and because you can’t capture future impact except as a risk assessment, both consumers and politicians fail to understand what’s happening. The next few years will set the trend for how the policy is implemented.
These issues are problematic not just for campaign groups but for Local Authority planners who actually need help to achieve their own goals. On the ground it’s difficult to know how and which planning officers have input. Also, how many LAs are properly assessing retail? How many claim to be but aren’t really? What kind of on-the-ground detail gets fudged (the hourly – if you’re lucky – bus or non-existent footpath)? Where do you go for evidence of impact ?
Discussion and possible action-point: How Local Authorities could be influenced/supported to produce strong LDFs.
This needs to take account of the different situations and contexts of LAs. Market towns are particularly vulnerable, different income groups have different needs/existing services, the value of isolated shops/ services is lost as policy obsesses about centres. The precise definition of ‘centre’ a possible topic of discussion, should be more widely defined perhaps.
The new context is one of supermarket extensions taking comparison goods as well as food away from the high street. Also mega projects involving e.g. sports facilities and the political weight of the argument for increased jobs. What’s lost, even at the level of policy, is the question of net increase or decrease of full-time-equivalent employment in the area.
Employment impacts suggested as a research question.
The traffic and parking issue and how the big retailers manipulate policies on them came up. Legislation on LA powers to raise tax on off-street parking could be used. There was also discussion of the impact of the big chains taking over premises vacated in the recession (Woolworths, bulky-goods retail parks).
Food retail has distinct political dimensions of its own. How much planning per se can direct it is unclear but certainly to examine retail as a system – sourcing, quality and distribution – supports idea of planning as supporting social justice. It also fits under PPS4 as a tool for LAs supporting economic development at local scale (e.g. via LDFs).
Planning conditions as a tool for guiding food retail was suggested as a point to return to.
Prices in supermarkets compared to independents also suggested as a potentially productive research topic.
To make the argument presumably you’d need more data. Generally the smaller shops or markets don’t raise data about themselves, except for one good example from London (Newham). [EB’s comment: they get on with the job, but can’t make their work visible to policy/politics, therefore in those terms they do not exist].
Tim Marshall noted that LAs will be asked to do Local Economic Assessments in years to come but don’t have capacity to do it seriously. Food retail and jobs will inevitably play a part in them.
There’s lots of data circulating within the big chains, but not among small players or about markets.
Gay Brown of Tescopoly reported back from a meeting with Select Committee (for ???) underlining the sense that Barker-type evidence though dubious is what gets taken seriously.
Helen Rimmer of Friends of the Earth noted there’s a lot of confusion around PPS4 and suggested that support/guidance on the policy was needed by local groups/communities.
- Competition Commission/test
Helen reported on some good news from the Competition Commission’s work. They recognise the problems and offer 2 remedies. A national ‘Grocery supplier code of practice’ (GSCOP) and a supermarket ombudsman to monitor and enforce compliance. The GSCOP takes affect beginning of February. But there are signs of the big chains trying to get around safeguards, e.g. a Tescos appeal against a CC ruling, currently undecided.
There was discussion about the real impact of competition rules, e.g. whether they’ll just rule between two rival large-format supermarkets, whether they can affect the landscape when land/permission is there, but a supermarket is not building.
Shane noted that a competition test would not achieve the radical aim of forcing a chain to divest, sell unused land. Tim Marshall noted that the PPS4 looks like ‘technification’, which makes the issues incomprehensible for planners and the public. Others agreed.
- Local Development Frameworks and proactive retail planning
Alan Hallsworth noted that education for retail planning is wholly inadequate given the situation, no degree courses specialise in it. When permissions are refused, they are prone to appeal, in contrast to much of the rest of Europe. A big problem for LAs is the ‘competition’ between supermarkets which totally ignores the ‘needs’ of local consumers but which is all that a LA lacking competent planners can work with.
In discussion it was agreed that local conditions on the ground – car use, actual numbers of shops/fascias – and variation between them – walking to a shop should be the norm in London but can’t be in Yorkshire Dales – are poorly known. Some core strategies look impressive, but it’s not clear they’re robust enough to withstand supermarkets’ power. Also, rather than a narrow focus on retail, planners and decision makers need more all-round understanding and a grasp of local context.
There was discussion about the different tests used for development control, and what would have most impact. The irreversible building of a large-format outlet of course changes the landscape and also future test outcomes. One inappropriate decision means losing something for ever.
A response should be to provide LAs with specific suggestions of what they could usefully have in their LDFs.
Michael Bach pointed out that some of the things we’d talked about involved regulation rather than planning policy. The debate goes beyond planners.
5: CAMPAIGNING AND COMMUNITY SUPPORT
This was an opportunity to reflect and report on trends ‘on the ground’ and from the point of view of campaigners.
Judith Whateley reported on progress through Tescopoly, CorporateWatch and FoE over the last ten years. People still do get bothered and there’s public awareness, and it’s good that Tescopoly now has Gay as a part-time worker. A difficult challenge is the arrival of huge and high-profile regeneration projects, e.g. with sports facilities, that get public support. At this scale though, the problem goes beyond one LA so there should be efforts by neighbouring LAs to support each other.
With respect to public support for some new supermarket developments, Karen pointed out that any campaigning would need to take account of impact on sustainability at local level as different places have different needs. Michael B noted that people’s preference for convenience – nearby car parking in particular – also affects public support. Discussion about how the supermarkets can impact the shape of a town centre and people’s movements in it, by all modes. And once again, traffic assessment data used for permissions is of dubious quality.
Pauline Rowe explained that at Queen’s Market (Newham) a petition by campaigners had led to the chance to exploit substantial local knowledge and local expertise. With the help of resources via PNUK, locals could get a framework for putting this knowledge to use since PPS4 is now in force. People shared examples of good local research that had been influential, particularly regarding food.
Shane reported that in March 2010 ASC are just starting a 2-year research project with University of Oxford’s Saïd Business School to assess the role of local shops within communities and contribute to policy debate.
There was some discussion of how exactly PNUK and campaigners should/could approach LAs since in principle it is they who are responsible to us. This means, among other things, that whatever the practicalities of getting information about development processes or producing it, shortcomings of the freedom of information act, campaign groups will benefit most if they get involved from an early stage.
BREAK FOR LUNCH
Afternoon session notes
Due to time constrains, the afternoon session consisted mainly of listing potential areas for further work, campaigns targets/gaps in knowledge, resources and campaigning, etc, with a quick brainstorm on LDF model clauses.
Needs for local campaigning/community groups:
- Research / evidence. How to use the evidence in campaigning
- Summaries of new legislation needed + DDA changes for example
- Help on impact assessments, traffic assessments. Lack of info on actual impacts after building. Case studies would be useful (see next section)
- Guidance on how to use LDFs, PPS4, a toolkit for campaigners - we could have a follow-up meeting on this. ACS (Shane, working with FOE and Tescopoly) is going to fund some work on the uses of PPS4 and may come back to us. Model policy wordings are also needed. (See end).
- NB - NRPF will put almost anything relevant on its website: should consider this as a potential outlet. http://www.nrpf.org/
National / overarching issues:
Knowledge needs:
- Job impacts; real net change in retail FTE (full-time equivalent) before and after opening of major stores
- Does anyone know of good case studies of impacts of edge of centre market town retail developments? If so please send to Alan Hallsworth. Market towns often have the most to lose from badly handled competition scenarios and also have the most vociferous communities.
- Price comparisons between independents and supermarkets
- Monitoring of supermarket and other retail applications and decisions, nationally. There is apparently no data, except within London! Property agents do gather data; also Institute of Grocery Distribution.
Land ownership data is very sparse in England. Planning portal should be able to generate data on applications by size, their progress through the system, but is thought not actually set up to do this (yet).
Since, in town planning generally, the identity of the applicant has no bearing on applications / decisions, applicant data is normally not in the stats. However since we now have the "Fascia Test" to prevent named firms gaining excessive local market share, the case could now be made for data which included the identity of the applicant.
- Edge of town centre - is it a good location? Does it fulfil the ‘anchor’ role that policy suggests? We have our doubts. There is very little existing analysis of this.
- How to avoid losing retail/town centre/supply chain elements which can't be replaced /reversibility. Stirling University report out soon on economic diversity, commissioned by the Association of Convenience Stores.
- Co-ops - are they better than Tesco and the others? Yes, fractionally – sometimes better CSR and better ownership model, but still very nationalised supply chains, the same price games and sometimes the same impact on the high street. Worth looking into?
- Overall production/distribution/consumption as a whole, supply chains, and how small enterprises fit into these.
Policy needs
- Concept of competition needs to be expanded. Not just market shares among big 4. Barriers to entry for small traders and terms of competition between big and small traders are missing dimensions. (Note free parking at big stores as a 'distortion of competition')
- Tax supermarket car parks? (apparently DoT will only approve if aimed at congestion-reduction!)
- Need for agreed definition of net floorspace.
Campaign/other needs and opportunities
- Need further attempts (like Andrew Simms book) to rework public understanding and debate on the issue. PPS4 doesn't yet have any carbon-saving in it. Challenging the dominance of corporate interests, reaffirming the importance of planning and citizen-based visions.
- Planning conditions which get lost during the inquiry and decision process. - how to ensure that they don't get lost; then that they are monitored and enforced. FOE have a good report on this.
- Planners Network in North America has good stuff on food etc. on its website.
- Local groups can put in their own applications on a site, with enormous benefits in public discussion and access to inquiry scrutiny. This approach should be encouraged.
- Demolition - rules? Outside conservation areas, demolition does not require permission and that can weaken local resolve to stick up for buildings and occupiers which had existed, and exacerbate site assembly for large stores.
- Internet-based and other "special forms of trading" (home delivery, box schemes and sometimes markets) – impacts of these?.
- Planning permissions should contain clause guaranteeing research access to premises for the carrying out of surveys by public authorities and independent bodies: there have been many instances of this being prevented.
- Independent retail impact assessments: this could be a useful service to offer if funding could be found to do so; alternatively guidance on how community groups might produce their own.
INFLUENCING LDFs
Ought now to prepare guidance. ACS is working on this. Need to have some model policies which could be inserted in LDFs. Some suggestions:
- Prohibit extensions of supermarkets beyond a certain size.
- Ensuring everyone can walk to a food store (and other things?) within quarter mile / quarter hour
- Limit of acceptability of projected trade diversion caused by a new development to max 10% of current turnover?
- protection of retail diversity (research issue of definition). Ratios of independent to chain stores?
- Ambition to have street market in every (?) area
- car parking maximum, 1 per 20m2 of gross floorspace
- Travel to new stores: not more than 70% to be by car.
Shane, Helen, Judith, to produce some guidance based on these for community groups. Others to comment.
Hugh Ellis, now of TCPA, has an excellent presentation on LDFs and the rest of the system; and the FOE online (and paper) community rights handbook has a good account of this too.
NB also - use the PNUK list to seek experts, expert witnesses.
More fundamental/generic needs (focus of this meeting is retail but it is clear from conclusions that more generic changes are relevant/essential)
- Skills for planners - more courses needed. national retail planning forum running with this issue and their web site is good. Some DCLG documents are helpful. CPD issues for planners and planning schools.
- How to get planners to understand the dynamics of their locality - how the place works?
- How to get local authorities to acknowledge that citizens of the area should determine the future development of their area?
- Discussion on community involvement and consultation on the LDF – perhaps at a further PNUK retail meeting?
It was agreed to meet again in around six months’ time to discuss progress on PPS4 and LDFs amongst other things. Karen will try to arrange this, but may need further funding to do so/make it as useful as possible.
Participants’ list: Gaynor’s email address is Gaynorbrown1@talktalk.net . Karen to add to circulation list for notes.
Meeting ended.
|
