NLP_Retail_Critique_january15_13_Final.pdf

7/29/2019 NLP_Retail_Critique_january15_13_Final.pdf

1/36

Tesco Retail Critique

Test Valley Borough Council

15 January 2013

10994/04


2/36

This document is formatted for double sided printing.

Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners Ltd 2012. Trading as Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners.

All Rights Reserved.

Registered Office:

14 Regent's WharfAll Saints Street

London N1 9RL

All plans within this document produced by NLP are based upon Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of

Her Majestys Stationery Office. Crown Copyright reserved. Licence number AL50684A


3/36

Test Valley Borough Council : Tesco Retail Critique

3238072v3

Contents

1.0 Introduction 12.0 Data and Assumptions 3

Introduction...............................................................................................3Introduction...............................................................................................3Catchment Area .........................................................................................3Design Year and Price Base ........................................................................4Population.................................................................................................4Available Expenditure .................................................................................5Proposed Store Turnover.............................................................................5Existing Floorspace Turnovers (Survey Derived Turnover) ................................6Trade Diversion..........................................................................................6

3.0 National Planning Policy Framework Requirements 7Introduction...............................................................................................7Retail Impact and Need ..............................................................................7The Sequential Approach to Site Selection....................................................7

4.0 Retail Impact 9Convenience Goods Trade Diversion and Impact ...........................................9Indirect Impact and Linked Shopping Trips..................................................11Comparison Goods Trade Diversion and Impact...........................................12Claw back of Expenditure Leakage .............................................................13Other Socio-Economic Impacts ..................................................................14Summary of Impact Analysis .....................................................................14

5.0 Sequential Approach 16Introduction.............................................................................................16Analysis of Alternative Sites ......................................................................17Summary of Sequential Analysis................................................................18

6.0 Conclusion and Recommendation 20Retail Impact ...........................................................................................20Sequential Approach ................................................................................20

Appendix A Convenience Assessment


4/36


5/36

3238072v3 P1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners (NLP) has been instructed by Test Valley Borough

Council (TVBC) to review the Planning and Retail Statement (PRS) prepared byAlsop Verrill (AV) in support of a planning application for a new Tesco food store

at the Fairground Site in Romsey.

1.2 NLP previously prepared a district wide retail capacity study in 2007 and

assessed retail development potential within Romsey in 2008. This work was

recently updated in 2012.

The Proposed Tesco Store

1.3 The proposal is for a large format Tesco food store of 6,027 sq m gross, and a

net sales area including checkouts of around 4,000 sq m net, or 3,100 sq mnet excluding checkouts. AV assumes a net to gross ratio of 66% including

checkouts, or 51% excluding checkouts. These figures appear realistic based

on the size of store proposed.

Objectives

1.4 This report sets out NLPs assessment of the soundness of AVs approach and

includes a review of the:

data sources used;

methodology and key assumptions; and the validity of their interpretation of the impact and sequential assessment.

1.5 Section 2.0 provides an appraisal of the data and methodology used by AV in

preparing their PRS. Section 3.0 sets out the national policy framework. Section

4.0 considers AVs assessment of the likely impact of the proposal. Section

5.0 sets out our critique of the sequential approach to site selection and

Section 6.0 summarises our conclusions.


6/36


7/36

3238072v3 3

2.0 Data and Assumptions

Introduction

Introduction

2.1 The NPPF paragraph 26 requires that the impact of retail proposals on in-centre

trade/ turnover and on trade in the wider area are assessed. This assessment

needs to take account of current and future consumer expenditure capacity in

the catchment area up to five years from the time the application is made.

Whilst the assessment of need is no longer a policy test, any over-supply of

floorspace resulting from any of the planning application proposals may have an

adverse impact on the town centre. In this context retail need is relevant, but

an over-supply of retail floorspace is not a ground for refusal.

2.2 This chapter analyses the methodology and assumptions underpinning the

Impact Assessment.

Catchment Area

2.3 AV identifies a study area for Romsey divided into 7 separate zones. Zones 1, 2

and 3 cover Romsey urban area and Zones 4 to 7 cover the hinterland. The

hinterland extends north to, but does not include, Stockbridge; Whiteparish to

the west; Rownhams and North Baddesley to the south; and the outskirts of

Chandlers Ford to the east. This study area is broadly similar to Zones 8, 10,11 and 12 adopted in the Councils retail study, see below. AVs catchment

area extends further to the north and includes Broughton, Houghton and Kings

Somborne, which are in NLPs Zone 6.

2.4 Previous household shopper surveys results suggest the proposed Tesco store

will draw the majority of its trade from this study area. The study area is

considered to be appropriate.


8/36

3238072v3

Design Year and Price Base

2.5 AV has adopted 2010 prices, which is consistent with NLPs study. AV has

assessed trade diversion and impact at 2015. Assuming the food store is

completed in 2013 and allowing two years to achieve full and settled trading

levels suggests an earliest design year of 2015 is appropriate.

Population

2.6 AV has adopted Experians 2010 small area population figures and projections.

The 2010 base year population in the study area is 55,380. NLP adopted the

same source of information for base year population at 2010. NLPs base year

population for Zones 8, 10, 11 and 12 was 50,211. NLPs figures are slightly

lower because the NLPs study area excludes Broughton, Houghton and Kings

Somborne.

2.7 Using Experians population projections the AV study area population is

expected to increase to 56,534 by 2015, an increase of 1,154 people (2.1%

growth). Growth to 2017 is 1,639 people (3% growth).

2.8 The NLP study adopted headroom population projections for Test Valley and

Hampshire County Council projections for parts of the study area outside the

Borough. NLPs population for Zones 8, 10, 11 and 12 is expected to increase


9/36

3238072v3 5

from 50,211 in 2010 to 52,067 by 2016, an additional 1,856 people (3.7%

growth). On this basis, AV may have slightly under-estimated population growth

within their study area, and AVs approach is robust in terms of population.

Available Expenditure2.9 AV adopts Experian 2010 local expenditure estimates. Again this is the same

source adopted by NLP. The average expenditure per person adopted by AV in

the study area at 2012 (excluding special forms of trading i.e. retail

expenditure not spent in shops) is 1,954 per person. The most comparable

figure within NLPs study is slightly lower at 1,918, but this is probably due to

the exclusion of Broughton, Houghton and Kings Somborne, where expenditure

per person is likely to be higher the study area average. Experians local

expenditure data tends to show expenditure in rural villages is slightly higher

than in the urban areas of the main towns.

2.10 The growth rates adopted by AV to project expenditure up to 2012 and 2015

are consistent with NLPs adopted figures.

2.11 AV has not over-estimated expenditure per person within the study area.

Proposed Store Turnover

2.12 AV estimates the notional company average turnover of the Tesco store to be

36.12 million, split 29.84 million for convenience goods and 6.28 million

for comparison goods. AV suggests the store will actually trade between 85% to

95% of the company average. AVs retail impact assessment assumes thestore will trade at 90.2% of the company average at 2015.

2.13 The company average turnover figures are based on a net sales area of 3,100

sq m net split 77.4% for convenience goods and 22.6% for comparison goods.

This split seems realistic for the size of store proposed.

2.14 AV assumes a company average convenience goods turnover density for the

store of 12,432 per sq m net, and 8,975 per sq m net for comparison,

which are consistent with the figures NLP would adopt (source Verdict).

However AV has applied these sales density figures to the wrong sales

floorspace figure. It is our understanding that the Tescos net sales figures as

adopted by Verdict to provide turnover density figures include checkouts. For

consistency Verdicts Tesco turnover densities must be applied to sales

floorspace figures inclusive of checkouts. AV has adopted the Competition

Commissions definition (CC) of net sales floorspace, which excludes checkout

areas. However if this CC approach is adopted for Tesco stores then Verdicts

Tesco sales densities figures will need to be adjusted accordingly to exclude

checkouts, and as a result the sales density figure will increase.

2.15 The stores net sales floorspace including checkouts will be 4,000 sq m net,

split 3,096 sq m net for convenience goods and 904 sq m net for comparison

goods. The revised benchmark turnover based on the Tesco company average


10/36

3238072v3

sales density (inclusive of checkouts) is 38.489 million for convenience goods

and 8.113 million for comparison goods.

2.16 Allowing for AVs 90.2% (9.8% reduction) the actual turnover figures for the

store would be 34.72 million for convenience goods and 7.32 million for

comparison goods. We believe these revised figures are more robust for the

purpose of testing impact.

Existing Floorspace Turnovers (Survey Derived Turnover)

2.17 AV has used the results of a household survey undertaken in July 2012 (751

competed interviews) within the study area to estimate the existing turnovers of

food stores.

2.18 AV estimates the 2012 base year turnover of existing convenience goods

facilities in Romsey town centre is 43.821 million. It is unclear how AV has

used the survey results to estimate market penetration rates and turnover,

therefore we have undertaken our own analysis to validate AVs figures. AVs

survey results should be more robust because they are based on a larger

sample and area more up to date.

2.19 We have reassessed shopping patterns based on the survey results later in

this report.

Trade Diversion

2.20 AV estimates convenience trade diversion to the proposed store at 2015,

summarised in AVs Table 6. The distribution of trade diversion is summarised

below.

Waitrose, Romsey = 5.541m

Co-op, Romsey = 0.162m

Aldi, Romsey = 1.457m

Other Romsey town centre = 0.101m

Elsewhere = 19.800m

Total = 27.061m

2.21 As indicated above, we believe AV has under-estimated the turnover of the

proposed store because the notional Tesco company average has been applied

to the wrong net sales floorspace figure. Notwithstanding this issue, AVs

distribution of trade diversion requires close scrutiny. The proportional amount

of trade diversion from food stores/shops in Romsey town centre appears to be

relatively low. AV assumes only 27% of the stores convenience goods turnover

will be diverted from the town centre, and 73% (19.8 million) is diverted from

elsewhere.

2.22 To address these concerns, we have undertaken our own retail impact

assessment in Section 4, based on the household survey results.


11/36

3238072v3 7

3.0 National Planning Policy Framework

Requirements

Introduction

3.1 Government guidance contained within the recently published NPPF indicates

retail proposals should only be refused where there is likely to be significant

adverse impacts which outweigh the benefits of the proposal or the proposal

fails the sequential approach.

Retail Impact and Need

3.2

The NPPF does not require an applicant to demonstrate that their developmentproposal is needed, or that the scale of development is required. The relevant

test within the NPPF is the retail impact test. Retail developments that are not

within a town centre and not in accordance with an up to date plan must comply

with this NPPF policy test.

3.3 The NPPF (paragraph 27) states that if the adverse impacts of a proposal are

significant then it should be refused. NPPF (paragraph 14) also indicates there

is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and planning permission

should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly and

demonstrably out-weigh the benefits of the development.

3.4 NPPF states that planning applications for town centre uses should be

assessed against:

a the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and

private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the

proposal;

b the impact of the proposal on the town centre vitality and viability,

including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider

area.

3.5 If a proposal is likely to lead to a significant adverse impact on the town centre

in relation to the above then it should be refused.

3.6 Applicants proposing retail developments over 2,500 sq m gross are required

to prepare a retail impact assessment. Consistent with NPPF policy AV has

prepared a retail impact assessment. The validity of this assessment is

considered in Section 4.

The Sequential Approach to Site Selection

3.7 Regardless of the absence of harm to the vitality and viability of existing

centres, out of centre proposals may still be refused planning permission if it


12/36

3238072v3

can be accommodated within an existing centre, provided it is not in

accordance with an up to date plan.

3.8 The NPPF sequential approach requires applicants proposing out of centre

development that is not in accordance with an update to plan to consider

opportunities to accommodate their development within town centres, followed

by edge of centre sites. The applicant must demonstrate these alternative sites

are unsuitable, unavailable or unviable for the proposed development.

3.9 The applicant must demonstrate appropriate flexibility and consider whether a

smaller store could be accommodated on more central sites.

3.10 The NPPF (paragraph 27) states that failure to comply with the sequential

approach will justify the refusal of planning permission, unless other material

considerations indicate otherwise.

3.11 The proposed development is not within the town centre and is not inaccordance with an up to date plan, therefore compliance with the sequential

approach must be demonstrated. Compliance with the sequential assessment

is considered in Section 5.


13/36

3238072v3 9

4.0 Retail Impact

Convenience Goods Trade Diversion and Impact

4.1 Building on AVs approach and adopting the household survey results, we have

assessed the convenience goods impact of the proposed food store. This

assessment examines trading patterns in the base year 2012 and the 2015

design year assuming no food store development and then assessing the

implications of the proposed food store at 2015.

Base Year 2012 Shopping Patterns

4.2 Table 1 and 2 in the Appendix adopt AVs population and expenditure figures.

Total convenience goods expenditure is shown in Table 3.

4.3 AV commissioned NEMS to undertake a household shopper survey in July

2012. Respondents were asked where they do most of the main food shopping

and then what other destinations they visit. Separate questions were asked for

top up shopping.

4.4 We have reassessed shopping patterns assuming 80% of convenience goods

expenditure is spent on main food trips and 20% on top-up shopping. A

weighted average for the responses for main food shopping destinations has

been adopted. The first answer i.e. where respondents do most of the main

food shopping has been increased by a factor of four; the second destination

by a factor of two and the third destination by a factor of one.

4.5 The estimated market shares for main and top up shopping area shown in

Tables 4A and 4B respectively.

4.6 Tables 5A, 5B and 5C set out existing 2012 convenience trading pattern based

on the market shares shown in Tables 4A to 4B. These tables adopt

expenditure and population figures from the AV assessment.

4.7 The turnover of convenience facilities in Romsey town centre is estimated to be

46.81 million, as shown in Table 5 and summarised in Table 10, column A.

This figure is slightly higher than AVs estimate of 43.82 million. The Waitrose

store in Romsey has a turnover of 28.6 million and is estimated to be tradingover 35% above the company average (21.06 million). Benchmark company

average turnovers are shown in Table 9 and summarised in Table 10, column F.

The Aldi store has a turnover of 11.64 million, which is significantly higher

than the company average (3.93 million). The Co-op store is also trading

significantly above the company average (3.34 million compared with 1.78

million).

4.8 In overall terms convenience goods floorspace in the town centre is trading

57% above benchmark levels, and the existing expenditure surplus is 17.03

million.


14/36

3238072v3

Future Trading Patterns in 2015 Assuming No Development

4.9 The future turnover of existing convenience shopping facilities in the catchment

area at 2015 is shown in Tables 6A to 6C, and summarised in column B of

Table 10 in the Appendix. In total the amount of convenience expenditure

attracted to Romsey town centre is expected to increase from 46.81 million to

47.24 million between 2012 and 2015. These figures are a baseline for

assessing impact.

Future Trading Patterns in 2015 With the Tesco Store

4.10 The expected convenience goods turnover and trade draw of the proposed

Tesco food store is shown in Table 8 in the Appendix. As indicated in the

previous section, we have assumed the store will have a convenience sales

area of 3,096 sq m net with a benchmark turnover of 38.49 million, based on

an average sales density of 12,432 per sq m net. Consistent with AVs figureswe have assumed the store will trade at 90.2% of the company average at

2015 (34.72 million).

4.11 The revised shopping patterns with the Tesco store included are shown in

Tables 8A to 8C in the Appendix 3. The impact results (trade diversion and

percentage impact) for the store are summarised in Table 10 (columns D and

E).

4.12 The highest level of trade diversion is expected to come from the Waitrose

store in Romsey (9.48 million in column D), an impact of -32.8%. Trade

diversion from the Aldi store is estimated to be 3.4 million (-28.9% impact)

and 1.02 million from the Co-op store (-30.4% impact). Impact on other

convenience shops in the town centre is -13.4%. Impact on convenience goods

facilities in the town centre as a whole is -30.3%.

4.13 In total trade diversion from Romsey town centre is 14.33 million (41% of the

stores total turnover, compared with AVs estimated of 7.26 million (27% of

the stores total turnover. The difference in trade diversion from Romsey town

centre is significant (7.07 million), due to the higher turnover adopted by NLP

and the different distribution of trade diversion.

4.14 The residual turnover of convenience stores/shops in the town centre (32.91

million column C in Table 10) is still 10.5% above the benchmark turnover(29.78 million in column F).

4.15 The Aldi store will continue to trade more than double the company average and

is unlikely to close. The Co-op store will also continue to trade above average

(30.6%) and there is no reason to expect this store will close. The Waitrose

store will trade 7.9% below the company average, and again it seems unlikely

this store will be forced to close. We note Waitrose objection letter to the

planning application does not suggest there existing store is at risk of closure.

4.16 Other convenience shops in the town centre will collectively trade about 6%

below the assumed benchmark following a 13.4% reduction in trade at 2015.


15/36

3238072v3 11

The impact of 2012 trading levels is 12.7%. Based on Goad Plan information

there are 15 small convenience shops within Romsey town centre i.e. 3 bakers,

3 newsagents/confectioners, 2 butchers, 2 delicatessens, 2 off licences, 2

health food shops and 1 green grocer. Trade diversion is expected to be spread

amongst these traders. At worst it is possible 1 to 2 of these small shopscould be forced to close due to direct trade diversion.

Indirect Impact and Linked Shopping Trips

4.17 As indicated above, the impact on convenience goods shopping facilities in the

town centre is expected to be -30.3%. This impact relates to direct trade

diversion to the proposed Tesco store. It does not take into account any

indirect impact through the reduction or increase in linked shopping trips made

to the town centre. This reduction in trade could have knock on effects for the

town centre as a whole.

4.18 AVs household explores other activities undertaken during main food shopping

trips. The survey indicates that 55.6% did not combine their last main food

shopping trip with other shopping/activities. Of the 44.4% of respondents who

did undertake other activities 54% combined their last trip with non-food

shopping, 34% combined with other food shopping and 63% combined with

other activities.

4.19 In overall terms about 24% of main food shopping trips are linked with non-food

shopping, 15% are linked with other food shopping and 28% are linked with

other activities. These figures relate to all main food shopping trips within the

study area and will include a mix of in-centre, edge of centre and out of centre

stores. Based on our experience town centre stores are likely to generate a

higher proportion of linked trips than out of centre stores.

4.20 As a minimum, and based on NLPs experience of shopper survey data in towns

across the country, it may be reasonable to expect food stores in Romsey town

centre to generate 60% linked trips (main and top-up), rather than the average

of 44.4% for all main food shopping destinations. Based on this 60%

assumption about 32% of food shopping trips would be linked with non-food

shopping, 20% linked with other food shopping and 38% linked with other

activities.

4.21 Our figures suggest Romsey town centre currently attracts 46.81 million, split

36.55 million for main food trips and 10.27 million for top-up shopping. The

household survey suggests on average each household spend 82 on their

main food and grocery trip. This suggests 446,000 main food and grocery

shopping trips are made to Romsey town centre per year. The average per week

for top-up shopping is 17.60. Assuming one trip per week implies 583,000

top up shopping trips are made to Romsey town centre per year. The total

number of food shopping trips is 1,029,000 trips per year in total.


16/36

3238072v3

4.22 In terms of non-food linked trips 329,000 per annum could be made to Romsey

town centre, based the assumed 32% linked trips outlined above. The

household survey results suggest the average spend on other shopping per trip

is 28.60. These linked trips in Romsey town centre could therefore generate

9.4 million of non-food trade.

4.23 The proposed Tesco food store food store is expected to divert 14.33 million

from Romsey town centre, split 11.84 million for main food shopping and

2.49 million for top up shopping. In terms of trips this represents 144,000

main food shopping trips and 141,000 top up shopping trips. In total 285,000

trips will be diverted from Romsey town centre. Assuming 32% of these trips

are linked with non-food shopping, the number of lost non-food linked trips

would be 91,000 trips, generating 2.6 million of additional non-food

expenditure in the town centre (28.6 per trip).

4.24 As well as diverting linked trips from the town centre the proposed Tesco storeis likely to generate new linked trips. The turnover of the Tesco store is

estimated to be 34.72 million, split 31.25 million for main food shopping

and 3.47 million for top-up shopping. This represents 381,000 main food trips

and 197,000 top up food shopping trips. The store will generate 578,000 trips

in total.

4.25 In order to offset the loss of linked non-food trips in the town centre (91,000

trips), about 16% of the trips to the Tesco store would need to be linked with

Romsey town centre. As indicated above, the household survey results suggest

the current average in the study area is 24% of all trips are linked with non-food

shopping. This 24% average relates to both in-centre and out-of-centre stores.

4.26 The Tesco store is out-of-centre and might not achieve the study area average

(24%), but the store is reasonably close to Romsey town centre. Based on the

current study area average (24%), the proposed Tesco stores proximity to the

town centre and our judgement, we believe the proposed store should achieve

linked trips close to, if not at, the study area average. On this basis, we expect

the proposed Tesco store would achieve at least 16% linked trips, and

therefore should offset the impact of diverted linked trips from the town centre,

bearing in mind we have adopted a relatively high existing linked trip figure for

the town centre (60%). At worst the impact of the Tesco store in terms of lostlinked trips would be neutral. We accept that in terms of associate benefits for

local businesses this is a direct local moderate beneficial effect of the

proposals.

Comparison Goods Trade Diversion and Impact

4.27 AV has not assessed the impact of the comparison goods element of the

proposed store in the same level of detail.

4.28 We estimate that the comparison turnover of the proposed Tesco food store

could be 7.32 million, see Section 2.


17/36

3238072v3 13

4.29 Based on the distribution of convenience goods trade diversion, we estimated

that about 40% of this comparison goods turnover will be diverted from Romsey

town centre, i.e. 2.93 million.

4.30 NLPs Test Valley Retail Study update 2012 estimates that the comparisongoods turnover of Romsey town centre is 45 million in 2012. This turnover is

projected to increase to 50.43 million in 2016. If 2.93 million is diverted

from the town centre to the Tesco store then the impact in 2016 would be

5.8%.

4.31 This trade diversion should be offset by expenditure growth between 2012 and

2016 (12.1%). A high proportion of the comparison goods impact will be

concentrated on large food stores (Waitrose, Aldi and Co-op) because the

comparison goods turnover includes day to day goods often bought at food

stores e.g. health and beauty products, pet related goods and small household

items. As indicated above, these food stores are trading healthily and it isunlikely the Tesco store will force the closure of any of these main food stores.

Impact on comparison goods shops within the town centre will be much less

than 5.8% and future growth in expenditure will more than offset impact.

4.32 Overall the comparison and convenience turnover of the town centre is

expected to reduce from about 98 million to 81 million, a combined direct

impact of about 17%. Most of this impact will fall on the three main food stores

(Waitrose, Aldi and Co-op) and these stores are unlikely to close. Overall trade

diversion from the town centre will in our view be a moderate adverse effect of

the proposals, rather than a minor adverse effect as suggested by AV. The

S106 financial contributions towards town centre support will help to mitigate

against this impact, as will other socio-economic benefits outlined below.

Claw back of Expenditure Leakage

4.33 A potential benefit of the proposed food store is the amount of expenditure

leakage from Romsey to food stores located outside the town. This claw back

of expenditure leakage could result in shorter shopping trips.

4.34 In 2015 existing food stores/convenience goods shops within Romsey are

expected to attract 19.83 million from Romsey (zones 1, 2 and 3 added

from Table 6C in Appendix A), which is a retention rate of 58%, therefore the

current leakage is 42%. The proposed Tesco store is expected to increase

expenditure retention to 27.35 million a retention rate of 80%, based on

NLPs impact analysis set out in Appendix A (zones 1, 2 and 3 added from

Table 8C in Appendix A). Expenditure leakage from Romsey will reduce by

7.52 million. This is a benefit of the proposal and this is a direct moderate

beneficial effect of the proposal, which will help to mitigate against the adverse

impacts outlined above.


18/36

3238072v3

Other Socio-Economic Impacts

4.35 AV suggests the development during the construction phase will employ a peak

of about 100. This figure is not particularly meaningful. AV has not estimated

the number of person years of construction work which is a common approach.For example, based on a construction cost of 6 million for the food store

(1,000 per sq m) we would anticipate about a third of this cost would be

related to labour costs, say 2 million. Assuming an average of 30,000 gross

annual wage for construction workers this suggests 66 person years of

construction work for the food store. The standard approach is to assume 66

person years of construction work will equates to 6.6 FTEs. These figures are

not inconsistent with AVs assumed peak of 100 jobs on site.

4.36 AV indicates these jobs will generate additional money within the local

economy, but this is not quantified. We accept that this would be a minor

beneficial effect.

4.37 When operational the food store is expected to generate around 300 jobs or

200 FTEs. Based on our experience and published employment densities

information contained within the 2010 Employment Densities Guide produced

by the Homes & Communities Agency and Offpat these figures are realistic.

4.38 AV suggests there are no jobs currently on the site, therefore the net increase

in jobs will be 200 FTEs. However AV has not considered displacement from

existing shops/store in Romsey. As indicated above, we estimate that 60% of

the stores trade will be diverted from outside Romsey, therefore as a worst

case the net increase in jobs would be 120 FTEs (60% of 200 FTEs). We

believe the net increase in employment in Romsey will be higher than this and

will be nearer 200 than 120 FTEs. Direct employment generation is a key

benefit of the proposal and that this should be considered to be a local direct

moderate beneficial effect of the proposal.

4.39 AV identifies the benefit of increasing employment in terms of increasing local

spending power and an increase in business rates, but these are not

quantified. We accept that this increase in spending and business rates is an

indirect local minor beneficial effect of the proposals on the local economy.

Summary of Impact Analysis4.40 The NPPF (paragraph 27) states that if the adverse impacts of a proposal are





4.41 If a food store is developed then the impact on convenience goods facilities in

Romsey town centre is 30% but the vast majority of this will fall on the

Waitrose, Aldi and Co-op stores. There is no clear evidence to suggest any of

these stores will close, due to healthy existing trading levels. The spin-offbenefits of the proposed food store, in terms of generating new linked trips to


19/36

3238072v3 15

non-food shops and services in the town centre, are likely to offset the loss of

linked trips, and at worst the impact on linked trips will be neutral.

4.42 In terms of non-food sales floorspace the impact on comparison shops is 5%.

This trade diversion should be offset by expenditure growth between 2012 and2016 and should not cause long term harm to the town centre.

4.43 In our view the proposed development is unlikely to harm the vitality and

viability of Romsey town centre. The negative impacts of the proposal (e.g.

impact on shops in the town centre and any other site specific impacts) should

be weighed against the benefits of the proposal in terms of job creation (net

change taking into account any lost employment), increase in competition,

consumer choice claw back of expenditure leakage from Romsey and other

socio-economic benefits.


20/36

3238072v3

5.0 Sequential Approach

Introduction

5.1 The application site is an out-of-centre location and is not allocated for food

store development. The site is more than 300 metres from the primary

shopping area as indicated in Annex 2 of the NPPF. Therefore all town centre

and edge of centre alternative sites must be considered.

5.2 If the Council is satisfied the proposed Tesco store will not have an adverse

effect on designated centres, then the availability of sites within and on the

edge of the town centre must be considered in accordance with the sequential

approach.

5.3

AV indicates a store of the size proposed will normally require a site of 2.5hectares, but if decked parking (one level under the store and/or multi level

adjacent to the store) is required then this could be reduced to around 1.9

hectares. This approach assumes a food store of 3,100 sq m net. In our view

more flexibility in relation to the store size should be considered, and it is

possible sites smaller than 1.9 hectares could be suitable.

5.4 In our view a 20% reduction in size would still allow Tesco to provide a food

superstore in Romsey (about 2,500 sq m net), and would represent appropriate

flexibility when applying the sequential approach. Tesco operates a number of

store formats. The NPPF requires developers to demonstrate flexibility but this

should be commercially realistic. In our view a 20% reduction would still providea commercially viable store.

5.5 Notwithstanding the scope for flexibility, the disaggregation of the convenience

and comparison sales floorspace proposed would not be appropriate. Large

food stores often provide a range and choice of comparison items, e.g. goods

regularly bought during weekly food and grocery shopping trips such as

health/beauty goods, medicine, kitchen utensils, household goods, greetings

cards and flowers. A food store operator will typically sell greeting cards,

stationery, pharmaceutical goods and toiletries, and the sale of these types of

goods should not be disaggregated.

5.6 Only 22.6% of the proposed food stores sales floorspace (700 sq m net) is

expected to accommodate the sale of comparison goods. In our view the

provision of 700 sq m net of comparison sales is a reasonable level of ancillary

non-food sales for a large food store. In our view the food store cannot be

disaggregated, but the applicant must still demonstrate flexibility in terms of

format, and the ability to accommodate a store of around 2,500 sq m net on

more central sites should be considered when applying the sequential

approach.


21/36

3238072v3 17

Analysis of Alternative Sites

5.7 AV considers 14 sites in and around Romsey town centre, which included 13

potential development sites considered by NLP in 2008. Chapter 4 of AVs

Environmental Statement also considers the do nothing scenario, thesequential sites and the football ground site to the east of the application site.

5.8 NLPs 2012 Retail Study re-examined 6 of the identified sites, but sites NLP1,

NLP2, NLP3, NLP4, NLP 5, NLP 12 and NLP13, as considered within the 2008

study, are too small to accommodate a large food store and can be discounted.

5.9 AV indicates that most of the remaining six NLP sites are too small to

accommodate the proposed development. In order to accommodate a large

food store a combination of sites would need to be acquired and amalgamated.

5.10 Recognising sites could in theory be amalgamated, there are only four areas

where a large food store of between 2,500 to 3,000 sq m net could beprovided, as follows:

1 Romsey Bus Station/Broadwater Road car park and Aldi car park;

2 Crosfield Hall/Edwina Mountbatten House;

3 Broadwater Road/Banning Street residential area; and

4 Former Strongs Brewery.

5.11 The first area could provide a site of up to 1.2 hectares. However in our view

this site is unlikely to be available because the Aldi store would need to be

acquired. The cost of acquisition would be high even if Aldi agreed to sell and

alternative sites would need to be found for the displaced bus station and

public car parking. This opportunity is unlikely to be available or viable.

5.12 The second and third areas are adjacent to each other. Options for these two

areas could provide development sites of between 0.8 hectares and 2.7

hectares, if assembled. However, multiple ownerships in this area would make

acquisition difficult and a CPO may be required. These potential sites cannot be

considered to be available and high acquisition costs are likely to make these

opportunities unviable. Alternative sites for displaced uses would also need to

be found.

5.13 AVs sequential approach also includes an additional site not assessed in the

NLP study, i.e. at the former Strongs Brewery. This site is large enough to

accommodate a food superstore, but AV suggests the site cannot

accommodate the amount of parking proposed. The site is edge of centre and

is better connected to the town centre than the application site. An edge of

centre store may not require the same level of car parking as an out of centre

store.

5.14 Based on the evidence available, we do not accept this site can be discounted

in terms of size and ability to accommodate sufficient car parking. We are also

not convinced the site is unviable due to the lack of road frontage. Many food


22/36

3238072v3

stores are located to the rear of sites and only have signage on the main road

frontage.

5.15 We understand residential development is proposed on this site, therefore the

site may not be available for a new food store. However there is no evidence of

any dialogue between the applicant and the owner of this site and the

availability of the site for retail development is uncertain.

5.16 If the landowner of this site is prepared to consider retail development and this

site is available then the Council need to consider the suitability of the site.

The key site constraints that would need to be considered in more detail are:

suitability of the site access. The existing access points appear

unsatisfactory for HGVs and significant car movements, therefore

physical improvements would be required. Impact on the road network

would also need to be considered by a transport specialist;

impact on residential amenity would need to be considered, in particular

from service areas and plant;

impact on the conservation area and setting of the listed building.

5.17 If this site is put forward as a sequential alternative then the Council and/or

owner of the site would need to demonstrate that a suitable solution can be

accommodated on the site.

5.18 NLPs main reservations about the site relate to its availability for retail

development, the provision of suitable road access and highway impacts.

5.19 The applicants EIA in addition to the sequential sites above consider one otheralternative site i.e. the Football Ground site. In sequential terms this site is

inferior to the application site because it is less well connected to the town

centre, and is less likely to generate linked shopping trips to the town centre.

5.20 We agree that development pressure for food store development will remain in

Romsey if the application proposals do not go ahead and this is a disbenefit of

the do nothing scenario. The benefits of the do nothing scenario needs to be

considered against the positive and negative impacts of the proposals. These

issues are related to the impact analysis assessed in the previous section. The

Council will need to weigh up the positive and negative impacts of the

development. The impacts of the development in terms of trade diversion,impact on the town centre, the claw back of expenditure leakage and socio-

economic factors are assessed in the previous section.

Summary of Sequential Analysis

5.21 There are sequentially preferable areas that appear capable of accommodating

a large food store, but the former Strongs Brewery site is the only site that is

potentially available and viable for a large food store development. However its

suitability, particularly in terms of road access and impact on residential

amenity is doubtful based on available information.


23/36

3238072v3 19

5.22 If the Council concludes this site is not available or unsuitable the application

has passed the sequential approach. If the Council is not convinced the site is

unsuitable then further detail analysis is required.

5.23 The application site is superior in sequential terms when compared with thefootball ground site, because it is better connected to the town centre.


24/36

3238072v3

6.0 Conclusion and Recommendation

Retail Impact

6.1 The NPPF (paragraph 27) states that if the adverse impacts of a proposal are





6.2 If a food store is developed then the impact on convenience goods facilities in

Romsey town centre is 30% but the vast majority of this will fall on the

Waitrose, Aldi and Co-op stores. There is no clear evidence to suggest any of

these stores will close, due to healthy existing trading levels. The spin-off

benefits of the proposed food store, in terms of generating new linked trips to

non-food shops and services in the town centre, are likely to offset the loss of

linked trips, and at worst the impact on linked trips will be neutral.

6.3 In terms of non-food sales floorspace the impact on comparison shops is 5%.

This trade diversion should be offset by expenditure growth between 2012 and

2016 and should not cause long term harm to the town centre.

6.4 In our view the proposed development is unlikely to harm the vitality and

viability of Romsey town centre. The negative impacts of the proposal (e.g.

impact on shops in the town centre and any other site specific impacts) shouldbe weighed against the benefits of the proposal in terms of job creation (net

change taking into account any lost employment), increase in competition,

consumer choice claw back of expenditure leakage from Romsey and other

socio-economic benefits.

Sequential Approach

6.5 AV has reviewed a number of sites within and around Romsey town centre.

6.6 There are sequentially preferable areas that appear capable of accommodating

a large food store, but the former Strongs Brewery site is the only site that ispotentially available and viable for a large food store development. However its

suitability, particularly in terms of road access and impact on residential

amenity is doubtful based on available information.

6.7 If the Council concludes this site is not available or unsuitable the application

has passed the sequential approach. If the Council is not convinced the site is

unsuitable then further detail analysis is required.

6.8 The application site is superior in sequential terms when compared with the

football ground site, because it is better connected to the town centre.


25/36

3238072v3 21


26/36

3238072v3

Appendix A Convenience Assessment


27/36

3238072v3

Table 1: Population Projections

Zone Area 2012 2015

Zone 1: Romsey West 4,401 4,244

Zone 2: Romsey Northeast 8,570 8,769

Zone 3: Romsey Southeast 5,153 5,156

Zone 4: North Baddesley 7,039 7,079

Zone 5: Romsey Rural 12,878 12,940

Zone 6: Chilworth, Rownhams, Nursling 5,181 5,270

Zone 7: Valley park, Knightswood, Chandler's Ford 12,644 13,049

Total 55,866 56,507

Table 2: Convenience Goods Expenditure Per Capita (2010 Prices)

Expenditure Per Capita 2012 2015

Zone 1: Romsey West 1,826 1,834

Zone 2: Romsey Northeast 1,891 1,899

Zone 3: Romsey Southeast 1,883 1,892

Zone 4: North Baddesley 1,811 1,820

Zone 5: Romsey Rural 2,191 2,201

Zone 6: Chilworth, Rownhams, Nursling 2,070 2,080

Zone 7: Valley park, Knightswood, Chandler's Ford 1,862 1,870


28/36

3238072v3

Table 3: Total Available Convenience Goods Expenditure (M - 2010 Prices)

Zone 2012 2015

Total - Main and Top Up

Zone 1: Romsey West 8.04 7.78

Zone 2: Romsey Northeast 16.21 16.65

Zone 3: Romsey Southeast 9.70 9.76

Zone 4: North Baddesley 12.75 12.88

Zone 5: Romsey Rural 28.22 28.48

Zone 6: Chilworth, Rownhams, Nursling 10.72 10.96

Zone 7: Valley park, Knightswood, Chandler's Ford 23.54 24.40

Total 109.18 110.92

Main Trips (80%)








Total 87.34 88.74

Top-up Trips (20%)








Total 21.84 22.18


29/36

3238072v3

Table 4A: Main Food Trip Convenience Shopping Penetration Rates 2012

Centre/Facilities Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Inflow

Aldi, Romsey 17.0% 16.1% 13.9% 13.9% 11.8% 5.9% 0.6% 5.0%

Waitrose, Romsey 46.2% 27.3% 34.3% 22.4% 35.7% 20.3% 10.4% 5.0%

Co-op Romsey TC 7.3% 2.3% 1.4% 1.4% 2.3% 1.8% 0.1% 5.0%

Other Romsey TC 1.6% 0.8% 2.0% 0.8% 1.2% 1.4% 0.0% 5.0%Romsey Total 72.1% 46.5% 51.6% 38.5% 51.0% 29.4% 11.1%

Andover 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 5.2% 0.0% 0.0% 99.0%

Hedge End/Bursledon 7.8% 15.4% 13.1% 26.9% 4.4% 8.2% 68.1% 80.0%

Eastleigh/Chandler's Ford 1.0% 1.3% 4.0% 3.7% 4.4% 1.8% 6.3% 90.0%

Salisbury 0.8% 0.7% 1.7% 0.0% 6.6% 0.0% 0.0% 99.0%

Southampton 9.4% 13.8% 15.9% 22.4% 4.1% 52.6% 3.3% 95.0%

Totton 6.5% 14.1% 8.0% 7.1% 18.6% 7.0% 0.4% 70.0%

Winchester 1.8% 6.6% 4.3% 0.4% 5.1% 0.8% 10.8% 95.0%

Other 0.6% 1.3% 1.4% 1.0% 0.6% 0.2% 0.0%

Other Total 27.9% 53.5% 48.4% 61.5% 49.0% 70.6% 88.9%

Market Share Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: NEMS household survey July 2012

Table 4B: Top Up Food Trip Convenience Shopping Penetration Rates 2012

Centre/Facilities Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Inflow

Aldi, Romsey 15.9% 18.4% 13.6% 17.6% 8.4% 2.9% 0.0% 5.0%

Waitrose, Romsey 36.4% 28.2% 28.8% 17.7% 18.9% 7.1% 4.8% 5.0%

Co-op Romsey TC 23.8% 6.8% 6.8% 5.9% 8.4% 2.9% 0.8% 5.0%

Other Romsey TC 17.5% 14.6% 22.0% 8.8% 12.6% 5.7% 0.0% 5.0%

Romsey Total 93.6% 68.0% 71.2% 50.0% 48.3% 18.6% 5.6%

Andover 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 99.0%

Hedge End/Bursledon 0.0% 1.0% 5.1% 8.8% 5.6% 2.9% 93.6% 80.0%

Eastleigh/Chandler's Ford 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 90.0%

Salisbury 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 95.0%

Southampton 1.6% 0.0% 1.7% 26.5% 0.0% 40.0% 0.8% 95.0%

Totton 1.6% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 70.0%

Winchester 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 95.0%Other 3.2% 28.1% 22.0% 14.7% 40.6% 37.1% 0.0%

Other Total 6.4% 32.0% 28.8% 50.0% 51.8% 81.4% 94.4%

Market Share Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: NEMS household survey July 2012


30/36

3238072v3

Table 5A: Main Convenience Expenditure 2012 Million

Centre/Facilities Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Inflow Total

Expenditure 2012 6.43 12.96 7.76 10.20 22.57 8.58 18.83 87.34

Aldi, Romsey 1.09 2.09 1.08 1.42 2.66 0.51 0.11 0.47 9.43

Waitrose, Romsey 2.97 3.54 2.66 2.28 8.06 1.74 1.96 1.22 24.44

Co-op Romsey TC 0.47 0.30 0.11 0.14 0.52 0.15 0.02 0.09 1.80

Other Romsey TC 0.10 0.10 0.16 0.08 0.27 0.12 0.00 0.04 0.88

Romsey Total 4.64 6.03 4.01 3.93 11.51 2.52 2.09 1.83 36.55

Andover 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 1.17 0.00 0.00 120.05 121.27

Hedge End/Bursledon 0.50 2.00 1.02 2.74 0.99 0.70 12.83 83.12 103.91

Eastleigh/Chandler's Ford 0.06 0.17 0.31 0.38 0.99 0.15 1.19 29.29 32.55

Salisbury 0.05 0.09 0.13 0.00 1.49 0.00 0.00 174.63 176.39

Southampton 0.60 1.79 1.23 2.28 0.93 4.51 0.62 227.47 239.44

Totton 0.42 1.83 0.62 0.72 4.20 0.60 0.08 19.75 28.22

Winchester 0.12 0.86 0.33 0.04 1.15 0.07 2.03 87.40 92.00

Other 0.04 0.17 0.11 0.10 0.14 0.02 0.00 n/a 0.57

Other Total 1.79 6.94 3.76 6.27 11.06 6.06 16.74 741.72 794.34

Total 6.43 12.96 7.76 10.20 22.57 8.58 18.83 743.55 830.89

Sources: Table 3 and Table 4A

Table 5B: Top Up Convenience Expenditure 2012 Million


Expenditure 2012 1.61 3.24 1.94 2.55 5.64 2.14 4.71 21.84

Aldi, Romsey 0.26 0.60 0.26 0.45 0.47 0.06 0.00 0.11 2.21

Waitrose, Romsey 0.59 0.91 0.56 0.45 1.07 0.15 0.23 0.21 4.16

Co-op Romsey TC 0.38 0.22 0.13 0.15 0.47 0.06 0.04 0.08 1.54

Other Romsey TC 0.28 0.47 0.43 0.22 0.71 0.12 0.00 0.12 2.36

Romsey Total 1.50 2.20 1.38 1.27 2.72 0.40 0.26 0.51 10.27

Andover 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 7.81 7.89



Salisbury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Southampton 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.68 0.00 0.86 0.04 30.97 32.60

Totton 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.98

Winchester 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 1.74 1.83

Other 0.05 0.91 0.43 0.37 2.29 0.80 0.00 n/a 4.85

Other Total 0.10 1.04 0.56 1.27 2.92 1.75 4.44 61.78 73.86

Total 1.61 3.24 1.94 2.55 5.65 2.15 4.71 62.29 84.13


Table 5C: Combined Convenience Expenditure 2012 Million


Expenditure 2012 8.04 16.21 9.70 12.75 28.22 10.72 23.54 109.18

Aldi, Romsey 1.35 2.68 1.34 1.87 3.14 0.57 0.11 0.58 11.64

Waitrose, Romsey 3.56 4.45 3.22 2.74 9.12 1.89 2.18 1.43 28.60

Co-op Romsey TC 0.85 0.52 0.24 0.29 0.99 0.22 0.06 0.17 3.34

Other Romsey TC 0.38 0.58 0.58 0.31 0.98 0.24 0.00 0.16 3.23

Romsey Total 6.14 8.23 5.39 5.20 14.24 2.92 2.35 2.34 46.81

Andover 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 1.25 0.00 0.00 127.87 129.16



Salisbury 0.05 0.09 0.13 0.00 1.49 0.00 0.00 174.63 176.39

Southampton 0.63 1.79 1.27 2.96 0.93 5.37 0.66 258.44 272.04

Totton 0.44 1.86 0.62 0.72 4.44 0.60 0.08 20.44 29.20

Winchester 0.12 0.92 0.33 0.04 1.15 0.10 2.03 89.14 93.83Other 0.09 1.08 0.54 0.48 2.43 0.81 0.00 0.00 5.42

Other Total 1.90 7.97 4.32 7.55 13.98 7.80 21.19 803.50 868.21

Total 8.04 16.21 9.70 12.75 28.22 10.73 23.54 805.84 915.02



31/36

3238072v3

Table 6A: Main Convenience Expenditure 2015 Million - Without Tesco


Expenditure 2015 6.23 13.32 7.80 10.31 22.78 8.77 19.52 88.74

Aldi, Romsey 1.06 2.14 1.08 1.43 2.69 0.52 0.12 0.48 9.52

Waitrose, Romsey 2.88 3.64 2.68 2.31 8.13 1.78 2.03 1.23 24.68

Co-op Romsey TC 0.45 0.31 0.11 0.14 0.52 0.16 0.02 0.09 1.81

Other Romsey TC 0.10 0.11 0.16 0.08 0.27 0.12 0.00 0.04 0.89Romsey Total 4.49 6.19 4.03 3.97 11.62 2.58 2.17 1.84 36.89

Andover 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 1.18 0.00 0.00 121.25 122.48



Salisbury 0.05 0.09 0.13 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 176.17 177.95

Southampton 0.59 1.84 1.24 2.31 0.93 4.61 0.64 231.12 243.29

Totton 0.40 1.88 0.62 0.73 4.24 0.61 0.08 19.99 28.56

Winchester 0.11 0.88 0.34 0.04 1.16 0.07 2.11 89.46 94.17

Other 0.04 0.17 0.11 0.10 0.14 0.02 0.00 n/a 0.58

Other Total 1.74 7.13 3.78 6.34 11.16 6.19 17.35 753.27 806.96

Total 6.23 13.32 7.80 10.31 22.78 8.77 19.52 755.12 843.85


Table 6B: Top Up Convenience Expenditure 2015 Million - Without Tesco

Centre/Facilities Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Inflow TotalExpenditure 2015 1.56 3.33 1.95 2.58 5.70 2.19 4.88 22.18

Aldi, Romsey 0.25 0.61 0.27 0.45 0.48 0.06 0.00 0.11 2.23

Waitrose, Romsey 0.57 0.94 0.56 0.46 1.08 0.16 0.23 0.21 4.20

Co-op Romsey TC 0.37 0.23 0.13 0.15 0.48 0.06 0.04 0.08 1.54

Other Romsey TC 0.27 0.49 0.43 0.23 0.72 0.12 0.00 0.12 2.38

Romsey Total 1.46 2.26 1.39 1.29 2.75 0.41 0.27 0.52 10.35

Andover 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 7.89 7.97



Salisbury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Southampton 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.68 0.00 0.88 0.04 31.48 33.14

Totton 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.99

Winchester 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 1.79 1.88

Other 0.05 0.94 0.43 0.38 2.31 0.81 0.00 n/a 4.92

Other Total 0.10 1.07 0.56 1.29 2.95 1.78 4.61 63.09 75.44

Total 1.56 3.33 1.95 2.58 5.70 2.19 4.88 63.60 85.79


Table 6C: Combined Convenience Expenditure 2015 Million - Without Tesco


Expenditure 2015 7.78 16.65 9.76 12.88 28.48 10.96 24.40 110.92

Aldi, Romsey 1.31 2.76 1.35 1.89 3.17 0.58 0.12 0.59 11.75

Waitrose, Romsey 3.44 4.58 3.24 2.76 9.21 1.94 2.26 1.44 28.88

Co-op Romsey 0.83 0.53 0.24 0.30 1.00 0.22 0.06 0.17 3.35

Other Romsey 0.37 0.59 0.59 0.31 0.99 0.25 0.00 0.16 3.26

Romsey Total 5.95 8.46 5.42 5.26 14.37 2.99 2.44 2.36 47.24

Andover 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 1.26 0.00 0.00 129.14 130.44



Salisbury 0.05 0.09 0.13 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 176.17 177.95

Southampton 0.61 1.84 1.27 2.99 0.93 5.49 0.68 262.60 276.43Totton 0.43 1.91 0.62 0.73 4.48 0.61 0.08 20.69 29.55

Winchester 0.11 0.94 0.34 0.04 1.16 0.10 2.11 91.25 96.05

Other 0.09 1.11 0.54 0.48 2.45 0.83 0.00 n/a 5.50

Other Total 1.84 8.19 4.34 7.63 14.11 7.98 21.96 816.36 882.41

Total 7.78 16.65 9.76 12.88 28.48 10.96 24.40 818.72 929.64



32/36

3238072v3

Table 7: Proposed Tesco Store Conveience Goods Trade Draw

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Inflow Total

Main Food Trade Draw 10% 20% 15% 10% 20% 10% 10% 5% 100%

Top Up Trade Draw 15% 30% 15% 15% 15% 5% 5% 0% 100%

Main Food turnover 3.13 6.25 4.69 3.13 6.25 3.13 3.13 1.56 31.25

Top Up Turnover 0.52 1.04 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.17 0.17 0.00 3.47

Total 3.65 7.29 5.21 3.65 6.77 3.30 3.30 1.56 34.72

Tesco store's convenience turnover assumed to be 90.2% of company average = 34.72 million

90% of store turnover is main food shopping trips = 31.25

10% of store turnover is top-up shopping trips = 3.47


33/36

3238072v3

Table 8A: Main Convenience Expenditure 2015 Million - With Tesco


Expenditure 2015 6.23 13.32 7.80 10.31 22.78 8.77 19.52 88.74

Proposed Tesco 3.13 6.25 4.69 3.13 6.25 3.13 3.13 1.56 31.25

Aldi, Romsey 0.62 1.36 0.57 1.10 2.13 0.38 0.10 0.48 6.75

Waitrose, Romsey 1.40 1.98 1.10 1.63 6.01 1.20 1.72 1.23 16.28

Co-op Romsey TC 0.27 0.19 0.06 0.11 0.41 0.12 0.02 0.09 1.27Other Romsey TC 0.08 0.09 0.12 0.07 0.24 0.11 0.00 0.04 0.75

Romsey Total 5.50 9.87 6.54 6.03 15.05 4.94 4.96 3.40 56.30

Andover 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.00 121.00 121.83



Salisbury 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.00 1.03 0.00 0.00 175.80 176.94

Southampton 0.23 0.83 0.37 1.49 0.64 2.82 0.53 230.64 237.54

Totton 0.16 0.85 0.18 0.47 2.91 0.38 0.06 19.95 24.97

Winchester 0.04 0.40 0.10 0.03 0.80 0.04 1.72 89.27 92.40

Other 0.02 0.11 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.01 0.00 n/a 0.39

Other Total 0.73 3.45 1.26 4.27 7.74 3.83 14.56 751.71 787.55

Total 6.23 13.32 7.80 10.31 22.78 8.77 19.52 755.12 843.85

Table 8B: Top Up Convenience Expenditure 2015 Million - With Tesco

Centre/Facilities Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Inflow TotalExpenditure 2015 1.56 3.33 1.95 2.58 5.70 2.19 4.88 22.18

Proposed Tesco 0.52 1.04 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.17 0.17 0.00 3.47

Aldi, Romsey 0.16 0.37 0.17 0.33 0.42 0.05 0.00 0.11 1.61

Waitrose, Romsey 0.37 0.56 0.37 0.33 0.94 0.13 0.22 0.21 3.12

Co-op Romsey TC 0.21 0.11 0.07 0.10 0.40 0.05 0.04 0.08 1.06

Other Romsey TC 0.22 0.39 0.35 0.19 0.67 0.12 0.00 0.12 2.07

Romsey Total 1.47 2.48 1.49 1.47 2.94 0.53 0.43 0.52 11.33

Andover 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 7.89 7.96



Salisbury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Southampton 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.59 0.00 0.82 0.04 31.48 32.97

Totton 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.96

Winchester 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 1.79 1.86

Other 0.04 0.75 0.35 0.33 2.16 0.76 0.00 n/a 4.39

Other Total 0.08 0.85 0.46 1.11 2.76 1.66 4.45 63.09 74.46

Total 1.56 3.33 1.95 2.58 5.70 2.19 4.88 63.60 85.79

Table 8C: Combined Convenience Expenditure 2015 Million - With Tesco


Expenditure 2015 7.78 16.65 9.76 12.88 28.48 10.96 24.40 110.92

Proposed Tesco 3.65 7.29 5.21 3.65 6.77 3.30 3.30 1.56 34.72

Aldi, Romsey 0.78 1.73 0.75 1.42 2.54 0.44 0.10 0.59 8.36

Waitrose, Romsey 1.77 2.54 1.47 1.96 6.95 1.34 1.94 1.44 19.40

Co-op Romsey TC 0.47 0.31 0.13 0.21 0.82 0.17 0.05 0.17 2.33

Other Romsey TC 0.30 0.48 0.47 0.27 0.92 0.22 0.00 0.16 2.82

Romsey Total 6.97 12.35 8.03 7.50 17.99 5.47 5.39 3.92 67.63

Andover 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.00 128.88 129.79



Salisbury 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.00 1.03 0.00 0.00 175.80 176.94

Southampton 0.25 0.83 0.39 2.08 0.64 3.64 0.56 262.12 270.51Totton 0.18 0.88 0.18 0.47 3.13 0.38 0.06 20.65 25.93

Winchester 0.04 0.45 0.10 0.03 0.80 0.07 1.72 91.06 94.27

Other 0.06 0.86 0.41 0.40 2.27 0.77 0.00 n/a 4.78

Other Total 0.81 4.30 1.72 5.38 10.49 5.49 19.01 n/a 862.01

Total 7.78 16.65 9.76 12.88 28.48 10.96 24.40 3.92 929.64


34/36

3238072v3

Table 9: Romsey Town Centre Convenience Floorspace and Expected Turnover (2010 prices)

Town/Store Net Sales % Conv. Conv. Sales Turnover Sales m Total

Floorspace Sales Floorspace Sales Density Conv.

sq m Floorspace sq m net per sq m Turnover

Romsey Town Centre

Aldi, Romsey 800 80% 640 6,148 3.93

Waitrose, Romsey 1,932 95% 1,835 11,475 21.06Co-op, The Hundred, Romsey 250 98% 245 7,279 1.78

Other Romsey town centre 600 100% 600 5,000 3.00

Total 3,582 3,320 8,969 29.78

Sources: IGD Food Store Directory, Verdict 2011 and Goad Plans

Table 10: Impact Summary

2012 2015 2015 Trade Impact Benchmark Residual

Without With Diversion Turnover Turnover

Tesco Tesco Against

Benchmark

A B C D E F G

Proposed Tesco n/a n/a 34.72 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Aldi, Romsey 11.64 11.75 8.36 -3.40 -28.9% 3.93 112.4%

Waitrose, Romsey 28.60 28.88 19.40 -9.48 -32.8% 21.06 -7.9%

Co-op Romsey TC 3.34 3.35 2.33 -1.02 -30.4% 1.78 30.6%

Other Romsey TC 3.23 3.26 2.82 -0.44 -13.4% 3.00 -5.9%

Romsey Total 46.81 47.24 67.63 -14.33 -30.3% 29.78 110.5%

Andover 129.16 130.44 129.79 -0.65 -0.5% n/a n/a

Hedge End/Bursledon 129.61 133.29 127.76 -5.53 -4.1% n/a n/a

Eastleigh/Chandler's Ford 32.55 33.19 32.04 -1.15 -3.5% n/a n/a

Salisbury 176.39 177.95 176.94 -1.02 -0.6% n/a n/a

Southampton 272.04 276.43 270.51 -5.92 -2.1% n/a n/a

Totton 29.20 29.55 25.93 -3.62 -12.3% n/a n/a

Winchester 93.83 96.05 94.27 -1.78 -1.9% n/a n/a

Other 5.42 5.50 4.78 -0.72 -13.1% n/a n/a

Other Total 868.21 882.41 862.01 -20.39 -2.3%

Total 915.02 929.64 929.64 -34.72 -3.7%

Sources: Tables 1 to 9


35/36

3238072v3


36/36

Documents

NLP_Retail_Critique_january15_13_Final.pdf