RETAIL

10th December 2003

REPORT

To consider the policy framework for retailing throughout the Borough

The Key Issues Paper published in July 2003 also canvassed views on five principal themes in respect of retailing in order to inform the review process, these were:

• Relevance of current adopted local plan objectives;

• Protection of mixed use to promote a vibrant and vital town centre;

• The need to protect primary shopping frontages;

• The need (if any)to identify sites for out-of-centre retailing; and

• The protection of local shopping facilities.

There were over 130 responses received on these issues.

Question 4.1

Are these objectives still relevant in the Plan review? If not, how should they be amended?

Officer Response

The broad consensus appears to support the key objectives outlined in the retail section of the current plan. However, there are concerns expressed over the recent growth of competing centres such as Telford and Birmingham's Bull Ring and the potential leakages which may occur if further out-of-town retailing is discouraged. These are matters which are addressed in the retail capacity study in terms of both quantity and quality of provision wherein it is accepted that in order to sustain and enhance its retail offer, Shrewsbury must accommodate further retail growth.

The issue of encouraging greater flexibility on primary, secondary and tertiary retail frontages is addressed in response to question 4.3 and draws upon advice in the Retail Capacity Study. The suggested release of protected employment sites for retailing, will be considered in relation to Question 3.5 of the Key Issues Paper, though it should be noted that national planning guidance is advocating a more liberal approach to the loss of employment land in favour of residential.

It is therefore recommended that the key objectives be retained in the plan review, subject to the first bullet points being amended to read "enhance" rather than "support".

Question 4.2

Officer Response

Despite the general view that current policies are seeking to protect mixed use in the town centre, several respondents see the potential to enhance the vitality and viability by additional measures. These include the encouragement of further retail floorspace, greater promotion of the evening economy, more traffic restrictions/calming, additional small, independent shops and further pedestrianisation. These issues are addressed in the emerging Town Centre Strategy, but the long term future of the town centre is of paramount concern if it is to enhance its role as a sub-regional shopping destination. It is considered that subject to the promotion of several new initiatives such as the new entertainment venue, the town centre 'mix' is about right and provides scope and opportunity for a wide range of uses whilst protecting established core areas such as residential for town centre living.

Question 4.3

Officer Response

The majority view seems to favour the retention of a protective policy on prime retail frontages though this is not supported by the consultants that prepared the Retail Capacity Study. They advocate a more flexible approach in terms of allowing additional non-retail uses in the prime shopping area (ie Pride Hill) in order to encourage a greater vitality of the main thoroughfare. At the present time, the proportion of retail uses is about 80% but the consultants feel that this could justifiably be reduced to 65% - 70%. Alternative uses might include cafes/restaurants, which would add to the ambience of Pride Hill and create some activity after shopping hours. This would not be seen as detracting from the retail character of Pride Hill, but could potentially introduce greater vitality and vibrancy to the street-scene.

A further recommendation made by consultants is that the primary frontages on Mardol Head and High Street should be deleted and this is broadly accepted.

Question 4.4

Officer Response

Despite some views which question the need for any additional out-of-centre retailing in Shrewsbury, the general consensus appears to favour the expansion of current retail parks as opposed to the creation of new facilities. Added to this are specific proposals for retailing from British Telecommunications Plc (land at Harlescott Lane), Alaska Property Group (Sundorne/Meole Brace Retail Parks) and J Ross (Vanguard Way). In this regard, only the Alaska proposals meet the test of being situated adjacent to existing retail parks, though it should be noted that the long-awaited decision on the Tesco re-location to the Council's livestock market site may present another option to be assessed. On the issue of out-of-town 'retail bungalows', this is a matter of preferred format, though some retail parks are now witnessing the introduction of 'mezzanine' levels to increase floorspace.

Question 4.5

Officer Response

Two separate issues have been highlighted in the responses, one relating to the protection of local neighbourhood shopping in the Shrewsbury Urban Area and the other protection of village shops. Both are relevant but the current policy in the adopted local plan under S3 principally seeks to protect such services in the suburban context. Hence, it is recommended that a stronger policy framework is adopted for any potential losses of village shops as well as a positive policy for promoting further changes of uses to shops/post offices in the rural area.

Retail General

Officer response

There are a number of issues highlighted in these responses, most of which are addressed in the Retail Capacity Study, (eg assessments of 'need') but several will be examined in respect of the emerging Town Centre Strategy. The vision and role of the town centre are of particular relevance to the emerging plan review and it is accepted that the plan may benefit from a separate action area plan for the town centre with a detailed policy framework embracing the full range of land uses, not just retail.

RESOLVED:

That a core policy framework be developed in respect of retailing to include the following key principles: -

1. To retain the current objectives contained in the adopted local plan; subject to the first bullet point being amend to read "enhance" rather than "support";

2. To delete the "secondary shopping streets" policy in the plan review;

3. To amend the "primary shopping frontage" policy to maintain 70% of A1 retain uses;

4. To develop two separate policies relating to protection of local neighbourhood shops in the Shrewsbury Urban Area and the protection of village shops;

5. To promote a medium sized foodstore of up to 3,000 sq metres (gross) in the town centre;

6. To identify a site(s) for edge or out of centre bulky goods retailing of up to 10,300 sq metres (gross);

7. To retain the wording of Policy S6 of the adopted local plan subject to the policy including and additional criteria in relation to "demonstration of need" in quantitative terms and being re-titled to read "edge of centre and out of centre retailing";

8. To retain Policy S7 of the adopted plan which supports new village shops;

9. To retain Policies S8 and S9 of the adopted plan in respect of farm shops/nurseries/garden centres subject to the inclusion of conditions on the range of goods sold;

10. To retain Policy S10 of the adopted local plan in respect of open air/street markets.