The Principal Planning Officer introduced the report which provided the evidence base to assist in the formulation of future development plan policy, as well as providing baseline information to assist in the determination of planning applications for retail and leisure development.  The Assessment superseded the previous 2010 Retail and Town Centre Study.

Specialist consultants were commissioned to assess the retail and commercial leisure needs for the Borough up to the period 2037/8.  As part of the brief they also looked at the ‘health’ of the town centres and reviewed the retail hierarchy.  She drew attention to the key findings and recommendations set out from page 116 of the report.  She summarised the findings and reported that there was capacity for additional convenience floorspace in Sittingbourne and Sheerness, but not for Faversham; and there was capacity for additional comparision (non-food) floorspace in Sittingbourne, Sheerness and Faversham, and they had identified capacity for between 7 and 9 gyms.  The consultants concluded that the health of the town centres was good, with a range of shops and services, facilities, state of the environment, and access to and within the centres.  However, for a number of reasons, including the unpredictability of the retail sector, they considered the good health of the Borough’s town centres was in the balance.  They had consequently recommended that the Council adopted a locally set threshold of 500 square metres, instead of 2,500 square metres set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) before the requirement for a retail impact assessment set in.  So any applications that came in for retail or leisure on sites not in the town centre, those larger than 500 square metres would need an impact assessment.  At the moment only schemes of 2,500 square metres required an impact assessment.  This lower threshold would give the Council the flexibility needed to test the impact implications of edge of centre proposals of both leisure and retail.  The Principal Planning Officer also reported that other information provided was the current retail hierarchy set out in Policy DM2 of Bearing Fruits.  She explained that in Swale there were two levels of centres:  the town centres were the primary focus, with a number of local centres meeting the day-to-day needs of local communities.  The consultants had concluded that Rushenden should be removed from the hierarchy as it did not function in the way that other local centres did because it did not have their range of facilities.  They had also recommended ‘tweaks’ to the town centre boundaries and to the primary shopping areas to better reflect what was on the ground, i.e. where there was a concentration of retail.

The Principal Planning Officer summarised and explained that the information in the study provided base-line evidence for the town centre and for retail policies for the Local Plan Review.  She read out the recommendations and stated that these would be used as a tool in advance of progressing with the Local Plan.

The Chairman invited Members’ comments on the key findings and recommendations.  He added that flexible policies were needed going forward to allow for progress.

A Member referred to page 118 of the report – Indoor Sport/Health & Fitness, and stated that there was no evidence base for a music venue, it was not asked in the questions and considered this had been severely missed, and added that one was needed in the Borough.  He read out the responses for the need for a cinema (24%) and those wanting 10-pin bowling (17%), the second most popular facility and questioned why this had been dismissed, and with only 1% wanting gym facilities, but a need for 7 to 9 additional gyms had been identified.  The Principal Planning Officer explained that a key factor in determining what facilities were needed was by the current presence of a facility within the vicinity, plus the travel times to that facility.  There was a measure for the demand for the facility needed before it became viable.

A Member suggested that the cinema could be used for other activities and suggested the door be ‘left open’ for a potential alternative use in the future.  She referred to paragraph 2.18, and asked what town centres were competing against, whether other local towns or larger shopping centres, or the Internet?

She suggested this information was needed so that policy could be set.  The Member also sought clarification in paragraph 2.16 about what was meant by retail service units? Also, with regard to the 500 square metres, she asked for an example of that size building in the town centre for comparison.  She considered that if a use fell under that threshold that there could be proliferation of drive-thru facilities, which she spoke against.  The Principal Planning Officer explained that competition, referred to in paragraph 2.18 referred to the main centres respondents mentioned in the questionnaire responses.  The Borough was not able to compete with ‘higher order’ town centres, but the Borough had its own uniqueness, and remained competitive to similar town centres within the Borough and nearby.  She explained that retail services were those providing a particular service, for example beauty.  The same Member referred to page 124 of the report and considered there was a shortage, not over-supply of car parking.  She considered reference to the perception of safety and CCTV needed to be checked, following the decision made by Full Council on the CCTV cameras within the Borough.  The Principal Planning Officer provided a comparison of 1100 square metres for a small supermarket in Sittingbourne, in relation to the 500 square meters threshold.  She explained in terms of car parking, that as there was not a pool of shops in Swale to attract people, it was still possible to increase the ‘health’ of a town centre by encouraging people to stay longer.  The car parking strategy would also be looked at as part of the Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG).  The Spatial Planning Manager explained that there had been a briefing on this and a draft would be submitted to the Panel, possibly in June 2019.

A Visiting Member considered that although the Panel was asked to note the report, it did not necessarily mean that Members agreed with it.  He considered that some of the recommendations from page 116 were ‘way out of order’.  He thought the Local Plan must look at specific policies to retain more people in Swale, rather than residents using facilities outside the Borough, and to increase the level of comparison shopping inside the Borough.

The Principal Planning Officer reminded Members that this was evidence, not policy, to get details and direction.

Another Visiting Member referred to paragraph 2.15 in the report and considered the primary shopping area in Faversham should be widened to include up to Abbey Street and include the library on Newton Road, and the two town supermarkets to give a better sense of where people were and their journeys.

A Member referred to paragraph 12.5.3 on page 122 of the report (and a typing error) and the changes in the town centre boundaries around residential properties and the implication of that?  The Principal Planning Officer explained that the National Planning Practice Guidance review of town centre boundaries reflected what was happening in respect to residential areas within town centres.  She explained that the sentence should read  ‘….main town centre uses….’.

A Visiting Member noted that the Government’s findings on retail space/commercial space were a lot more pessimistic than the figures within the report, and he hoped these figures were correct.  He acknowledged having retail policies, and subsequently drew attention to the loss of retail facilities in villages.

A Member asked why a small supermarket was not included within the Primary Shopping Area in Sittingbourne?  The Principal Planning Officer explained that the Primary Shopping Area included areas where retail was concentrated.  The benefit of a tighter Primary Shopping Area boundary was that it gave more flexibility when looking at opportunities for the whole town.  The Member considered by excluding the supermarket, and making it a residential area, made this use weaker to sustain.  The Principal Planning Officer explained that this approach was taken so not as to put ‘all the eggs in one basket’.  She said that it was a balancing act, and the shopping area needed to stay vibrant, with areas of non-retail use as well.

Recommended:

(1)      That the content of the Retail and Leisure Needs Assessment Study be noted as part of the Local Plan Review evidence base to be used in shaping the planning strategies for the Borough’s town centres and town centre policies.

(2)      That Cabinet adopts, as a material consideration, a local threshold of 500 square metres for retail/leisure floorspace proposals outside of designated centres to require an impact assessment of the proposal as set out in paragraph 89 of the NPPF.