Tesco objects to Sainsburys Application, Files objection with Rutland County Council after consultation end date This will be an interesting one to follow knowing the desperate need Rutland County Council has for the cash from the sale of the college site. I don't believe the council cares which supermarket is built and
I am sure it has instructed the Rutland Times not to repeat its gift story again, the one that possibly caused
the pull out by Waitrose.
I am not the town can support another supermarket, it certainly need competitive trading.
You only to look to Stamford to see what happens when you have to many supermarkets.
Sainsbury relaunched the few times I have shopped in that new store I found it dead worse than
our Co-op.
Tesco is suggesting it will not extend its store if Sainsbury gets the green light.
Tesco
P.O. Box 400
Cirrus Building B
Shire Park
Welwyn Garden City
Hertfordshire
AL7 1AB
15th February 2013
Mr Patrick Gear
Rutland County Council
Catmose
Oakham
Rutland
LE15 6HP
Dear Mr Gear,
Re: Former Rutland County College, Barleythorpe Road, Oakham
We are writing in relation to the above application which we understand is due to be
considered at Committee shortly. We wish to make the following representations to the
application which we consider to be contrary to national policy, and since the proposed
development has not been rigorously tested against these policies we fail to understand how
the committee can resolve to grant planning permission.
We are concerned that the proposed J Sainsbury store will affect our store in Oakham and
this will have a detrimental impact on the rest of Oakham town centre which benefits from its
proximity to our store.
We are also concerned that the material prepared to support the planning application,
particularly the Retail Impact Assessment is not sufficiently robust to demonstrate that the
proposed development should be permitted contrary to the Government’s town centre first
policy.
The fact is that this is an out of centre site divorced from the town centre by the strong
barrier of the railway line.
We summarise below our views on the retail impact issues arising from the proposed
development and that leads us to conclude that the Retail Impact Assessment undertaken in
support of the application underestimates the retail consequences of the development on
Oakham.
The Supporting Retail Assessment refers to the Rutland Core Strategy July 2011 which
identifies between 1,838 to 2,234 sqm new additional food retailing up to 2026. These figures
are derived from the Rutland Retail Capacity Assessment (April 2010). The Tesco extension of
1,833sq m was granted planning permission in March 2011 and was not a retail commitment
until after the Capacity Assessment and therefore this permitted floorspace has to be taken
off the capacity figures in the Core Strategy which the applicants Retail Impact Assessment
relies so heavily on.
We applied to extend our store as we recognised the need to improve our offer for
customers, and stem the leakage of trade from the town and satisfy the need which had
been identified. We are committed to this scheme, however due to the uncertainty resulting
from the application at the College site this has delayed us making a decision and it has been
held in abeyance until there is further clarity on the retail position in Oakham.
The Retail Impact Assessment estimates trade draw of £1 mill worth of convenience and
comparison goods, representing a figure of 2.2% impact on the town centre.
The Retail Impact Assessment is however based on incorrect information as identified
abovein relation to the capacity position and its conclusion therefore on the level of impact
on Oakham must be seriously flawed and in our view significantly underestimates the likely
impact.
It is stated in the applicants Assessment that the principal sources of customer attraction to
the new store will be from the Tesco and Co-op and anticipates an impact on the Tesco of
27.1%. What it fails to acknowledge is any consequential loss in town centre trade resulting
from the inevitable reduction in linked trips. Having identified this significant level of impact
on our store it ignores the fact that there are strong linkages with the adjacent centre, and
identifies a figure of only 2.2% impact on the town centre. The Retail Impact Assessment
should have regard to the reduction in town centre turnover, when the adjacent edge of
centre foodstore is being impacted upon so severely.
While the benefits of linked trips from our store are ignored, the Retail Assessment claims
the impact of the new store on the town centre will be partly offset by potential, but
unquantified, linked trips to the town centre from the College site. There is of course the
likelihood that customers will just visit the store by car and not visit the town as well. In
particular given the physical and psychological barrier of the railway line.
The Retail Assessment submitted in support of the application also refers to the Rutland
Retail Capacity Assessment in relation to trade leakage and notes that Oakham loses 50% of
its trade to other centres further afield at Stamford, Melton Mowbray and Market
Harborough. The Assessment was however, as has been mentioned, undertaken before our
extension was granted in March 2011, and it was recognised at the time this would help
significantly in stemming the current trade leakage
.
The Retail Assessment on behalf of the applicant pays scant regard to the Tesco extension
which represents at least a 60% uplift in sales area, stating that it is merely designed to cater
for the overtrading and provide a wider range of comparison goods, rather than stem the
significant leakage which clearly it would do. As already mentioned it was recognised
previously by Officers that the extension would strengthen competition with the surrounding
centres and minimise the outflow of expenditure
.
Set out below is a quote from the Officers Report to the Planning Committee dated 8th
November 2010 in relation to the Tesco exrension, which illustrates the point about the
clawback of leakage and the importance of the role of the store in the town centre and how
the extension would enhance its role and improve the vitality and viability of the centre;
It is considered that the existing Tesco store has a positive impact on the vitality and
viability of Oakham town centre, and that the extended store will provide a much wider offer
which will have a further positive impact on this vitality and viability. This is because it would
allow for ‘clawback’ of expenditure currently being lost to other large convenience stores
outside Oakham. The location of the store is such that retailers in Oakham should also benefit
from increased linked trips as a result.’
(Page 17, bullet point 3.)
Summary and Conclusion
Our objection to this application is based on National policy grounds and the failure to
demonstrate that the proposal meets retail policy tests in relation to the impact on Oakham
town centre. The applicants case relies heavily on flawed information and their conclusions
cannot be relied upon; they choose to have little regard to the permission for the Tesco
extension which is a commitment and should therefore be taken into account, and ignore the
implications of this in relation to the floorspace capacity position and the ability to claw back
trade from competing facilities.
It is acknowledged that the proposal will draw heavily from the Tesco store, identifying at
least 25% impact, however there is no recognition of the resultant loss of linked trips to the
town centre, an aspect which is blatantly ignored. In contrast reference is made to the
possibility of linked trips from the College site which will help to offset its impact.
We are very concerned with the reliability of their conclusions, and would strongly urge
Officers to recommend refusal of the application.
We would like to reserve the right to add to or amend these representations in relation to
further considerations coming to light between now and the determination of the
application, in particular following publication of the Committee Report.
Yours sincerely
Louise Ford
Town Planning Executive
For & on behalf Tesco
| Reference number | APP/2012/0665 | Application Type | Major Application Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Site address | The Rutland College Barleythorpe Road Oakham Rutland LE15 6QH |
Proposal | Demolition of vacant college buildings and erection of a retail store (use class A1), car parking, servicing, recycling facility, biomass boiler, landscaping and associated highway works including the creation of a new access road to Lonsdale House and new roundabout at junction of Barleythorpe Road and Lands End Way. |
| Received Date | 11/09/2012 | Valid date | 11/09/2012 |
| Status | Pending Decision | Decision date | |
| Committee Type | Delegated | Committee Date | |
| Agent name | Mr Tim Waring | Case Officer | Patrick Gear |
| Agent address | Toronto Square Leeds LS1 2HJ |
Applicant name | Mr Tim Waring |
| Calculated Fee | 17865.00 | Parish | OAKHAM |
| Eastings | 485513.99 | Northings | 309305.92 |
| Consultation Start Date | 17/09/2012 | Consultation End Date | 07/11/2012 |
