Tesco Retail Critique Test Valley Borough Council 15 January 2013 10994/04

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 Wharf All 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

Test Valley Borough Council : Tesco Retail Critique

Contents
1.0 2.0 Introduction 1

Data and Assumptions 3 Introduction ...............................................................................................3 Introduction ...............................................................................................3 Catchment Area .........................................................................................3 Design Year and Price Base ........................................................................4 Population .................................................................................................4 Available Expenditure .................................................................................5 Proposed Store Turnover.............................................................................5 Existing Floorspace Turnovers (Survey Derived Turnover) ................................6 Trade Diversion..........................................................................................6 National Planning Policy Framework Requirements 7 Introduction ...............................................................................................7 Retail Impact and Need ..............................................................................7 The Sequential Approach to Site Selection....................................................7 Retail Impact 9 Convenience Goods Trade Diversion and Impact ...........................................9 Indirect Impact and Linked Shopping Trips..................................................11 Comparison Goods Trade Diversion and Impact...........................................12 Claw back of Expenditure Leakage .............................................................13 Other Socio-Economic Impacts ..................................................................14 Summary of Impact Analysis .....................................................................14 Sequential Approach 16 Introduction .............................................................................................16 Analysis of Alternative Sites ......................................................................17 Summary of Sequential Analysis ................................................................18 Conclusion and Recommendation 20 Retail Impact ...........................................................................................20 Sequential Approach ................................................................................20

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

Appendix A Convenience Assessment

3238072v3

1.0

Introduction
Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners (NLP) has been instructed by Test Valley Borough Council (TVBC) to review the Planning and Retail Statement (PRS) prepared by Alsop Verrill (AV) in support of a planning application for a new Tesco food store at the Fairground Site in Romsey. 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.

1.1

1.2

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 m net 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.

3238072v3

P1

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. This chapter analyses the methodology and assumptions underpinning the Impact Assessment.

2.2

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. 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.

2.4

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. 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). 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

2.7

2.8

3238072v3

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 Expenditure
2.9

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. The growth rates adopted by AV to project expenditure up to 2012 and 2015 are consistent with NLPs adopted figures. AV has not over-estimated expenditure per person within the study area.

2.10

2.11

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 the store will trade at 90.2% of the company average at 2015. 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. 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. 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

2.13

2.14

2.15

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. 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. We have reassessed shopping patterns based on the survey results later in this report.

2.18

2.19

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 Co-op, Romsey Aldi, Romsey Other Romsey town centre Elsewhere

= 5.541m = 0.162m = 1.457m = 0.101m = 19.800m = 27.061m

Total
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. To address these concerns, we have undertaken our own retail impact assessment in Section 4, based on the household survey results.

2.22

3238072v3

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 development proposal 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. 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. 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; 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.

3.3

3.4

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. 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.

3.6

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

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. The applicant must demonstrate appropriate flexibility and consider whether a smaller store could be accommodated on more central sites. 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. The proposed development is not within the town centre and is not in accordance 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.

3.9

3.10

3.11

3238072v3

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. 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. 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. The estimated market shares for main and top up shopping area shown in Tables 4A and 4B respectively. 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. 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 trading over 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). 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.

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

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 figures we have assumed the store will trade at 90.2% of the company average at 2015 (34.72 million). 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). 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%. 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. 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). 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. 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.

4.11

4.12

4.13

4.14

4.15

4.16

3238072v3

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 shops could 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

4.18

4.19

4.20

4.21

3238072v3

11

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. 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). As well as diverting linked trips from the town centre the proposed Tesco store is 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. 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. 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 lost linked 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.

4.23

4.24

4.25

4.26

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. We estimate that the comparison turnover of the proposed Tesco food store could be 7.32 million, see Section 2.

4.28

3238072v3

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. NLPs Test Valley Retail Study update 2012 estimates that the comparison goods 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%. 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 is unlikely 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. 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.

4.30

4.31

4.32

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. 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.

4.34

3238072v3

13

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

4.36

4.37

4.38

4.39

Summary of Impact Analysis

4.40

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. 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

4.41

3238072v3

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

4.43

3238072v3

15

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. 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. AV indicates a store of the size proposed will normally require a site of 2.5 hectares, 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. 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 provide a commercially viable store. 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. 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.

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5

5.6

3238072v3

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, the sequential sites and the football ground site to the east of the application site. 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. 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. 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 be provided, as follows: 1 2 3 4 Romsey Bus Station/Broadwater Road car park and Aldi car park; Crosfield Hall/Edwina Mountbatten House; Broadwater Road/Banning Street residential area; and Former Strongs Brewery.

5.8

5.9

5.10

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. 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. 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. 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

5.12

5.13

5.14

3238072v3

17

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. 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:

5.16

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. NLPs main reservations about the site relate to its availability for retail development, the provision of suitable road access and highway impacts. The applicants EIA in addition to the sequential sites above consider one other alternative 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. 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 socioeconomic factors are assessed in the previous section.

5.18

5.19

5.20

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.

3238072v3

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

5.23

3238072v3

19

6.0

Conclusion and Recommendation

Retail Impact

6.1

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. 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. 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. 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.

6.2

6.3

6.4

Sequential Approach
6.5 6.6

AV has reviewed a number of sites within and around Romsey town centre. 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. 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. The application site is superior in sequential terms when compared with the football ground site, because it is better connected to the town centre.

6.7

6.8

3238072v3

3238072v3

21

Appendix A

Convenience Assessment

3238072v3

Table 1: Population Projections Zone Area Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Total 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: Romsey West Romsey Northeast Romsey Southeast North Baddesley Romsey Rural Chilworth, Rownhams, Nursling Valley park, Knightswood, Chandler's Ford 2012 4,401 8,570 5,153 7,039 12,878 5,181 12,644 55,866 2015 4,244 8,769 5,156 7,079 12,940 5,270 13,049 56,507

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

Expenditure Per Capita 2012 2015

Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone

1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7:

Romsey West Romsey Northeast Romsey Southeast North Baddesley Romsey Rural Chilworth, Rownhams, Nursling Valley park, Knightswood, Chandler's Ford

1,826 1,891 1,883 1,811 2,191 2,070 1,862

1,834 1,899 1,892 1,820 2,201 2,080 1,870

3238072v3

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

Zone 2012 2015

Total - Main and Top Up Zone 1: Romsey West Zone 2: Romsey Northeast Zone 3: Romsey Southeast Zone 4: North Baddesley Zone 5: Romsey Rural Zone 6: Chilworth, Rownhams, Nursling Zone 7: Valley park, Knightswood, Chandler's Ford
Total

8.04 16.21 9.70 12.75 28.22 10.72 23.54 109.18 6.43 12.96 7.76 10.20 22.57 8.58 18.83 87.34 1.61 3.24 1.94 2.55 5.64 2.14 4.71 21.84

7.78 16.65 9.76 12.88 28.48 10.96 24.40 110.92 6.23 13.32 7.80 10.31 22.78 8.77 19.52 88.74 1.56 3.33 1.95 2.58 5.70 2.19 4.88 22.18

Main Trips (80%) Zone 1: Romsey West Zone 2: Romsey Northeast Zone 3: Romsey Southeast Zone 4: North Baddesley Zone 5: Romsey Rural Zone 6: Chilworth, Rownhams, Nursling Zone 7: Valley park, Knightswood, Chandler's Ford
Total

Top-up Trips (20%) Zone 1: Romsey West Zone 2: Romsey Northeast Zone 3: Romsey Southeast Zone 4: North Baddesley Zone 5: Romsey Rural Zone 6: Chilworth, Rownhams, Nursling Zone 7: Valley park, Knightswood, Chandler's Ford
Total

3238072v3

Table 4A: Centre/Facilities Aldi, Romsey Waitrose, Romsey Co-op Romsey TC Other Romsey TC Romsey Total Andover Hedge End/Bursledon Eastleigh/Chandler's Ford Salisbury Southampton Totton Winchester Other Other Total Market Share Total Source:

Main Food Trip Convenience Shopping Penetration Rates 2012 Zone 1 17.0% 46.2% 7.3% 1.6% 72.1% 0.0% 7.8% 1.0% 0.8% 9.4% 6.5% 1.8% 0.6% 27.9% Zone 2 16.1% 27.3% 2.3% 0.8% 46.5% 0.3% 15.4% 1.3% 0.7% 13.8% 14.1% 6.6% 1.3% 53.5% Zone 3 13.9% 34.3% 1.4% 2.0% 51.6% 0.0% 13.1% 4.0% 1.7% 15.9% 8.0% 4.3% 1.4% 48.4% Zone 4 13.9% 22.4% 1.4% 0.8% 38.5% 0.0% 26.9% 3.7% 0.0% 22.4% 7.1% 0.4% 1.0% 61.5% Zone 5 11.8% 35.7% 2.3% 1.2% 51.0% 5.2% 4.4% 4.4% 6.6% 4.1% 18.6% 5.1% 0.6% 49.0% Zone 6 5.9% 20.3% 1.8% 1.4% 29.4% 0.0% 8.2% 1.8% 0.0% 52.6% 7.0% 0.8% 0.2% 70.6% Zone 7 0.6% 10.4% 0.1% 0.0% 11.1% 0.0% 68.1% 6.3% 0.0% 3.3% 0.4% 10.8% 0.0% 88.9% Inflow 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 99.0% 80.0% 90.0% 99.0% 95.0% 70.0% 95.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

NEMS household survey July 2012

Table 4B: Centre/Facilities Aldi, Romsey Waitrose, Romsey Co-op Romsey TC Other Romsey TC Romsey Total Andover Hedge End/Bursledon Eastleigh/Chandler's Ford Salisbury Southampton Totton Winchester Other Other Total Market Share Total Source:

Top Up Food Trip Convenience Shopping Penetration Rates 2012 Zone 1 15.9% 36.4% 23.8% 17.5% 93.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 1.6% 0.0% 3.2% 6.4% Zone 2 18.4% 28.2% 6.8% 14.6% 68.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 1.9% 28.1% 32.0% Zone 3 13.6% 28.8% 6.8% 22.0% 71.2% 0.0% 5.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 22.0% 28.8% Zone 4 17.6% 17.7% 5.9% 8.8% 50.0% 0.0% 8.8% 0.0% 0.0% 26.5% 0.0% 0.0% 14.7% 50.0% Zone 5 8.4% 18.9% 8.4% 12.6% 48.3% 1.4% 5.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.2% 0.0% 40.6% 51.8% Zone 6 2.9% 7.1% 2.9% 5.7% 18.6% 0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 0.0% 1.4% 37.1% 81.4% Zone 7 0.0% 4.8% 0.8% 0.0% 5.6% 0.0% 93.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.4% Inflow 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 99.0% 80.0% 90.0% 95.0% 95.0% 70.0% 95.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

NEMS household survey July 2012

3238072v3

Table 5A: Centre/Facilities Expenditure 2012 Aldi, Romsey Waitrose, Romsey Co-op Romsey TC Other Romsey TC Romsey Total Andover Hedge End/Bursledon Eastleigh/Chandler's Ford Salisbury Southampton Totton Winchester Other Other Total Total
Sources:

Main Convenience Expenditure 2012 Million Zone 1 6.43 1.09 2.97 0.47 0.10 4.64 0.00 0.50 0.06 0.05 0.60 0.42 0.12 0.04 1.79 6.43 Zone 2 12.96 2.09 3.54 0.30 0.10 6.03 0.04 2.00 0.17 0.09 1.79 1.83 0.86 0.17 6.94 12.96 Zone 3 7.76 1.08 2.66 0.11 0.16 4.01 0.00 1.02 0.31 0.13 1.23 0.62 0.33 0.11 3.76 7.76 Zone 4 10.20 1.42 2.28 0.14 0.08 3.93 0.00 2.74 0.38 0.00 2.28 0.72 0.04 0.10 6.27 10.20 Zone 5 22.57 2.66 8.06 0.52 0.27 11.51 1.17 0.99 0.99 1.49 0.93 4.20 1.15 0.14 11.06 22.57 Zone 6 8.58 0.51 1.74 0.15 0.12 2.52 0.00 0.70 0.15 0.00 4.51 0.60 0.07 0.02 6.06 8.58 Zone 7 18.83 0.11 1.96 0.02 0.00 2.09 0.00 12.83 1.19 0.00 0.62 0.08 2.03 0.00 16.74 18.83 Inflow 0.47 1.22 0.09 0.04 1.83 120.05 83.12 29.29 174.63 227.47 19.75 87.40 n/a 741.72 743.55 Total 87.34 9.43 24.44 1.80 0.88 36.55 121.27 103.91 32.55 176.39 239.44 28.22 92.00 0.57 794.34 830.89

Table 3 and Table 4A

Table 5B: Centre/Facilities Expenditure 2012 Aldi, Romsey Waitrose, Romsey Co-op Romsey TC Other Romsey TC Romsey Total Andover Hedge End/Bursledon Eastleigh/Chandler's Ford Salisbury Southampton Totton Winchester Other Other Total Total
Sources:

Top Up Convenience Expenditure 2012 Million Zone 1 1.61 0.26 0.59 0.38 0.28 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.10 1.61 Zone 2 3.24 0.60 0.91 0.22 0.47 2.20 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.91 1.04 3.24 Zone 3 1.94 0.26 0.56 0.13 0.43 1.38 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.56 1.94 Zone 4 2.55 0.45 0.45 0.15 0.22 1.27 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.37 1.27 2.55 Zone 5 5.64 0.47 1.07 0.47 0.71 2.72 0.08 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 2.29 2.92 5.65 Zone 6 2.14 0.06 0.15 0.06 0.12 0.40 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.03 0.80 1.75 2.15 Zone 7 4.71 0.00 0.23 0.04 0.00 0.26 0.00 4.41 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.44 4.71 Inflow 0.11 0.21 0.08 0.12 0.51 7.81 20.56 0.00 0.00 30.97 0.69 1.74 n/a 61.78 62.29 Total 21.84 2.21 4.16 1.54 2.36 10.27 7.89 25.70 0.00 0.00 32.60 0.98 1.83 4.85 73.86 84.13

Table 3 and Table 4A

Table 5C: Centre/Facilities Expenditure 2012 Aldi, Romsey Waitrose, Romsey Co-op Romsey TC Other Romsey TC Romsey Total Andover Hedge End/Bursledon Eastleigh/Chandler's Ford Salisbury Southampton Totton Winchester Other Other Total Total
Sources:

Combined Convenience Expenditure 2012 Million Zone 1 8.04 1.35 3.56 0.85 0.38 6.14 0.00 0.50 0.06 0.05 0.63 0.44 0.12 0.09 1.90 8.04 Zone 2 16.21 2.68 4.45 0.52 0.58 8.23 0.04 2.03 0.17 0.09 1.79 1.86 0.92 1.08 7.97 16.21 Zone 3 9.70 1.34 3.22 0.24 0.58 5.39 0.00 1.12 0.31 0.13 1.27 0.62 0.33 0.54 4.32 9.70 Zone 4 12.75 1.87 2.74 0.29 0.31 5.20 0.00 2.97 0.38 0.00 2.96 0.72 0.04 0.48 7.55 12.75 Zone 5 28.22 3.14 9.12 0.99 0.98 14.24 1.25 1.31 0.99 1.49 0.93 4.44 1.15 2.43 13.98 28.22 Zone 6 10.72 0.57 1.89 0.22 0.24 2.92 0.00 0.77 0.15 0.00 5.37 0.60 0.10 0.81 7.80 10.73 Zone 7 23.54 0.11 2.18 0.06 0.00 2.35 0.00 17.23 1.19 0.00 0.66 0.08 2.03 0.00 21.19 23.54 Inflow 0.58 1.43 0.17 0.16 2.34 127.87 103.69 29.29 174.63 258.44 20.44 89.14 0.00 803.50 805.84 Total 109.18 11.64 28.60 3.34 3.23 46.81 129.16 129.61 32.55 176.39 272.04 29.20 93.83 5.42 868.21 915.02

Table 3 and Table 4A

3238072v3

Table 6A: Centre/Facilities Expenditure 2015 Aldi, Romsey Waitrose, Romsey Co-op Romsey TC Other Romsey TC Romsey Total Andover Hedge End/Bursledon Eastleigh/Chandler's Ford Salisbury Southampton Totton Winchester Other Other Total Total
Sources:

Main Convenience Expenditure 2015 Million - Without Tesco Zone 1 6.23 1.06 2.88 0.45 0.10 4.49 0.00 0.49 0.06 0.05 0.59 0.40 0.11 0.04 1.74 6.23 Zone 2 13.32 2.14 3.64 0.31 0.11 6.19 0.04 2.05 0.17 0.09 1.84 1.88 0.88 0.17 7.13 13.32 Zone 3 7.80 1.08 2.68 0.11 0.16 4.03 0.00 1.02 0.31 0.13 1.24 0.62 0.34 0.11 3.78 7.80 Zone 4 10.31 1.43 2.31 0.14 0.08 3.97 0.00 2.77 0.38 0.00 2.31 0.73 0.04 0.10 6.34 10.31 Zone 5 22.78 2.69 8.13 0.52 0.27 11.62 1.18 1.00 1.00 1.50 0.93 4.24 1.16 0.14 11.16 22.78 Zone 6 8.77 0.52 1.78 0.16 0.12 2.58 0.00 0.72 0.16 0.00 4.61 0.61 0.07 0.02 6.19 8.77 Zone 7 19.52 0.12 2.03 0.02 0.00 2.17 0.00 13.29 1.23 0.00 0.64 0.08 2.11 0.00 17.35 19.52 Inflow 0.48 1.23 0.09 0.04 1.84 121.25 85.39 29.87 176.17 231.12 19.99 89.46 n/a 753.27 755.12 Total 88.74 9.52 24.68 1.81 0.89 36.89 122.48 106.74 33.19 177.95 243.29 28.56 94.17 0.58 806.96 843.85

Table 3 and Table 4A

Table 6B: Centre/Facilities Expenditure 2015 Aldi, Romsey Waitrose, Romsey Co-op Romsey TC Other Romsey TC Romsey Total Andover Hedge End/Bursledon Eastleigh/Chandler's Ford Salisbury Southampton Totton Winchester Other Other Total Total
Sources:

Top Up Convenience Expenditure 2015 Million - Without Tesco Zone 1 1.56 0.25 0.57 0.37 0.27 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.05 0.10 1.56 Zone 2 3.33 0.61 0.94 0.23 0.49 2.26 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.94 1.07 3.33 Zone 3 1.95 0.27 0.56 0.13 0.43 1.39 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.56 1.95 Zone 4 2.58 0.45 0.46 0.15 0.23 1.29 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.38 1.29 2.58 Zone 5 5.70 0.48 1.08 0.48 0.72 2.75 0.08 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 2.31 2.95 5.70 Zone 6 2.19 0.06 0.16 0.06 0.12 0.41 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.03 0.81 1.78 2.19 Zone 7 4.88 0.00 0.23 0.04 0.00 0.27 0.00 4.57 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.61 4.88 Inflow 0.11 0.21 0.08 0.12 0.52 7.89 21.24 0.00 0.00 31.48 0.69 1.79 n/a 63.09 63.60 Total 22.18 2.23 4.20 1.54 2.38 10.35 7.97 26.55 0.00 0.00 33.14 0.99 1.88 4.92 75.44 85.79

Table 3 and Table 4A

Table 6C: Centre/Facilities Expenditure 2015 Aldi, Romsey Waitrose, Romsey Co-op Romsey Other Romsey Romsey Total Andover Hedge End/Bursledon Eastleigh/Chandler's Ford Salisbury Southampton Totton Winchester Other Other Total Total
Sources:

Combined Convenience Expenditure 2015 Million - Without Tesco Zone 1 7.78 1.31 3.44 0.83 0.37 5.95 0.00 0.49 0.06 0.05 0.61 0.43 0.11 0.09 1.84 7.78 Zone 2 16.65 2.76 4.58 0.53 0.59 8.46 0.04 2.08 0.17 0.09 1.84 1.91 0.94 1.11 8.19 16.65 Zone 3 9.76 1.35 3.24 0.24 0.59 5.42 0.00 1.12 0.31 0.13 1.27 0.62 0.34 0.54 4.34 9.76 Zone 4 12.88 1.89 2.76 0.30 0.31 5.26 0.00 3.00 0.38 0.00 2.99 0.73 0.04 0.48 7.63 12.88 Zone 5 28.48 3.17 9.21 1.00 0.99 14.37 1.26 1.32 1.00 1.50 0.93 4.48 1.16 2.45 14.11 28.48 Zone 6 10.96 0.58 1.94 0.22 0.25 2.99 0.00 0.78 0.16 0.00 5.49 0.61 0.10 0.83 7.98 10.96 Zone 7 24.40 0.12 2.26 0.06 0.00 2.44 0.00 17.86 1.23 0.00 0.68 0.08 2.11 0.00 21.96 24.40 Inflow 0.59 1.44 0.17 0.16 2.36 129.14 106.63 29.87 176.17 262.60 20.69 91.25 n/a 816.36 818.72 Total 110.92 11.75 28.88 3.35 3.26 47.24 130.44 133.29 33.19 177.95 276.43 29.55 96.05 5.50 882.41 929.64

Table 3 and Table 4A

3238072v3

Table 7:

Proposed Tesco Store Conveience Goods Trade Draw Zone 1 Zone 2 20% 30% Zone 3 15% 15% Zone 4 10% 15% Zone 5 20% 15% Zone 6 10% 5% Zone 7 10% 5% Inflow 5% 0% Total 100% 100%

Main Food Trade Draw Top Up Trade Draw

10% 15%

Main Food turnover Top Up Turnover Total

3.13 0.52 3.65

6.25 1.04 7.29

4.69 0.52 5.21

3.13 0.52 3.65

6.25 0.52 6.77

3.13 0.17 3.30

3.13 0.17 3.30

1.56 0.00 1.56

31.25 3.47 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

3238072v3

Table 8A: Centre/Facilities Expenditure 2015 Proposed Tesco Aldi, Romsey Waitrose, Romsey Co-op Romsey TC Other Romsey TC Romsey Total Andover Hedge End/Bursledon Eastleigh/Chandler's Ford Salisbury Southampton Totton Winchester Other Other Total Total

Main Convenience Expenditure 2015 Million - With Tesco Zone 1 6.23 3.13 0.62 1.40 0.27 0.08 5.50 0.00 0.24 0.02 0.02 0.23 0.16 0.04 0.02 0.73 6.23 Zone 2 13.32 6.25 1.36 1.98 0.19 0.09 9.87 0.02 1.12 0.08 0.04 0.83 0.85 0.40 0.11 3.45 13.32 Zone 3 7.80 4.69 0.57 1.10 0.06 0.12 6.54 0.00 0.42 0.09 0.04 0.37 0.18 0.10 0.06 1.26 7.80 Zone 4 10.31 3.13 1.10 1.63 0.11 0.07 6.03 0.00 1.96 0.25 0.00 1.49 0.47 0.03 0.08 4.27 10.31 Zone 5 22.78 6.25 2.13 6.01 0.41 0.24 15.05 0.81 0.74 0.69 1.03 0.64 2.91 0.80 0.11 7.74 22.78 Zone 6 8.77 3.13 0.38 1.20 0.12 0.11 4.94 0.00 0.49 0.10 0.00 2.82 0.38 0.04 0.01 3.83 8.77 Zone 7 19.52 3.13 0.10 1.72 0.02 0.00 4.96 0.00 11.25 1.00 0.00 0.53 0.06 1.72 0.00 14.56 19.52 Inflow 1.56 0.48 1.23 0.09 0.04 3.40 121.00 85.24 29.81 175.80 230.64 19.95 89.27 n/a 751.71 755.12 Total 88.74 31.25 6.75 16.28 1.27 0.75 56.30 121.83 101.45 32.04 176.94 237.54 24.97 92.40 0.39 787.55 843.85

Table 8B: Centre/Facilities Expenditure 2015 Proposed Tesco Aldi, Romsey Waitrose, Romsey Co-op Romsey TC Other Romsey TC Romsey Total Andover Hedge End/Bursledon Eastleigh/Chandler's Ford Salisbury Southampton Totton Winchester Other Other Total Total

Top Up Convenience Expenditure 2015 Million - With Tesco Zone 1 1.56 0.52 0.16 0.37 0.21 0.22 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.08 1.56 Zone 2 3.33 1.04 0.37 0.56 0.11 0.39 2.48 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.75 0.85 3.33 Zone 3 1.95 0.52 0.17 0.37 0.07 0.35 1.49 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.46 1.95 Zone 4 2.58 0.52 0.33 0.33 0.10 0.19 1.47 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.33 1.11 2.58 Zone 5 5.70 0.52 0.42 0.94 0.40 0.67 2.94 0.07 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 2.16 2.76 5.70 Zone 6 2.19 0.17 0.05 0.13 0.05 0.12 0.53 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.00 0.03 0.76 1.66 2.19 Zone 7 4.88 0.17 0.00 0.22 0.04 0.00 0.43 0.00 4.41 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.45 4.88 Inflow 0.00 0.11 0.21 0.08 0.12 0.52 7.89 21.24 0.00 0.00 31.48 0.69 1.79 n/a 63.09 63.60 Total 22.18 3.47 1.61 3.12 1.06 2.07 11.33 7.96 26.31 0.00 0.00 32.97 0.96 1.86 4.39 74.46 85.79

Table 8C: Centre/Facilities Expenditure 2015 Proposed Tesco Aldi, Romsey Waitrose, Romsey Co-op Romsey TC Other Romsey TC Romsey Total Andover Hedge End/Bursledon Eastleigh/Chandler's Ford Salisbury Southampton Totton Winchester Other Other Total Total

Combined Convenience Expenditure 2015 Million - With Tesco Zone 1 7.78 3.65 0.78 1.77 0.47 0.30 6.97 0.00 0.24 0.02 0.02 0.25 0.18 0.04 0.06 0.81 7.78 Zone 2 16.65 7.29 1.73 2.54 0.31 0.48 12.35 0.02 1.14 0.08 0.04 0.83 0.88 0.45 0.86 4.30 16.65 Zone 3 9.76 5.21 0.75 1.47 0.13 0.47 8.03 0.00 0.50 0.09 0.04 0.39 0.18 0.10 0.41 1.72 9.76 Zone 4 12.88 3.65 1.42 1.96 0.21 0.27 7.50 0.00 2.15 0.25 0.00 2.08 0.47 0.03 0.40 5.38 12.88 Zone 5 28.48 6.77 2.54 6.95 0.82 0.92 17.99 0.89 1.04 0.69 1.03 0.64 3.13 0.80 2.27 10.49 28.48 Zone 6 10.96 3.30 0.44 1.34 0.17 0.22 5.47 0.00 0.55 0.10 0.00 3.64 0.38 0.07 0.77 5.49 10.96 Zone 7 24.40 3.30 0.10 1.94 0.05 0.00 5.39 0.00 15.66 1.00 0.00 0.56 0.06 1.72 0.00 19.01 24.40 Inflow 1.56 0.59 1.44 0.17 0.16 3.92 128.88 106.48 29.81 175.80 262.12 20.65 91.06 n/a n/a 3.92 Total 110.92 34.72 8.36 19.40 2.33 2.82 67.63 129.79 127.76 32.04 176.94 270.51 25.93 94.27 4.78 862.01 929.64

3238072v3

Table 9: Romsey Town Centre Convenience Floorspace and Expected Turnover (2010 prices) Town/Store Net Sales Floorspace sq m 800 1,932 250 600 3,582 % Conv. Sales Floorspace 80% 95% 98% 100% Conv. Sales Floorspace sq m net 640 1,835 245 600 3,320 Turnover Sales Sales Density per sq m 6,148 11,475 7,279 5,000 8,969 m Total Conv. Turnover 3.93 21.06 1.78 3.00 29.78

Romsey Town Centre Aldi, Romsey Waitrose, Romsey Co-op, The Hundred, Romsey Other Romsey town centre Total

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

Table 10:

Impact Summary 2012 2015 Without Tesco 2015 With Tesco Trade Diversion Impact Benchmark Turnover Residual Turnover Against Benchmark

A
Proposed Tesco Aldi, Romsey Waitrose, Romsey Co-op Romsey TC Other Romsey TC Romsey Total Andover Hedge End/Bursledon Eastleigh/Chandler's Ford Salisbury Southampton Totton Winchester Other Other Total Total Sources: Tables 1 to 9 n/a 11.64 28.60 3.34 3.23 46.81 129.16 129.61 32.55 176.39 272.04 29.20 93.83 5.42 868.21 915.02

B
n/a 11.75 28.88 3.35 3.26 47.24 130.44 133.29 33.19 177.95 276.43 29.55 96.05 5.50 882.41 929.64

C
34.72 8.36 19.40 2.33 2.82 67.63 129.79 127.76 32.04 176.94 270.51 25.93 94.27 4.78 862.01 929.64

D
n/a -3.40 -9.48 -1.02 -0.44 -14.33 -0.65 -5.53 -1.15 -1.02 -5.92 -3.62 -1.78 -0.72 -20.39 -34.72

E
n/a -28.9% -32.8% -30.4% -13.4% -30.3% -0.5% -4.1% -3.5% -0.6% -2.1% -12.3% -1.9% -13.1% -2.3% -3.7%

F
n/a 3.93 21.06 1.78 3.00 29.78 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

G
n/a 112.4% -7.9% 30.6% -5.9% 110.5% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

3238072v3

3238072v3

3238072v3