Issuu on Google+

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement November 2011

www.liverpoolwaters.com


Contents Page 1.0

INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 4

2.0

PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT ....................................................................................................... 6

3.0

ASSESSMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (MAIN TOWN CENTRE USES) ..................................... 29

4.0

SEQUENTIAL APPROACH ............................................................................................................. 33

5.0

LEISURE USE ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................................... 36

6.0

OFFICE USE ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................... 42

7.0

RETAIL USES ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................................... 50

8.0

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................... 73

Appendix Contents Appendix 1 – Retail Statistical Tables Appendix 2 – Experian Micromarketer G3 Data Appendix 3 – Health Check Indicator Appendix 4 – City Centre and Primary Shopping Area Definitions


1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.01

This Retail, Leisure and Office Statement (RLOS) has been prepared by WYG on behalf of Peel Land & Property (Ports) Limited (herein after referred to as the ‘Peel’). Peel is seeking outline planning consent for the redevelopment of up to 60 hectares of former docks to the north of Liverpool City Centre (herein after referred to as ‘Liverpool Waters’). The national grid reference for the site’s centre is 333518 East, 391475 North, (nearest postcode L3 0BS, Ordnance Survey Landranger Reference SJ335914).

1.02

The Liverpool Waters project seeks to regenerate the former docklands to create a world-class, high quality, mixed use waterfront quarter in central Liverpool that will allow for substantial planned growth of the city’s economy and residential numbers in a manner consistent with, and derived from, relevant regional and local planning guidance. The red line boundary for the site is shown on Parameter Plan 001 – Site Location Plan.

1.03

The Liverpool Waters ‘Vision’ seeks to create a unique sense of place, taking advantage of the site’s cultural heritage and integrating it with exciting and sustainable new development. Liverpool Waters will contribute substantially to the growth and economic development of the city, allowing ease of movement and strong connections between Northshore, its hinterland and the city centre. It will accommodate new and existing residents, attract national and international business and encourage a significant increase in the number of visitors to the city, adding to and complementing Liverpool’s cultural offer and providing a new destination.

Structure of Retail, Leisure and Office Statement 1.04

The structure of this RLOS is set out below and follows the relevant good practice guidance accompanying PPS4. This report comprises the following: •

Section 2 sets out the current planning policy framework for retail, leisure and office development which includes a review of national guidance (primarily PPS4) and also relevant development plan policy set out in the adopted Liverpool UDP.

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 4


Section 3 sets out the economic assessment of the proposed development in the context of the policy considerations set out in PPS4 namely Policy EC10 exploring the impact on climate change, accessibility, high quality design, regeneration and employment.

Section 4 sets out the consideration of the sequential approach to site selection against the criteria set out in Policy EC15 of PPS4.

Section 5 considers the need and appropriateness of the proposed leisure elements in relation to PPS4.

Section 6 considers the retail impact assessment of the proposed development in line with Policy EC16 of PPS4.

Section 7 considers the leisure and office impact assessment of the proposed development.

Section 8 evaluates the development against Policy EC17 of PPS4.

Section 9 provides the main summary and conclusions on the retail, leisure and office provision within Liverpool Waters in terms of the requirements of national planning policy PPS4 and the development plan.

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 5


2.0 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT 2.01

This section of the ROLS details the relevant planning policy context for the proposed development in assessing the site for the development of main town centre uses. Relevant national policy is contained ‘Planning Policy Statement 4 (PPS4): Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth’ (December 2009).

2.02

The Development Plan for the site comprises the Liverpool Unitary Development Plan (UDP) which was adopted in July 2002 (although only those policies ‘saved’ beyond the period from September 2007 in accordance with Schedule 8 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

National Planning Policy PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth (December 2009) 2.03

PPS4 consolidates national planning policy relating to economic development into a single streamlined document. For the purposes of PPS4, economic development comprises: B1, B2 and B8 use classes, public and community uses, and town centre uses. Town centre uses are defined as including retail, leisure, entertainment facilities, more intensive sport and recreation uses, and arts, culture and tourism development (paragraph 7). It therefore, replaces the guidance previously contained in PPS6: Planning for Town Centres (March 2005) as well as PPG4: Industrial, Commercial Development and Small Firms (November 1992), PPG5: Simplified Planning Zones (November 1992) and elements of PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (August 2004). Practice guidance (PG) has been published alongside the new PPS4 to help with the interpretation of its town centre policies and to assist those involved in preparing or reviewing need, impact assessments and sequential assessments.

2.04

In order to deliver the overarching objective of sustainable economic growth, the key aim of promoting the vitality and viability of town centres is maintained (paragraph 10). This is to be achieved by: •

New economic growth and development of main town centre uses to be focussed in existing centres;

Competition between retailers and enhanced consumer choice; and

The historic, archaeological and architectural heritage of centres to be conserved and, where appropriate, enhanced.

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 6


2.05

As well as providing guidance on the need to gather evidence and to monitor and manage this evidence over time, PPS4 is essentially sub-divided into two sections, with the first section focussing on plan-making policies, and the second section relating to development management policies.

2.06

Within the first section the guidance seeks to encourage LPA's to pro-actively plan to promote competitive town centre environments and enhance consumer choice. The document (Policy EC4) sets out how this can be achieved, including by: •

Supporting a diverse range of uses which appeal to a wide range of social groups;

Planning for a strong retail mix such that the range and quality of the convenience and comparison retail offer meets the requirements of the local catchment area;

Identifying sites in the centre, or failing that on the edge of the centre, capable of accommodating large format developments where a need for such development has been identified; and

Taking measures to conserve and, where appropriate, enhance the established character and diversity of centres.

2.07

As part of the plan making process, PPS4 confirms that LPA’s should continue to assess the need for future economic development, including retail and main town centre uses. When assessing need, LPA’s should take account of both the qualitative and quantitative need for different types of retail floorspace (Policy EC1). Qualitative factors to take into account include whether there is provision and distribution of shopping facilities which allow genuine choice to meet the needs of the whole community, and the extent to which existing shops may be overtrading and whether there is a need to increase competition and retail mix.

2.08

For the purposes of this RLOS, PPS4 (paragraph 7) confirms that main town centre uses are as follows: •

Retail development (including warehouse and factory outlet centres);

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 7


Leisure, entertainment facilities and more intensive sport and recreation uses (including cinemas, restaurants, drive through restaurants, bars and pubs, night-clubs, casinos, heath and fitness centres, indoor bowling centres, and bingo halls);

Offices, and

Arts and culture and tourism development (including theatre, museums, galleries, and concert halls, hotels and conference facilities).

2.09

Reference to main town centres uses relates to areas defined in Annex B of PPS4 which are identified in the development plan. PPS4 (Annex B) states that in defined town (or city) centres this should include primary shopping areas, areas of predominantly leisure, business and other main town centre uses within or adjacent to the primary shopping area. The extent of a town (or city centre) should be defined on a proposal plan.

2.10

PPS4 also defines edge-of-centre and out-of-centre development. For retail purposes, this refers to locations that are well connected to and within easy walking distance (up to 300 metres) of the primary shopping area, for other main town centre uses, this is likely to be within 300 metres of a town centre boundary. PPS4 states that out-of-centre relates to a location that is not in or edge of a centre but not necessarily outside the urban area.

2.11

LPA’s are then advised to identify an appropriate range of sites to accommodate the identified need (Policy EC5). In identifying sites to accommodate future need, the guidance reiterates that the sequential approach to site selection should be applied. In applying this sequential approach, the first priority is for sites within existing centres, which are likely to become available within the plan period, followed by edge-of-centre locations with preference given to sites which are or will be well-connected to the centre. It continues that only then should out-of-centre sites be considered, again with preference given to those sites which are or will be well served by a choice of means of transport, are closest to the centre and have a higher likelihood of forming links.

2.12

Having identified the necessary sites to accommodate the need required, PPS4 then advises that the impact of the development of these sites should then be assessed, particularly for developments over 2,500 sq m, or any locally set threshold.

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 8


2.13

In determining planning applications for economic development, PPS4 requires LPAs to adopt a positive and constructive approach, particularly where a proposal would secure sustainable economic growth. In seeking to assess planning applications for all economic development, PPS4 states that such applications should be assessed against the following impact considerations (Policy EC10): •

Whether the proposal has been planned over the lifetime of the development to limit carbon dioxide emissions, and minimise vulnerability and provide resilience to climate change;

The accessibility of the proposal by a choice of means of transport including walking, cycling, public transport and the car, and the effect on local traffic levels and congestion;

Whether the proposal secures a high quality and inclusive design which takes the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions;

2.14

The impact on economic and physical regeneration in the area; and

The impact on local employment.

In dealing with planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and not in accordance with an up-to-date development plan, the applicant is required to satisfy the sequential approach as well as demonstrate that there would be no adverse impact created by the proposed development (Policy EC14).

2.15

In providing further information regarding the sequential assessment, PPS4 (at Policy EC15) requires LPAs to ensure that: •

Sites are assessed for their availability, suitability and viability;

All in-centre options have been thoroughly assessed before less central sites are considered; and

Where it has been demonstrated that there are no town centre sites to accommodate a proposed development, preference is given to edge-of-centre locations which are wellconnected to the centre by means of easy pedestrian access.

2.16

Similarly, further information is provided (Policy EC16) regarding what is expected in relation to an assessment of impact, as follows:

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 9


The impact of the development 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 town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and the range and quality of the comparison and convenience retail offer;

The impact of the development on allocated sites outside town centres being developed in accordance with the development plan;

The impact of the proposal on in-centre trade/turnover and on trade in the wider area, taking account of current and future consumer expenditure capacity in the catchment area up to five years from the time the application is made; and

If located in or on the edge of a town centre, whether the proposal is of an appropriate scale in relation to the size of the centre and its role in the hierarchy of centres.

2.17

Policy EC17 is clear that planning applications for main town centres that are not in an existing centre and not in accordance with an up-to-date development plan should be refused planning permission where the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the sequential approach, or there is clear evidence that the proposal is likely to lead to significant adverse impacts (having regard to Policy EC10 and Policy EC16). Where no significant adverse impacts have been identified, LPAs are advised to take account of the positive impacts of the proposal (Policy EC17) and any cumulative effects of planning and development commitments.

The Development Plan North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy (2008) 2.18

With reference to PPS4, this document has sought to consider the development plan covering Liverpool and this planning application. In July 2010 the Secretary of State announced the revocation of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS), although this decision was subject to a successful High Court Challenge in November 2010 and the RSS was reinstated. The Localism Bill was introduced to Parliament on 13 December 2010, and was given Royal Assent on 15 November 2011. Whilst most changes to the planning system will not become law until April 2012, local authorities have an immediate duty to take on board the recommendations of the Bill in terms of the abolition of RSS. In the vacuum left by the abolition of the RSS, there may be circumstance in

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 10


which the evidence base that underpinned an individual RSS can continue to be used to inform local planning decisions. 2.19

The North West of England RSS provides a 15-20 year framework to 2021 for investment and development in North-West England and its sub-regions. Local Development Documents (such as Liverpool Local Development Framework) are required to conform with RSS until further advice by the government is produced. The Government has advised (6th April 2010) before its move to revoke that that evidence that informed the preparation of the revoked RSS may still be a material consideration in the plan making process and the determination of planning applications. The Liverpool Unitary Development Plan (UDP) (2002)

2.20

The Liverpool Unitary Development Plan (UDP) was adopted in 2002 and covers the plan periods to 2001, the UDP policies were saved to cover the period up to 2011.

2.21

The site is currently covered by a multitude of policies which relate to different blocks, these are shown in Figure 2.1. The UDP permits a number of different land uses in specific areas, therefore for the purpose of this RLOS, we have identified which uses accord with main town centre uses as prescribed in PPS4 in paragraph 2.25.

2.22

In terms of main town centre uses as prescribed by PPS4, we have identified policies in the UDP which deal with new development. Office development is covered by Policy E2, which states that within the main office area in the City Centre and on sites identified (schedule 6.2) and on the proposal map planning permission will be granted for Classes A2, B1 and complementary service uses (A1 and A3). Furthermore Policy E2 deals with new development outside the main office area, planning permission will be granted for appropriate A2 and B1 uses subject to residential amenity and traffic generation.

2.23

In terms of mixed use areas, Policy E6 states that planning permission will be granted for those uses specified in the mixed use area profiles and those identified on the proposal plan and specified in Schedule 6.3. The policy also encourages mixed use development whereby a range of commentary uses are located in the city centre. We will deal with each area profile later in this section.

2.24

In terms of leisure development, Policy E9 encourages such development in the City and district centres and on sites listed in Schedule 6.4 and other locations including edge of centre sites. This

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 11


is subject to a need being demonstrated and that a sequential approach to site selection has been adopted; the design and scale is appropriate to the location, no adverse impact on residential amenity; the proposal would not undermine the vitality or viability or predominant retail function or evening function of any nearby town, district or local centres, the site is accessible and would not prejudice other policies and objectives in the plan. 2.25

In terms of retail development that is considered out-of-centre, Policy S12 of the UDP states that any retail development outside the city centre’s main retail area, (including PDSA and London Road) shopping area) and district and local centres will need to demonstrate the proposal will not undermine (i) the vitality and viability of existing centres; there is a proven need (ii) for the level of retail floorspace proposed; the sequential approach (iii) has been adopted; the scheme by its nature is not individually or cumulatively prejudice the ability to deliver (iv) the PSDA; is accessible (v); no adverse traffic implications (vi); no harm to environmental and residential amenity (vii). The policy also requires out-of-centre retailing to be assigned planning conditions to ensure it nature does not change. Policy S12 (3) also requires that planning applications for such development must be accompanied by full justification including evidence on harm to development plan strategy (i); the application of the sequential approach (ii); the likely economic impacts (iii) on the city centre and other centres in the city and adjoining local authorities, including cumulative impact on extant planning permission; impact on delivery of the PDSA (iv); accessibility (v); likely changes in travel patterns (vi) and environmental impacts (vii). Emerging Local Development Framework (LDF)

2.26

In due course, the adopted UDP will be replaced by the Liverpool Local Development Framework. The suite of documents to be prepared as part of the LDF, is identified in the approved Local Development Scheme, includes the Core Strategy (CS) which will set out the overall vision and strategic objectives for the City.

2.27

As the soundness of the emerging CS has yet to tested at an examination in public, limited weight can be assigned to the emerging CS document. However, consideration needs to be given to its overall strategic direction, aims and objectives.

2.28

The Preferred Option stage of the CS has recently been published. Central to the CS is a ‘Spatial Vision’, which states that by 2026 “Liverpool will be a thriving international city at the heart of the

sub-region with an outstanding urban environment”.

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 12


2.29

In terms of retail and leisure development, Policy Approach 16 deals with the hierarchy of centres for Liverpool and Policy Approach 17 deals with City Centre shops and services. The latter includes a proposal that the waterfront areas of the City Centre will be a focus for regionally significant cultural, tourism and leisure uses. Other Considerations

2.30

In addition to the above planning policy context for new development, WYG identify that the City Council need to have regard to the government’s proposals to rebuild Britain’s economy. The government identifies that the planning system has a key role in delivering and supporting sustainable economic growth. The proposal seeks that local planning authorities should support enterprise and facilitate economic development within and consistent with their statutory functions, and should therefore: •

consider fully the importance of national planning policies aimed at fostering economic growth and employment, given the need to ensure a return to robust growth after the recent recession;

take into account the need to maintain a flexible and responsive supply of land for key sectors, including housing;

consider the range of likely economic, environmental and social benefits of proposals; including long term or indirect benefits such as increased consumer choice, more viable communities and more robust local economies (which may, where relevant, include matters such as job creation and business productivity);

be sensitive to the fact that local economies are subject to change and so take a positive approach to development where new economic data suggest that prior assessments of needs are no longer up-to-date; and

• 2.31

ensure that they do not impose unnecessary burdens on development.

The government has emphasised economic growth and consumer choice as part of the Ministerial Statement from Greg Clarke: Planning for Growth. This requires the planning system to adopt a positive response to development proposals that deliver sustainable economic growth and the creation of jobs and that such applications should be treated favourably. Indeed, at no other point in recent times has there been a more pressing demand to ensure private sector development is given a kick start in order to deliver economic recovery of the country. The statement confirms :

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 13


“When deciding whether to grant planning permission, local planning authorities, should support enterprise and facilitate housing, economic, and other forms of sustainable development”. 2.32

We accept that economic development and insertion of choice and competition should not undermine other planning objectives, however, if no significant adverse impacts are found as a result of development that the Ministerial Statement clearly states: “the Government’s top priority in reforming the planning system is to promote sustainable economic growth and jobs. Government’s clear expectation is that the answer to development and growth should wherever possible be ‘yes’ except where this would compromise the key sustainable development principles set out in national planning policy.

2.33

Whilst a clear emphasis has been placed by the government on supporting sustainable growth and jobs, this planning statement will still consider this in the context of the statutory objectives of the development plan and national planning guidance. Emerging National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

2.34

The Government released the consultation draft NPPF in July 2011, which set to reduce the level of national planning guidance from a number of existing Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) and Planning Policy Statements (PPS) dealing with specific issues to one single comprehensive guidance document.

2.35

In relation to economic development, the NPPF continues the government’s commitment to securing and supporting sustainable economic growth and planning for prosperity. The NPPF seeks to reduce the over burden on planning policy expectations and address barriers to investment to deliver such growth. The NPPF seeks to build a strong, responsive and competitive market by ensuring that land is available to allow growth and innovation.

2.36

The NPPF makes a fundamental change which applies a presumption in favour of sustainable development and should positively plan to support existing and new business sectors and prioritise economic regeneration where emerging sectors are likely to locate in an area, infrastructure provision and environmental enhancement. NPPF seeks that policies are flexible enough to accommodate requirements and allow rapid response to changes in economic circumstances.

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 14


2.37

The NPPF still recognises the need to promote the vitality and viability of our towns and cities through promotion of competition and growth management in the plan period, and that retail activity should still where possible be focused in existing town centres. The NPPF also recognises the consideration of retail and leisure proposals which cannot be accommodated in or adjacent town centre, and impact of proposals on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in the catchment area of the proposal, but also consideration of the impact on the vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and the wider area, up to ten years from the time of the application. Enterprise Zone (2011)

2.38

In March 2011, Liverpool Water was announced as one of the first of eleven (11) new allocated Enterprise Zones (EZ) across the UK to be created by 2015. EZ were seen as a progressive move to stimulate sustainable economic growth through reduced business rates, planning regulation and improved infrastructure.

2.39

The applicant is progressing the role and function of the EZ in relation to Liverpool Waters, with the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP). A Strategy for Main Retail Area (MRA)

2.40

In February 2011, a number of key public and private partners published a future framework strategy to prioritise the continued focus on the existing MRA as a key economic growth area for the city. The strategy identifies a number of priority interventions to bring further investment across five city character areas through a set of key actions and priorities.

2.41

The strategy identifies that to deliver a competitive global city then it is critical that four elements are developed simultaneously, including retail, transport/movement/and public realm, city centre management, branding and marketing as well identifying development opportunities in the short, medium and long term.

2.42

The strategy identifies the following five character areas as priority areas to focus and help maximise the potential of strengthening links with the successful Liverpool One and the wider city, these are: •

Renshaw Street/Bold Street;

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 15


2.43

Lime Street/St Johns/Clayton Square;

Williamson Square;

Whitechapel/Met Quarter/Cavern Quarter; and

Liverpool One/Church Street/Derby Street.

The strategy’s main priority interventions include a series of six priorities which seek to be delivered over the next 15 years. These include: 1. Prioritise investment in the northern and eastern parts of the MRA to ensure that the overall quality of the MRA is of an International standard; 2. Transform the arrival points , pedestrian access and movement from key gateways into and round the MRA; 3. Improve the quality, management, regulation and location of the overall City Centre market officer an important part of the city centre choice; 4. Strengthen the quality, offer and utilisation of the public spaces for events to improve Liverpool City Centre as a visitor destination, building on its heritage in music, culture, maritime and sport; 5. Develop a coherent and consistent approach to city centre management, maintenance, branding and promotion; and 6. Plan major interventions around Williamson Square and Whitechapel to shape the next phase of the core city centre development program to meet demands for modern retail accommodation and strength link to the cultural quarter.

2.44

Priority 1 to 5 are earmarked to be developed over the next 1 to 3 years (2011 to 2014) (short term), with 1 to 3 to be extended for a further 4 to 8 years (medium term) (2015 to 2019) thereafter. With priority 1 and 6 to be long term strategies (2020 to 2026).

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 16


Development Description Summary 2.45

Details on the proposal can be found in ‘Liverpool Waters Statement of Key Development Principles’ (November 2011). However, for the purposes of PPS4, this RLOS will deal with the level of commercial retail, office and leisure uses being created within the masterplan, which are considered as ‘main town centre uses’ within PPS4. Therefore, for the purpose of this statement Table 2.1 sets out the level of ‘main town centre uses’ to be delivered over a phasing breakdown of 30 year time horizon associated with each of the delivery periods of the proposed five neighbourhoods Revised Table 2.1: Liverpool Waters - Overall Retail and Leisure Land Use and Amount (Parameters) by Neighbourhood and phasing period Neighbourhood (sq.m) King Edward Triangle (B)

Central Docks (C)

2012-2016

2016-2029

2021-2036

2031-2036

2036-2041

0

826

8,685

5,668

3,910

19,100

100

1,000

4,168

1,500

1,000

7,800

0

4,778

2,555

1,005

250

8,600

A3 Restaurants & Cafes

7,535

354

11,822

5,115

2,178

27,100

A4 Drinking

0

2,513

12,527

2,883

1,193

19,200

E t bli h t B1 Businesses

57,014

85,201

165,823

4,570

1,800

314,500

C1 Hotels

14,875

0

35,305

2,755

0

53,000

D2 Assembly & Leisure

734

0

30,625

1,000

940

33,300

Total

80,300

94,700

271,500

24,500

11,300

482,200

Princes Dock (A) Use Class

A1 Shops (Comparison Retailing) A1 Shops (Convenience Retailing) A2 Financial & Professional Services

Clarence Docks (D)

Northern Docks (E) Total

Note: Figures are GEA (sq.m). Total figures have been rounded up to the nearest 100 sq.m

2.46

In total Liverpool Waters will create 482,200 sq.m of main town centre (retail, leisure and business) uses floorspace. Most of the main town centre uses (271,500sq.m) will be released through the implementation of Neighbourhood C between 2021 to 2036. The retail elements of

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 17


the scheme are ancillary to the scheme as a whole and are principally intended to serve and support the resident population (approximately 14,100 persons) and working population (17,400 persons) being introduced to the area. Given the longevity of the project, each of the neighbourhoods will be phased appropriately over three decades. 2.47

The design of the project has ensured that associated and ancillary retail uses will not be commenced until after new residential and employment development have been introduced (rather than a ‘front loading strategy’) to ensure that commercial floorspace will meet the demand from the resident and working populations rather than come before it.

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 18


Figure 2.1: Liverpool Waters Neighbourhoods

2.48

The applicant proposes to limit the level of main town centre uses as proposed to ensure that the retail facilities do not exceed the assessed amount to serve the proposed wider development. The applicant also proposes (given the longevity of the project), that further assessments of the proposed main town centre will be required at an appropriate time and in accordance with the proposed phasing of the site. On this basis the following conditions could be imposed (subject to discussions with LCC):

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 19


1. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any legislation revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order) no more than 26,900 sq m gross floorspace shall be used for uses falling within Use Class A1 (shops). Of this total retail floorspace, no more than 7,800 sq m gross floorspace shall be used for the sale of convenience goods and no more than 19,100 sq m gross floorspace shall be used for the sale of comparison goods. 2. The retail (Use Class A1) floorspace hereby permitted and as defined by Condition [..] shall reflect the maximum parameters for each phase as set out in [Liverpool Waters Masterplan and Key Principles Report and Appendices, September 2011] and be delivered in line with the Strategic Phasing Scheme. 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any legislation revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order) no more than 8,600 sq m gross floorspace shall be used for uses falling within Use Class A2 (financial and professional services). 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any legislation revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order) no more than 27,000 sq m gross floorspace shall be used for uses falling within Use Class A3 (Restaurant and Cafes services). 5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any legislation revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order) no more than 19,100 sq m gross floorspace shall be used for uses falling within Use Class A4 (Drinking establishments services). 6. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any legislation revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order) no more than 314,400 sq m gross floorspace shall be used for uses falling within Use Class B1 (business). 7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any legislation revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order)

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 20


no more than 52,900 sq m gross floorspace shall be used for uses falling within Use Class C1 (Hotels). 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any legislation revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order) no more than 33,300 sq m gross floorspace shall be used for uses falling within Use Class D2 (Assembly and Leisure). 9. Details of the nature, scale and type of each Class D2 use and any Class A1, A2, A3 and A4 use as defined in The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 as amended shall be included with each submission for reserved matters or detailed design approval and the proposal will be reviewed in light of the prevalent statutory national guidance or development plan at that point in time. The total floorspace amounts for these uses within each phase shall reflect the maximum parameters set out in [Liverpool Waters Masterplan and Key Principles Report and Appendices, 2011] and will be delivered in line with the Strategic Phasing Scheme. 10. Prior to the occupation of any units purposed within Use Classes A1 (shops), A2 (financial & professional services), A3 (restaurants & cafes), A4 (drinking establishments) and D2 (assembly & leisure) the operating hours shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The proposed operating hours shall reflect the findings of the

Noise Report as prepared for each phase under Condition [..]. The approved details shall be adhered to thereafter. 11. There will be a need to ensure that scheme is delivered in line with the parameters considering within the environmental Statement and the approved Masterplan details. 2.49

The above conditions provide a base from which the proposed development will be implemented, and provides the certainty that a statement of conformity will be submitted at subsequent reserved matters stages as and when development is progressed further. This RLOS will concentrate solely on the maximum thresholds of the retail, leisure and office floorspace contained within the planning application and their justification in terms of the requirements of PPS4.

The above

conditions may be subject to change during the negotiations through the determination of the proposal.

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 21


LW Proposal in Context of Existing Planning Policy 2.50

To review the proposed development in relation to the development plan, it is important to understand the permitted uses for each of the neighbourhoods. LW is located in two key economic regeneration areas as identified by the UDP, the majority of the southern part of the site is located within the city centre whilst the northern elements of LW is located in waterfront/docks and hinterland area adjacent the city centre (as shown in Figure 6.1 of the UDP) and 2.2 below. Figure 2.2: UDP Designations across LW Site

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 22


2.51

In terms of Neighbourhood A (Princes Dock), is located within the designated city centre boundary in the adopted UDP as shown in Figures 2.2 and 2.2. The whole neighbourhood is covered by UDP Ref: M3, that permits office (Use Class B1), hotel (Use Class C1), conference centre (Use Class D1) and residential development (Use Class C3) with associated retail (Use Class A1), car parking and support uses. The allocation also permits tourism related A1 uses. This confirms that the proposed commercial B1 ( 57,000 sq.m) and leisure (15,600 sq.m)1 uses are therefore considered ‘in centre’ and therefore, are not subject to the tests of PPS4 and in accordance with the Development Plan and PPS4. The associated retail elements (7,600 sq.m)2 are located outside the main retail area (Policy S1) and are therefore subject to the tests of PPS4. Figure 2.3: UDP Designations Across Neighbourhoods A (Princes Dock) and B (Kind Edward)

2.52

In relation to Neighbourhood B (King Edward Triangle), is located within the designated city centre boundary in the adopted UDP (shown in Figure 2.3 above). The whole neighbourhood is

1 2

Includes proposed C1 (Hotel) and D2 (Leisure and Assembly) land uses in Neighbourhood A (Princes Dock) Includes proposed A1 (Retailing), A2 (Financial & Professional Services, A3 (Restaurant & Cafes) and A4 (Drinking Establishments)

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 23


covered by Policy E6 of the UDP which permits mixed use development. Although no uses are specified in the UDP for this area, a number of different uses can be considered which would support and complement the City’s function as a regional centre for business, shopping, leisure and tourism. The policy states that a complementary range of uses such as residential, employment, community, leisure and retail can be provided. The proposed B1 uses (85,200 sq.m) is located within the city centre boundary and therefore accords with PPS4 and is not subject to its policy tests. The proposed A class uses (9,500 sq.m)³, although located with the city centre boundary and associated to the wider development, are located outside the main retail area (Policy S1) and therefore subject to the policy tests of PPS4. 2.53

Neighbourhood C (Central Docks), is partly located in the city centre boundary as defined in the UDP (as shown in Figure 2.4 below). The southern area (Blocks 3a to 3c) of the neighbourhood including Princes Half Tide Dock and West Waterloo Dock is located in the defined city centre. The two dock areas are covered by UDP Ref: M3 and M77 respectively (as well as H176 and H177 in relation to housing). As stated above (Neighbourhood A) M3 permits a number of commercial uses. UDP Ref M77 covers the West Waterloo Docks, and permits appropriate uses including residential (C3), business (B1) and leisure uses (D2). The northern part (Blocks 3d to 3h) of the site which sits outside the defined city centre is covered by UDP Ref: M54 which covers former Clarence and Trafalgar Docks. The UDP permits that Uses Classes B1 (offices), B2 (general industry) and B8 (storage and distribution), and D2 (Assembly and Leisure) on the site. From this review, the proposed B1 (166,800 sq.m) and D2 uses (66,000 sq.m) are not subject to the tests of PPS4 as they are either located within the defined city centre or accord with the development plan. The proposed A class uses (39,700 sq.m)Âł will be subject to the policy tests of PPS4.

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 24


Figure 2.4: UDP Designations across Neighbourhood C (Central Docks)

2.54

In terms of Neighbourhood D (Clarence Dock) is located entirely outside the defined city centre but within the waterfront economic development area. The neighbourhood is covered by UDP Ref: M54 in the southern part of the neighbourhood and M65 covers the northern area of Neighbourhood D and covers Salisbury and Collingwood Docks. As above M54 permits the B1 and D2 uses and therefore these are not subject to the tests of PPS4. M65 permits A1 (Shops) and A3 (Restaurants and Cafes) B1 (offices), C3 (Residential) and D2 (Assembly and Leisure). From this review, the proposed B1 (4,600 sq.m) and leisure uses (3,800 sq.m)² are not subject to the tests of PPS4 as they accord with the development plan. Although allocated, the proposed A class uses (16,200 sq.m)³ will be subject to the policy tests of PPS4 as they are not located in a designated centre.

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 25


Figure 2.5: UDP Designations across Neighbourhood D (Clarence Docks)

2.55

Neighbourhood E (Northern Docks) is located outside the city centre but in the waterfront economic development area. The site is allocated under Policy E3 of the UDP which considers port development that will support the continued growth and development of Liverpool Port. With this part of the site not allocated for any main town centre use, we consider that all proposed components are subject to the tests of PPS4 (EC15 and EC16).

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 26


Figure 2.6: UDP Designations across Neighbourhood E (Northern Docks)

2.56

It clear from the above review that the vast majority of the proposed LW is in accordance with the development plan and therefore certain land uses are not subject to the policy tests of PPS4.

2.57

In conclusion and to ensure compatibility with the requirements of PPS4 and the development plan, this report will demonstrate that the key policy tests of EC15 and EC16 are satisfied for the following uses only. Table 2.2: Liverpool Waters – Spatial Distribution of Use Classes Use Class

In Centre

Edge / Out-of-Centre

Allocated for Specific Use in UDP

A1 Shops (Comparison

-

19,100

6,500

-

7,800

2,600

-

8,600

5,800

Retailing) A1 Shops (Convenience Retailing) A2 Financial & Professional

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 27


Services A3 Restaurants & Cafes

-

27,000

13,400

A4 Drinking Establishments

-

19,200

5,400

B1 Businesses

142,200

172,200

314,400

C1 Hotels

50,200

2,800

53,000

D2 Assembly & Leisure

15,700

17,600

33,300

Total

208,100

274,100

434,400

Note: Figures are GEA (sq.m)

Use Class Grade A are required to be located in Main Retail Area City Centre is boundary for office and leisure development

Overview 2.58

It will be demonstrated in subsequent sections of this RLOS that the proposal for retail, leisure and office development at the application site corresponds with objectives of existing and emerging national planning policy guidance (PPS4) where the development plan allocates the majority of the site for certain main town centre uses, with parts of the proposed office and leisure elements being located within the defined City Centre. Notwithstanding this, the RLOS will consider the application of the sequential approach and its economic impact on the City Centre to demonstrate that the proposed development is in accordance with the development plan and national planning policy on main town centres uses.

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 28


3.0 ASSESSMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (MAIN TOWN CENTRE USES) 3.02

Given the ‘location specific’ circumstances of this regeneration scheme as outlined in Section 2, a traditional retail methodology is unlikely to accurately assess the economic implications of the development as planned. Therefore, for the purposes of this report, a different approach has been adopted which seeks to explore the expenditure generated by the anticipated residential and employment communities that will be created in each of the proposed neighbourhoods. The purpose of this approach is to understand what level of support facilities (in terms of retail) will be required to meet the needs of the new communities created at LW whilst ensuring that any future development in this location will complement rather than compete with the existing city centre and other existing centres across North Liverpool.

3.03

The distinctive features of the proposed development (in respect of the scale of development and the timescale of the overall project) has major implications for the retail assessment methodology adopted and the extent to which existing retail studies and data sources are applicable. Despite the unique circumstances of Liverpool Waters, the development will still need to be assessed in the context of PPS4 and the development plan. However, given the longevity of the project over a 30 year time horizon (starting in 2012) and the proposed phasing of commercial retail and leisure floorspace, it will be difficult to assess the development in the usual short term 5 year time intervals as prescribed by PPS4.

3.04

Notwithstanding this, PPS4 carries forward the fundamental objectives of PPS6 with the focus on town centres as the preferred location for new economic development. PPS4 introduced a revised framework for assessing applications for economic development, including main town centre uses (which include retail, leisure and office and arts, cultural and tourism development as set out in paragraph 7 of PPS4). This can be summarised as: •

An assessment of applications for all forms of economic development against a series of general impact considerations (as set out in Policy EC10 of PPS4);

The application of the sequential approach to site selection for all applications for main town centre uses that are not in a centre and not in accordance with an up-to-date development plan (as set out in Policy EC15);

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 29


An assessment of applications for main town centre uses that are not in a centre and not in accordance with an up-to-date development plan against a series of ‘centre’ impact considerations (as set out in Policy EC16); and

An assessment of whether Policy EC15 and EC16 have demonstrated that the development complies with the sequential approach and that no significant adverse impacts have been identified (as set out in Policy EC17).

3.05

In this case, the application is proposing a significant level of economic development for the next 30 years plus, and will introduce a variety of main town centre use including ‘retail, leisure, office and arts, cultural and tourism development’ intertwined with new residential and commercial uses. Therefore, Policy EC10 would apply. However, whilst the site is located outside the Primary Shopping Area (PSA) part of the site (Neighbourhoods A, B and part of C) are located within the City Centre as defined by the UDP (see Appendix 4). The rest of the site represents a natural extension to the north of the City Centre. Indeed, as set out in Section 3, the application area has already been designated in the UDP for a mix of uses where the principle of complementary uses (including retail, employment, leisure, community) as proposed at LW is acceptable.

3.06

Therefore in certain circumstances, it may be considered that there is no requirement to demonstrate compliance with either Policy EC15 or Policy EC16 (apart from the fifth subsection of Policy EC16) as LW is in accordance with the development plan. However, given the scale of development now anticipated, the site’s location beyond the defined PSA, and the publication of PPS4, it is considered, for completeness, that the development of the main town centre uses should be evaluated against the key tests set out in PPS4. Therefore, in adopting this robust position, this study contains an assessment of the requirements of Policies EC10, EC15, Policy EC16 and Policy EC17 of PPS4.

Policy EC10 – General Impact Considerations 3.07

PPS4 has introduced five general impact considerations which relate to all applications for economic development, including main town centre uses (as set out in Policy EC10 and its subsections); the RLOS will deal with each in turn below.

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 30


Carbon Dioxide Emissions/Climate Change 3.08

The first consideration (EC10 (a)) relates to whether a proposal has been planned over the lifetime of the development to limit carbon dioxide emissions and to provide resilience to climate change. In actual fact, it is considered that the proposal provides a very real opportunity to contribute most effectively to reducing carbon dioxide emissions and minimising energy use. At this point, it is considered important to mention that PPS4 is intended to complement, and be read in conjunction with, PPS1. At the heart of this scheme is the delivery of a form of development which is entirely consistent with the principles which form the cornerstone to PPS1 and its supplement (Planning and Climate Change, December 2007).

3.09

Without duplicating evidence already provided within the planning application, it is advised that this issue is dealt with in significant depth in the Sustainability and Climate Change Chapter and the Infrastructure and Energy Chapter of the ‘Liverpool Waters Environmental Statement’ (November 2011) which also accompanies the planning application. Accessibility

3.10

The second consideration relates to the accessibility of the proposal by a choice of means of transport and the impact on local traffic levels and congestion after public transport and traffic management measures have been secured. The proposed development of this site, which will generate travel demand, will make good use of opportunities available for public transport use (given the site’s relationship with the city centre’s bus and rail services) and improved pedestrian permeability. Further details on the accessibility of the proposed development and any impact arising as a result traffic generation can be found in the Transport Chapter of the ‘Liverpool Waters Environmental Statement’ (November 2011) also accompanying this application. High Quality Design

3.11

Policy EC10 requires an assessment of the quality of the design and how it will improve the character of the area. Given the sensitive nature of the site and its World Heritage status, design has been a fundamental consideration throughout the evolution of the proposed development. Further details are provided within the Liverpool Waters ‘Design and Access Statement’ (November 2011) which demonstrates how the design, including the design principles which have been adopted, contribute to preserving and enhancing this sensitive site.

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 31


Regeneration and Local Employment 3.12

Policy EC10 also deals with the impact on economic and physical regeneration in the area (including the impact on deprived areas and social inclusion objectives) in addition to the impact on local employment.

3.13

The regeneration needs of Liverpool are well-documented and the contribution made by Liverpool Waters is significant. For example, the development will provide in the order of 17,400 new jobs over a 30 year period and beyond. In addition, the application scheme will also facilitate significant levels of economic activity that will help Liverpool achieve a significant step change which in turn will help tackle the problems of high unemployment and benefit dependency. The significant benefits that will be delivered as a result of the proposed development are set out in the socio-economic chapter of the accompanying ‘Liverpool Waters Environmental Statement’ (November 2011) . Conclusions regarding General Impact Considerations

3.14

When assessing the general impact considerations set out in Policy EC10 of PPS4, with particular reference to the suite of documents provided within the planning application, it has been clearly demonstrated that the proposed development would not result in any significant adverse impacts in relation to each of the five identified criteria. In fact, in certain instances, the development would actually result in a significant positive impact which must be weighed in the overall planning balance. These can be summarised as follows: •

Delivering a form of development which is consistent with the desire to limit carbon dioxide emissions and mitigate against the effects of climate change through the use of modern and innovative energy efficient construction solutions;

The ability to exploit this highly accessible city centre location for a mix of development which will generates travel demand;

A commitment to achieving a high quality design solution, consistent with the sites World Heritage status;

Providing a significant economic boost to the Liverpool City Region, contributing to increased wealth and prosperity, representing new investment in the physical fabric and complementing social inclusion objectives across a wide range of social-economic groups; and

The ability to create significant employment opportunities across the city region.

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 32


4.0 SEQUENTIAL APPROACH 4.01

Policy EC15 of PPS4 requires that the sequential approach to site selection should be applied to all development proposals for main town centre uses that are not in a centre and not in accordance with an up-to-date development plan.

The Assessment 4.02

As highlighted in Section 3 of this report, when dealing with retail development specifically, the application of the sequential approach is not applicable for a significant part of the Liverpool Waters site as it is identified in the UDP (through Policy EC6) for mixed use development including complementary retail, leisure and office uses. Only the areas of Clarence Dock/Trafalgar Dock (M54) and West Waterloo Dock (M77) make no reference to associated retail development. However, in terms of leisure and office uses, it is evident that such developments would be acceptable across most if not the whole of the site. Furthermore, Neighbourhoods A, B and part of C of Liverpool Waters are located within the defined City Centre in the UDP which means that any proposal for leisure and office development would be considered ‘in-centre’ under the definition of PPS4 (paragraph 7).

4.03

Therefore, it is evident that the majority of leisure and business elements of the proposed development would not have to satisfy the sequential approach as set out in PPS4. However, the associated retail development within the central part of the site are not allocated in the development plan and clearly lie beyond the defined main retail area (MRA) of the City Centre and therefore, they would need to satisfy the sequential approach.

4.04

In considering the application of the sequential approach for the proposed development, it is evident that the vision for Liverpool Waters is about achieving a significant step change for Liverpool at the heart of the city region whilst achieving successful regeneration of one of Liverpool’s most prominent sites. Therefore, in order to achieve successful comprehensive regeneration at Liverpool Waters development would have to be secured within the site not at some other sequentially superior location elsewhere within the City. The Practice Guidance3 accompanying PPS4, recognises that there will be instances where the ‘need’ is location specific and that:

3

Practice Guidance on Need, Impact and the Sequential Approach produced by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (December 2009).

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 33


“There will be instances where a specific need for a certain type and form of development can only realistically be accommodated in specific locations.” (para 6.25) 4.05

The Practice Guidance stipulates that when considering ‘location specific’ needs it will be important to distinguish between a genuine need and one where it purely reflects the commercial objectives of a specific operator. The arguments presented for the regeneration of Liverpool Waters do not relate to the fact that the developer owns the land in question and therefore the need is ‘location specific’. The need is location specific because there is a well established vision for the site and clear arguments in favour of its comprehensive regeneration which requires a mix of uses to support the future resident and working populations at that location rather than providing supporting facilities elsewhere.

4.06

Furthermore, the proposed commercial retail (and to a lesser extent the leisure development) will be ancillary and supportive to the proposed main residential and business uses, and are not expected to operate in competition with the city centre offer4. The scheme presented has sought to ensure that the level of commercial retail and leisure space is appropriately scaled to meet the needs of the new communities (both residential and business) created by the development rather than creating new destinations that will compete directly with the city centre. Therefore, the associated ancillary retail and leisure uses are quite clearly ‘location specific’ and it would be unreasonable for such uses to be disaggregated and moved to other locations outside the development. Clearly, such an approach would meet local needs arising from the development and help to foster sustainable communities whereby these local retail and leisure needs could be met within a reasonable walking distance. To remove such ancillary uses to other defined centres a considerable distant away would mean that these sustainable principles will not be met.

4.07

This point is further reinforced by paragraph 5.7 of the Practice Guidance (PG), which states:

“If the LPA proposes to refuse an application involving town centre uses on the basis of the sequential approach, it should be on the basis that it considers there is, or, maybe, a reasonable prospect of a sequentially preferable opportunity coming forward which is likely to be capable of meeting the same requirements as the application is intended to meet” (WYG emphasis) 4.08

Even if there are sequentially preferable sites available within and on the edge of the existing city centre, then these sites would not meet the same requirements/needs of the resident and working

4

Liverpool Waters – Office Market Positioning, CBRE July 2010

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 34


populations being created at Liverpool Waters. It must be noted that the scale of retail development proposed does not intend to meet all of the needs that would be generated by local residents and employees. In fact it is recognised that a significant amount of locally generated expenditure from Liverpool Waters will be spent at existing facilities within the City Centre particularly in relation to comparison goods operators. 4.09

In addition, we note that the proposed retailing and service uses will be located at ground level to business and residential blocks and is designed purposely to ensure that active frontages can be created around LW to ensure that a vital ground environment is created to improve the vibrancy and interest of the street scene.

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 35


5.0 LEISURE USE ASSESSMENT Sequential Assessment 5.01

Although the LW site is identified for leisure development as part of the mix of uses considered to be appropriate by the adopted UDP, Policy E9 of the UDP requires that consideration is given to the sequential approach and that the scale of development is appropriate to the particular location. As highlighted previously, whilst the leisure elements are important to the overall mix of uses achieved within the scheme they are still considered to be ancillary to the wider development and will be distributed across the varying development blocks when brought forward at a appropriate point in time. As the uses are ancillary and designed to support the needs of local residents, employees and visitors to the site, relocating such uses elsewhere within the City would not meet the same requirements. As a result, it is evident that the ‘needs’ which the proposed leisure element will meet are ‘location specific’ and therefore, satisfy the sequential approach.

5.02

It must also be noted that the aims and objectives of the sequential approach is to ensure that development takes place in the most sustainable locations and can forge strong links with existing centres. As the proposed development at LW is designed to form a natural extension of the City Centre it is evident that the proposed scheme is in a highly sustainable and accessible location.

Scale of Leisure Development 5.03

The outline planning application seeks 95,100 sq.m of leisure floorspace including hotel (C1), leisure (D2), and conference (D1) uses, as well as 46,100 sq.m of restaurant/café (A3) and drinking establishments (A4) uses.

5.04

As set out in Section 3, the proposed leisure uses are in accordance with the development plan, whereby the majority of defined leisure space is located within Neighbourhoods A, B and C where such complementary uses are acceptable in policy terms.

5.05

Given the anticipated timescale of the project and the potential market fluctuations that will happen during this period, maximum flexibility is sought to enable the development to respond to market demand as and when it arises and as residential development takes place. This will ensure that support facilities are provided to the new community at LW.

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 36


5.06

As with retail, the leisure component is considered to be ancillary to the wider residential and business uses, and will support these future resident and working populations. The need for such uses will arise from the emergence of the development itself. Leisure capacity is difficult to accurately forecast and in turn will relate to both occupier demand and the overall success of the scheme as it is implemented.

5.07

There is also no available analysis of leisure needs produced by the Council informing the emerging LDF evidence base to draw upon. However, the Annual Monitoring Report (2010) produced by Liverpool City Council identifies that between 2005 and 2010 between 85,000 sq.m of D2 leisure space was developed, which equates to 21,000 sq.m per annum. Liverpool Waters would represent just 1.2 years supply based on past trends. However, the proposed level of D2 uses at LW will be phased over a 30 year implementation period, which based on past trends would still provide for sufficient scope for other new D2 space to be directed towards the City Centre. We have been unable to draw on any trend data for A3, A4 and A5 uses.

Leisure Expenditure 5.08

This study has also drawn on data from Experian (2010)5 which estimates that the average person in Liverpool (2008) spends £3,761 on leisure goods per annum. This includes expenditure on activities such as restaurants, cafes, cultural services, hotel accommodation, recreational and sporting services. This leisure expenditure is set to increase on a yearly basis (according to Experian) by 1.4% per annum up to 2016; 1.8% between 2017 and 2026, and thereafter it is assumed to grow by 2.1% which reflect ultra long term trends (1968-2008).

5.09

Based on a future resident population of 14,100 people, it is estimated that LW will generate £89.8m of leisure expenditure by 2041. This will increase year on year as the scheme develops and will be available to support a range of quality leisure facilities.

5.10

It is estimated that given the large working population created by the scheme, there will be an additional 20% inflow from outside the masterplan, which will provide a further £18.0m of leisure expenditure. In total there will be £107.8m of leisure expenditure generated by the masterplan, which will be available for both the proposed facilities within LW but also available to the rest of the city centre and other surrounding district and local centres.

5

Experian Micromarketer G3: Retail and Leisure Report for Liverpool Local Authority Area (2010)

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 37


5.11

Unlike retail capacity, it is difficult to accurately assess how this expenditure would translate in to a quantum of leisure floorspace given the fragmented nature of the leisure sector, which comprises a number of different but complimentary leisure sectors (cafes, bars, entertainment etc).

5.12

However, it is evident that there will be significant expenditure available and created from within LW to support the provision of leisure facilities proposed, but will also create expenditure that can be spent elsewhere within the Liverpool economy at destination such as the City Centre and other district and local centres.

Hotel Development 5.13

In terms of hotel development, LW promotes 53,000 sq.m (gross) of hotel space which equates to 654 hotel rooms. This is phased with 23% being delivered in Neighbourhood A, 72% in Neighbourhood C with the remaining 5% delivered in Neighbourhood D. The annualised rate of development is just 21 bedrooms a year. Research by Liverpool Vision 6 has shown that the level of hotel supply in Liverpool City Centre has increased significantly since 1997 to date as the City has grown in popularity. The research has shown that on average the city centre has deliver 220 new hotel bedrooms per annum, the proposed hotel provision in LW would represent just 10% of this previous growth experienced. Indeed the level of hotel supply has increase by 200% in fourteen years. The proposed hotel provision at LW is therefore considered to be appropriate in terms of scale and is deliverable from a sustainability perspective.

6

Liverpool Vision / Liverpool City Council – Liverpool City Wide – Hotel Update (March 2011)

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 38


Figure 5.1: Growth in Liverpool’ City Centre Hotel Supply 1997-2011

5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 -500 -1,000

Source: Liverpool Vision/ Liverpool City Council (2005 reduction due to closure of Moat House Hotel to facilitate Liverpool One).

5.14

Furthermore, 149 hotel bedrooms will be delivered in Neighbourhood A between 2012 and 2016 delivering an average of 30 bed per annum, which is again well below the levels sustained in recent times. Neighbourhood C and D will deliver the majority of hotel provision over an extended 15 year period, which equates to an average of around 35 hotel bedrooms a year, again well below (15%) previous delivery in the City Centre. Figure 5.2 below shows the estimated build out of LW against the past 14 years of supply delivered in the City Centre.

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 39


Figure 5.2: Annualised Growth in Liverpool’ City Centre Hotel Supply 1997-2011 compared to average Build out at LW 600 500

LW Annualised Build Out

Bedrooms Per Annum

400 300 200 100 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 -100 -200 -300 Source: Liverpool Vision/ Liverpool City Council (2005 reduction due to closure of Moat House Hotel to facilitate Liverpool One).

5.15

Even if we took an unlikely scenario, whereby the proposed 654 bedrooms at LW resulted in the closure of the equivalent number of bedrooms in the city centre, then this would have an impact of just 13%. This analysis does not take into account any increased provision within the city centre over the intervening period. The research shows that hotel provision has grown on average at 14% per annum. With the current downturn and the reduction in occupancy experienced since peaks in 20057, we have assumed a more cautious growth rate of 1% annum, whereby we estimated that the city centre could have 6,200 bedrooms by 2041 (an additional 1,500 bedrooms).

5.16

This growth is comparable to the current level of speculative8 hotels proposed (1,039 bedrooms) in the city centre. As with above, if the proposed 654 bedrooms resulted in direct closure of city centre hotels then the impact would be just 10%. This obviously represents a worse case scenario. In addition, Policy E6 of the UDP allows hotel uses in specific areas of LW including Princes Dock

7 8

Figure 1 of Liverpool City Wide Hotel Update (March 2011) Figure 5 of Liverpool City Wide Hotel Update (March 2011)

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 40


(M3) and M77 (West Waterloo Dock) and therefore questions whether impact needs to be considered against PPS4 tests.

Even so, after considering this worse case scenario the impact

would be not be adverse and there would be nominal impact the hotel sector in the City Centre and would certainly not impact on the vitality and viability of the city centre in the short to long term. 5.17

It is clear given the relatively limited scale of hotel provision in LW that the levels proposed are manageable and will not adversely impact on the current and future hotel provision in the City Centre. Given the increased attractiveness of Liverpool as a tourist and leisure destination, then it unlikely that the proposed hotel provision will prejudice existing or future leisure or hotel investment in the short to long term.

Conclusion 5.18

The proposed level of leisure development is appropriate to the central location and is well below the levels sustained in recent years and demonstrates a logical extension of new provision over the longer term. The growth in leisure expenditure derived from the residents within the development will justify the level of space within Liverpool Waters but also supplement the future cruise liner facility. The level of leisure space is therefore considered appropriate over the longer term and will not impact on the vitality and viability of Liverpool City Centre. The leisure floorspace proposed is therefore acceptable both in terms of EC15 and EC16 of PPS4 despite as well as according with the development plan.

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 41


6.0 OFFICE USE ASSESSMENT Sequential Assessment 6.01

In terms of the potential need for economic generation in Liverpool and the city fringe, Liverpool is identified as a regional centre and should be main focus of future strategic office development. With the application site allocated in the development plan for economic development (including B1 office – Policy E2) and with part of the site located within the defined city centre, it is evident that the sequential approach is not necessary as vast majority of the LW site has already been identified for employment uses including B1 office in the development plan.

6.02

This section considers the office components of the LW masterplan. As set out in Table 2.2 in Section 2 of this report, these elements of the scheme total 314,400 sq.m (gross internal) and represent 24% of the wider commercial floorspace (including retail, office, hotel and restaurant/cafes/drinking establishment facilities). The uses are considered as main town centre uses and therefore, any proposed development inside the City Centre boundary, (i.e. Neighbourhoods A, B and part of C) are acceptable in PPS4 terms. In addition and as identified earlier in Section 3, most of the B1 uses are allocated within the waterside economic redevelopment area and therefore, are not subject to the tests of PPS4. With a clear policy direction from the development plan, the proposed office accommodation is not required to satisfy policy EC15 of PPS4.

Impact on Investment 6.03

The outline planning application seeks consent for 314,400 sq.m (Class B1) of office uses across the five neighbourhoods. The majority (250,000 sq.m) of which will be delivered within Neighbourhoods B and C between 2016 and 2036. Although the total level of office floorspace is significant, averaged out over the lifetime of the scheme, this would represent 10,500 sq.m per annum. Unlike retail floorspace capacity, there are no tried and tested methodologies for assessing the future needs for new office floorspace, a more common approach is to consider past take up rates and review of the available space, albeit it may have shortcomings.

6.04

This Study has drawn on the findings of the socio-economic chapter within the Environmental Statement, which considers the likely employment and economic impacts of the Liverpool Waters, in terms of broad patterns of occupier demand and development activity.

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 42


6.05

The socio-economic assessment has drawn on the CBRE office market assessment. CBRE have considered the impact of Liverpool Waters upon the city centre and out-of-centre office locations. The socio-economic assessment has considered a number of annual development rates and has applied sensitivity testing to reflect potential demand conditions corresponding to those previously delivered in Liverpool, Merseyside and the North West. As identified by CBRE, Liverpool Waters is about creating new markets which will secure national and international inward investment rather than more indigenous growth from within the city and region.

6.06

LW will play a vital role in encouraging and accommodating a substantial increase in the rate and quality of inward investment secured in Merseyside. Liverpool Waters will unlock substantial flows of inward investment from elsewhere in the UK or overseas, which will continue the drive to raise the profile and enhance the image of Liverpool and Merseyside as a place to invest, work and play.

6.07

The socio-economic evidence confirms that to deliver such large inward investment in both public and private sectors then the followings sites and premises will need to be freely available:

6.08

Ready availability of sites for development;

Immediate or short term availability of premises;

Availability of (opportunity to develop) major office building with large floorplates;

Sites and premises in accessible and sustainable locations; and

Locations that offer a range of amenities for staff.

LW will provide the opportunity for Liverpool and Merseyside to attract national and international inward investment that would otherwise consider alternative locations in the UK or Europe. Without Liverpool Waters this opportunity will be constrained and prejudice the growth of Liverpool and Merseyside in the medium to long term.

6.09

Whilst it is recognised that Pall Mall Exchange will provide scope for attracting large investors, it has limitations once the relocation of the Ministry of Justice is realised and therefore Liverpool Vision supports the need to consider LW to meet future requirements. As set out in the socio-

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 43


economic section, LW will significant address the current gap that exists between Liverpool, the sub regional and the national, including •

Extending the central business district creating a extended business location, accessible to sustainable transport modes, the scheme will attract investment in higher value activity diversifying the growth of Liverpool’s economy;

Changing the perception of local neighbourhoods and future prospects and attitudes to education and training;

Physical transformation of north Liverpool to foster and encourage new enterprise and business;

Support a wide ranging variety of employment opportunities at various levels and within different sectors;

Delivering the step change in volume of economic activity in north Liverpool coupled with targeted training to lower skilled employment opportunities to the workless residents in neighbouring deprived communities as well as up-skilling; and

The marketing of LW will be considerable different to the rest of the city centre and other office locations throughout Merseyside, whereby given nature of the scheme will be targeted at high end rental values which will only be afforded to national and international inward investors which will ensure that relocation and displacement are limited and therefore the impact on the city centre stock will be nominal de minimis.

Capacity / Need / Appropriate of Scale 6.10

The socio-economic chapter in the Environmental Statement states that between 2015 and 2031 the Liverpool City Region will generate additional demand for office accommodation of between 32,500 sq.m and 45,400 sq.m per annum. This is below that achieved between 2000 and 2008. This compares to long term office take up between 1998 and 2009 of 39,700 sq.m per annum (35% was Grade A accommodation). The Liverpool Economic & Employment Development Study found that despite redevelopment activity in the city centre, there is a constrained level of land available for purpose built office space across Liverpool and there is a potential under supply of 300,000 sq.m within the city up to 2021.

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 44


6.11

LW will (over the development period) deliver on average 10,800 sq.m of office floorspace per annum. When compared to past trends this will only deliver around 27% of previous annual rates. The floorspace also only represents between 23% and 33% of that identified across the Liverpool City Region. Office completions in Merseyside averaged at 35,000 sq.m per annum between 1999 to 2009, rising to 53,000 sq.m per annum over the period 2005-2009. Around 60% (or approximately 32,000 sq.m) of this was delivered in city centre/CBD locations.

6.12

This would ensure that there is still sufficient scope for other office developments to be implemented within the City Centre and elsewhere within the City Region. With the proposed phasing of LW, Table 5.1 shows the estimated delivery of office floorspace by each neighbourhood over the 30 year period. Table 5.1: Annualised Office Delivery at LW Neighbourhood

Period

of

Total Floorspace

Annualised

Implementation A

2012-2016

57,000

14,300

B and C

2016-2036

251,000

12,600

D

2031-2036

4,600

900

E

2036-2041

1,800

360

314,400

10,800

Total Annualised figures are rounded

6.13

LW will deliver in the first around 14,300 sq.m of office space, which when compared to past trends (53,000 sq.m per annum between 2005-2009), would represent around 27% of previous levels. The main quantum of office space will be delivered in neighbourhoods B and C, which together are estimated to be delivered over a 20 year period. This is estimated to deliver on average 12,600 sq.m per year, which represents 24% of previous trends. The figures also clearly illustrate that there will also be scope for other types off office accommodation to be provided elsewhere in Liverpool. This may include other business parks which would have lower rental levels focused on meeting less high profile businesses models.

6.14

It is expected that most of the floorspace would be Grade A quality with other types of specialist space provide subject to demand. There is a need at this initial stage to retain as much flexibility as possible to the phasing of the floorspace to ensure that the applicant can respond to occupier demand as and when it develops.

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 45


6.15

Past trends are not only a reliable source to estimate future capacity but can guide what level of such development can be sustained. The Annual Monitoring Report (2010) produced by Liverpool City Council found that between 2005 and 2010 between 314,860 sq.m of B1 (a) office space was developed, which equates to circa 63,000 sq.m per annum. Liverpool Waters would represent just 5 years supply based on past trends. However, the proposed level of B1 uses at LW will be phased over a 30 year implementation period, which s would still provide sufficient scope for other new B1 space to be directed towards the City Centre and elsewhere.

6.16

Against this current positive context, the socio-economic assessment in the ES has provided a number of economic scenarios for new growth and demand for office accommodation over the project period drawing on evidence from Economic Forecasts . These economic scenarios examine demand over the whole of the Liverpool City Region and the proposed maximum level of office accommodation in LW is well within the estimated parameters of growth expected in the longer term.

6.17

It is clear from both economic forecasts and past trends that the level of annualised office accommodation proposed at LW will help satisfy the demand for office accommodation in the City region in a sustainable location. The scale of development is well below that previously been delivered within the city centre as a whole and therefore is considered appropriate and in accordance with the development plan aspirations.

Impact on Office Development 6.18

Drawing on the socio-economic chapter of the ES it has been demonstrated that the employment impacts of LW across the region will include: •

Impact on local employment in North Liverpool and Liverpool will be substantially positive, as it raises educational attainment, skills levels and employability as well as major beneficial effect which is significant;

•

Impact on Greater Merseyside will be substantially positive, with major beneficial effect which is significant

•

Impact on the north-west will be moderately positive and result in an intermediate beneficial effect which is significant.

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 46


6.19

The socio-economic chapter identifies that the office market performance impacts of LW will be of a moderate positive magnitude on Liverpool City Centre due to the continued expansion of the city centre into Princes Dock and King Edward Wharf. The socio-economic assessment identifies that there may be some negative impacts elsewhere within the city centre boundary in the earlier years of the development, which will be mainly tempory in nature; however, these will be mitigated by the overall positive benefits the development will bring to the wider city.

6.20

Furthermore, it is clear that given the role and function of the proposed office accommodation, the extent of relocation and displacement of future demand from the existing city centre stock will limited by the rental values at LW. There will be a substantial increase in prevailing Grade A Levels which will not be attractive to existing business as they are targeted towards national and international investors. The impact on Liverpool is estimated to be significant.

6.21

The impact on out-of-centre markets in Greater Merseyside is estimated to be slightly negative as result of some displacement of demand with neutral-minor adverse effects. It must be remembered that out-of-centre markets are usually targeted towards lower value business orientated models which will not support the values targeted at LW.

6.22

The impact on Manchester City office market is estimated to negligible and is unlikely to affect its strong regional presence and its ability to attract national and international inward investment and as such result will have a neutral effect which is not significant.

6.23

The socio-economic chapter also considers the cumulative impact of LW alongside major development such as Wirral Waters (WW) and Pall Mall. These two schemes have been considered as they are likely to affect the market in which LW will operate and both contain significant quantities of office accommodation which will compete for tenants from wider geographical markets and sectors.

6.24

The combined schemes propose around 790,000 sq.m of office accommodation, which is estimated to represent 18,500 sq.m per annum up to 2050. In the first three years (and as a result of Princes Dock), the average will be 24,700 sq.m per annum. Although ambitious it is still well below previous trends and current forecasts. To put these figures into context, the annual office take up across whole Liverpool office market 9 was 65,000 sq.m between 2007 and 2009 with the

9

Includes City Centre, City Fringe and out-of-centre locations in south and north Liverpool and Knowsley

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 47


annual average take up for the city centre between 1999 and 2009 being 44,000 sq.m per annum, of which 14,000 sq.m was Grade A. 6.25

The development strategy for WW is different compared to Liverpool City Centre and LW. It is likely to attract similar sectors and types of occupiers to those that in the past have located in outof-centre business parks around Merseyside, Cheshire, Greater Manchester and Lancashire. It is expected that it will focus on occupiers such as public sector, educational, call centres, business and professional services, administrative offices of manufacturing and services companies not seeking high profile locations, whereas LW will seek to attract banking, financial and professional services requiring prominent CBD locations, targeted at international occupiers. This will be expressed through higher rental levels than those achieved at WW.

6.26

Despite the above differences, the socio-economic assessment accepts that it is inevitable that LW will compete to so extent with out-of-centre locations throughout Merseyside including both WW and Pall Mall. Such displacement may occur between schemes; however, this will only result in lower development rates for each of the three schemes. The ES has therefore provided a number of development rate sensitivity tests to consider the cumulative impact. The results show that despite reduced development take up rates, the impacts on local employment in north Liverpool, Liverpool and Merseyside will still be substantially positive with major beneficial effects which are significant.

6.27

Similar to the LW impact, it was found that the cumulative office market performance impact of the three schemes will remain positive for Liverpool City Centre and provide an intermediate beneficial effect which is significant. The cumulative impact on Greater Merseyside out-of-town office markets will be slightly negative as a result of some displacement, with a minor adverse – intermediate adverse effect.

6.28

It is clear from the socio-economic chapter of the ES that both the impact and cumulative impact of LW and other major development proposals will not have a significant adverse impact.

Conclusion 6.29

Extending the CBD will enhance Liverpool as major business location which will attract national and international inward investment which will help deliver lasting growth and restructuring in the economy which will improve future prospects in attitude, education and training. The office

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 48


floorspace proposed is therefore acceptable both in terms of EC15 and EC16 of PPS4 as well as conforming with the development plan.

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 49


7.0 RETAIL USES ASSESSMENT 7.01

PPS4 introduced six ‘centre’ impact considerations which relate to applications for main town centre uses that are not in a centre and not in accordance with an up-to-date development plan (as set out in Policy EC16 and its subsections). Without wishing to duplicate arguments presented previously, it is evident that the parts of the proposed land uses within the application site are allocated in the development plan as being suitable for office and leisure developments.

However, there are parts of the site which

are not allocated for ancillary retail development and therefore EC16 would apply. For completeness, our assessment of EC16 is set out below.

Impact on In-Centre Investment 7.02

The first consideration of EC16 (a) relates to whether there is evidence of a proposal having an impact on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal. It is acknowledged that given that the retail elements are ancillary and supportive of the wider proposal then it will cater for an entirely localised population and will not impact on other identified centres. Notwithstanding this, the study has sought to identify the main planned investment with Liverpool City Council through the scoping stages of the EIA process. These were identified to be:

7.03

Stanley Dock Warehouse Project;

Project Jennifer;

30-36 Pall Mall;

70-90 Pall Mall;

Kingston House;

Kings Dock;

The Quarter, and

East Float (Wirral Waters).

As part of the Cumulative Impact Scoping Paper prepared by WYG in July 2010 and agreed by Liverpool City Council, the details of the above proposals were considered as part of the EIA process. For the purpose of this study and the consideration of Policy EC16 (a), a review of the impact on each of these committed project is considered below. It is important to note at this stage that few (if any) of the proposed planned

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 50


schemes are actually considered sequentially preferable to the proposal at Liverpool Waters (such as Stanley Dock). Further to the Scoping Paper, this study has also identified and will consider the impact on the redevelopment of St Johns Shopping Centre and the recently released Strategy for the Main Retail Area (MRA). Each of the identified proposals is shown on the plan of the City Centre in Appendix 4. 7.04

In terms of the Stanley Dock Warehouse development (Site 1, Appendix 4), the development will comprise 931 residential units, 1,772 sq.m of A3 and A4 (cafÊ/restaurants/drinking establishment) uses, 730 sq.m of A1 uses and 10,732 sq.m of B1 uses. The site sits immediately east, of the LW masterplan area, although benefiting from planning approval (2008), there appear to be significant issues to overcome in relation to the projects viability, regardless of whether LW is implemented or not. In fact, LW will significantly enhance the setting and financial stability of Stanley Docks as the land values in the area increase and a new community is created. With Stanley Docks expected to be delivered by 2024, this RLOS anticipates that the most of the retail and leisure development within LW will be delivered between 2021 and 2036, after Stanley Docks has been implemented. The Stanley Docks’ success will be intrinsically linked with the progress of initial phases of LW and will be positively influenced by it.

7.05

Project Jennifer (Site 2, Appendix 4) relates to creation of a new district centre 1.5 km to the east of the LW regeneration area. The proposal includes a (10,569 sq.m) superstore and non food retail units and other community and leisure facilities, as well as new light industrial units and public realm improvements. The scheme benefits from planning approval (2009) and work is expected to commence in 2011 and be operational by 2016. The proposal will support the local district population in and around Everton. As highlighted above, LW will not be delivering any retail or leisure floorspace between 2021 and 2036, as set out later in this study, the retail elements of the LW are solely designed to support future residential populations and employees within the application site, rather than drawing trade from elsewhere within Liverpool. Therefore, the retail component of LW will not impact on the delivery of Project Jennifer and the two projects will clearly be able to operate effectively. As demonstrated later in this section, surplus expenditure will still be available to facilities outside LW including Project Jennifer in the short to medium term which will only serve to support (through increased availability of retail expenditure locally) this initiative from being brought forward.

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 51


7.06

Proposals to redevelop 30-36 Pall Mall (Site 3, Appendix 4) for office development were approved in 2009 and comprise two office blocks and associated ground floor retailing. It is not expected that LW would in anyway prejudice the scheme from being implemented in the short term given the longer term timescales of the LW scheme and the fact that the development is seeking to create an international office destination which will complement the existing established commercial core.

7.07

The conversion and extension of the warehouse buildings at 70-90 Pall Mall (Site 4, Appendix 4) for a variety of uses including Class B1 (Office), A1 (Retail) were approved in October 2009. This is in addition to outline consent for a 12 storey building with hotel and B1 (offices and workshops) and B2 (General Industrial) uses. There is no timetable for commencement of works at this time although it is being promoted for the relocation of the Ministry of Justice. It is likely that this will be developed during the construction of the early phases of LW and its delivery will not be adversely impacted upon.

7.08

The Kings Dock development (Site 5, Appendix 4) is located to the south of the City Centre, adjacent to the Albert Dock quarter. David McLean completed the 10,000 Arena, conference centre and exhibition space in 2008 and the scheme is considered approximately 50% complete with the final residential phase on hold. The site has been acquired following the administration of the previous owners and new proposals are being drawn up. In terms of the retail and elements of the scheme, which have, in the most part, been delivered, LW will not in any way impact upon the completion of the remaining retail/residential elements of the Docks which are estimated to built before 2018 which will correspond with the construction period of Neighbourhood A and the start of works for Neighbourhood B which involve limited levels of retail and leisure floorspace.

7.09

The Kingston House redevelopment (Site 6, Appendix 4) involves the demolition of the existing Kingston House office block on the waterfront in order to provide a replacement office building. The site has been cleared with public funding and is available for immediate development. At present there is no timescale for its redevelopment. Again it is anticipated that this site will come forward in the short to medium term and will not be adversely affected by the LW scheme.

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 52


7.10

Vermont Development obtained full planning consent in March 2007 for the Quarter development (Site 7, Appendix 4). The scheme comprises 5 blocks, including a 22 storey building and four 7 to 10 storey buildings containing 1,200 sq.m of B1 (office) uses, 145 bed hotel (C1), 1,200 sq.m of leisure (D1) uses, 1,400 sq.m of restaurant and bar (A3/A4) uses and 600 sq.m of retailing (A1) uses. Since the application was approved, the developer has gone into administration and therefore, we are unable to obtain any clear evidence as to the likely deliverability of the scheme.

7.11

The next opportunity that has been identified is St Johns Shopping Centre. Land Securities obtained planning permission (08F/0523) in 2008 to reconfigure and remodel St Johns Shopping Centre (Site 8, Appendix 4), which included creation of new pedestrian plaza linking the centre with the Central Village redevelopment. From information that is publically available, despite the project being on hold it has been announced that work may commence on the project in 201210. It is not considered that the retail element in LW would prejudice the ability of this existing shopping centre from being reconfigured in the future when the retail market recovers from current cyclical factors. As will be demonstrated later, the LW development seeks to rely solely on the expenditure generated from within the site and will not draw trade from other residents within Liverpool and the wider sub-region. This means that any future growth within Liverpool will still be available to support the redevelopment and reconfiguration of St Johns Shopping Centre in the future.

7.12

Despite the planning submission for Liverpool Waters in 2010, Merepark are progressing with the Central Village development, with a major cinema operator secured as well as number of hotel operators, demonstrating the confidence in development values in Liverpool which will redevelop the former Lewis department store and realise new office, retail and hotel uses to this part of the city centre.

7.13

Wirral Waters has obtained outline planning consent and comprises the transformation of East Float at Birkenhead. Its redevelopment will create 13,500 residential units, 422,760 sq.m of B1 (Offices), a maximum of 60,000 sq.m of retail (A1-A5) uses, hotel and conference facilities (C1) as well as other leisure, cultural, education and community floorspace. The developer in this instance is Peel Land and Property (Ports) Ltd the same as the applicant for LW. As both schemes are

10

Liverpool Development Update February 2011

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 53


clearly complementary and form part of a wider vision Peel has confirmed that LW will not prejudice the implementation of Wirral Waters. 7.14

In addition and as discussed in section 2, the MRA Strategy (2011) sets out six priority interventions for the MRA over the next 15 years. Whilst the main retail and leisure elements of LW are not expected to be delivered between 2021 and 2035, with nominal levels of new retail and leisure floorspace proposed between 2012 and 2021, we don’t believe that the MRA strategy would be prejudiced. The phasing of LW will ensure that the MRA strategy can be implemented with nominal impact on key priorities.

7.15

The juxtaposition of LW in relation to the northern and eastern parts (Priority One) of the MRA would not have any potential impact on reinforcing theses key areas as key public spaces and delivering improved pedestrian connectivity between key visitor destinations. The priority relates to environmental improvements rather than deliver of new provision and therefore LW will not prejudice the partner’s ability to deliver this in the short to medium term.

7.16

Similar to Priority One, the delivery of LW will not have an adverse impact on the deliver of Priority two, which seeks to transform arrival points and pedestrian access and movement in and around the MRA. LW will not prejudice the partners’ ability to deliver these qualitative improvements to public transport and pedestrian movement investment. Such management and environment improvement commitments will not be affected by LW.

7.17

In terms of Priority three, LW is not proposing any type of development that could be considered to impact on the future viability of the indoor or outdoor markets. The introduction of 14,100 residents and new workers to LW will only help bolster patronage to the city centre including the markets. It is difficult to see how LW would impact on the future management of the city centre and traders, and is an issue which can only be delivered through effective management.

7.18

The leisure component of LW will not affect the delivery of Priority Four, which seeks to strengthen the heritage, music, maritime and sport. The rich heritage and cultural fabric of Liverpool is one of the principle reasons why people visit the city centre, LW will not represent a serious alternative destination to these attractions as they are unique tourism attractions in their own right and cannot be replicated. LW will not prejudice such cultural and historic assets and will only serve to complement the city centre with and enhanced World Heritage Site.

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 54


7.19

Like Priority three, LW will not prejudice the ability of the main partners to develop a consistent city centre management, branding and promotion. As explained throughout the submission, LW is principally a residential redevelopment (in terms of floorspace) with new business and mix of uses which will complement and expand the existing city centre, which over time will further enhance the branding and image of the city as a key place to live, work and visit.

7.20

As discussed above with Central Village being delivered, despite the context of LW being brought forward, it has not prejudice Merepark’s confidence in delivering this scheme which will anchor the improvements around Williamson Square and Whitechapel which over time will reinforce this part of the MRA. LW will not compete with this area of the MRA.

7.21

Notwithstanding, our view that LW will not prejudice the ability of stakeholders to deliver the MRA Strategy, the applicant is already committed to the Waterside Partnership, and would be willing to consider being more actively involved in strategies which improve and enhance the brand and marketing of Liverpool as a destination as there are mutual benefits to widening Liverpool’s image and branding to ensure further investment is secured.

7.22

In conclusion, it is quite clear that the LW will not prejudice the delivery of key initiatives in the city centre nor will it impact on the delivery of key development opportunities earmarked in the city over the short to medium term. It is believed that LW will help significantly support the continued investor confidence that has been directed at Liverpool in recent times.

Impact on Vitality and Viability 7.23

The second element of EC16 relates to criterion (b) which considers the proposals impact on the city centre’s vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and the range and quality of comparison and convenience goods retailing.

As highlighted previously, the scheme is designed

to meet the needs of future residents and employees within LW. Therefore, the development seeks to provide retail facilities which would support (and be ancillary to) the wider development rather than creating a single shopping and leisure destination in its own right which could compete with the city centre. The retail and leisure elements of LW are therefore considered to be complementary to the city centre, which is reflected in their scale and nature. Indeed, the design of the scheme has sought to spread the retail uses across the development as each phase is progressed rather than creating significant nodes or clusters which could become destinations in their own right.

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 55


7.24

The current health of Liverpool City Centre is considered to be strong, and received a significant boost in 2008 with the introduction of Liverpool One. This high quality development by Grosvenor Properties, introduced 1 million sq.m of new commercial retail/leisure floorspace into the heart of the city centre. The city centre’s fortunes as a result have been transformed with the introduction of two new major department stores (John Lewis and Debenhams) supported by a significant number of high quality national multiples. This builds on the significant investment also secured at the City’s Met Quarter development.

7.25

Drawing on data from Venuescore (which ranks town centre destinations), Liverpool’s national ranking has leapt and unprecedented 9 places from 15th in 2005 to 4th in 201011. This confidence has been recently found in Colliers’s Autumn 2011 ‘Great Britain Retail’ research found that Liverpool had the highest prime rent in the North West at £265 per sq.ft, which is comparable to Central London average of £311 per sq.ft. Liverpool’s Experian retail ranking has also increased to 3rd in the UK, demonstrating the confidence in the City.

7.26

The city centre now benefits from a strong comparison goods retail offer which is well above the national average (Experian, GOAD)12. Furthermore, since 2000 the city centre has seen a significant increase in the level of leisure provision of which Liverpool One has also made a significant contribution. The improvements to the City Centre have made Liverpool a key retail and leisure destination in the north-west region further building on the success of the 2008 City of Culture.

7.27

More recently there has been positive improvements to the prime Zone A rents13, especially when compared to other UK cities. This confidence has also been expressed through improved yields

14

in the period 2006 to 2008. 7.28

The confidence in Liverpool City Centre’s future commercial prospects is not just reliant on its strong retail offer, but Liverpool Vision

15

identified a significant improvement in office take up

within the city centre coupled with stable vacancy rate, despite wider economic uncertainty. CBRE

11 12 13 14 15

Table 1, Appendix 2 (Venuescore (2010) Experian Goad Centre Report, UK Averages 2009, Tables 2 to 7 and Figures 2 to 11 Appendix 2 Table 8, Appendix 2 Figure 12, Appendix 2 Liverpool Commercial Office Market Review 2010

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 56


16

agree with these conclusions and demonstrate that in 2009 Liverpool experienced a higher office

take up than the average annual rate for the last 10 years. 7.29

Although the scale of development planned at Liverpool Waters is significant, it must be recognised that the development will take place over a significant timescale. Therefore, any increase in retail, leisure and office floorspace will occur as the market responds to the opportunity presented and as the residential community is established. As a result, the phasing of the scheme will ensure that the scale and pace of change at LW will not undermine the vitality and viability of the established City Centre. Clearly, Liverpool has witnessed significant improvements in its vitality and viability over recent years and the LW scheme will seek to build on this rather than compete with it.

Impact on Allocated Sites 7.30

The third component of EC16 relates to criterion (c) which considers the impact of proposals on allocated sites outside town centres. This is considered not to be relevant in relation to LW as there are no other significant allocated sites outside of the city centre which would be impacted by the proposed development. The proposed development will realise the development plan mixed use allocation (Policy E6, M3, M77, M65) across most of the waterside economic area and therefore the impact will be positive in terms of delivering the Council’s aspirations and implementation of sustainable economic development.

7.31

In terms of impact on allocated sites within the City Centre, LW will only help to encourage further investment in the city centre, as LW will help bolster continued investment confidence in the City bring economic, environmental and social improvements to the existing resident and business community.

Impact on In-Centre Trade/Turnover 7.32

The fourth criterion relates to the impact of the proposal on in-centre trade/turnover and on trade in the wider area, taking account of current and future consumer expenditure capacity. In order to consider this issue in detail, we have undertaken a quantitative analysis based on the needs of future residents and employees within LW. The retail tables referred to in this section are contained in Appendix 1.

16

CBRE MarketView UK regional Office Centre – Liverpool Offices (2009)

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 57


7.33

During the preparation of this study, WYG were aware that the Council had instructed consultants GL Hearn to prepare a Retail Study to inform their Local Development Framework (LDF). However, the results of the study are unlikely to be available until late 2011. The LW team, however, has consulted with GL Hearn to agree17 to a number of base data where available on existing provision and major planning commitments as well as other assumptions on retail planning matters.

Expenditure Growth/Capacity of LW Masterplan 7.34

Table 1 and Table 2 at Appendix 1 apply estimates of average annual expenditure per person in Liverpool (produced using Experian data - see Appendix 2) to the proposed resident population within the wider scheme in order to forecast the convenience and comparison goods expenditure generated over the period 2011 to 2041. Forecast growth is based on published figures by Experian. The Experian data (2010) is based on current estimated expenditure rates for the Liverpool administrative area.

7.35

The assessment has striped out SFT for convenience and comparison goods retailing. Surveys carried out recently by GL Hearn, found that SFT for convenience goods is just 0.93% and 6.82% for comparison goods. This assessment has applied the derived SFT from GL Hearn rather than those stated by Experian as they represent the existing socio-economics of the local area (rather than more arbitrary national figures). WYG has also adopted SFT growth rates as suggested by GL Hearn.

7.36

The following key features should be noted from this analysis: •

The resident population within the development is estimated (rounded up) to increase as follows - 1,900 residents at 2016, 2,500 residents at 2021, 4,000 residents at 2026, 6,400 residents at 2031, 10,500 residents at 2036 and 14,100 residents at 2041. This is based on the English Housing Survey (2008) examining household formation (1.68 persons a household) produced by the DCLG. The figures also contain a 50% for the first year and then 95% occupancy rate thereafter.

•

The working (workspace figures) population within the development is estimated to increase during the implementation of the project from 3,200 in 2016 peaking at 17,400 by 204118.

17 18

Correspondence from GL Hearn dated the 12th January 2011 Taken from Table 13-22 of Socio-Economic Section of EIA, prepared by Regeneris (2011).

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 58


Experian estimate that convenience and comparison goods expenditure per capita is £1,732 and £2,447 per person at 2008 respectively. These have been forecast over the LW implementation period (2011 to 2041) based on Experian’s actual and estimated growth rates, (long and ultra term rates respectively beyond 2027).

The resident population of LW is estimated to generate convenience goods expenditure of £32.0m in 2041. At 2016 the resident population will generate £3.5m, rising to £4.9m at 2021, £8.2m by 2026, £13.4m by 2031, £22.9m by 2036 and £32.0m by 2041.

The resident population at LW is anticipated to generate £104.4m of comparison goods expenditure by 2041. At 2016 the resident population will generate £5.3m rising, to £7.9m at 2021, £14.6m by 2026, £28.8m by 2031, £60.6m by 2036 and £104.4m by 2041.

This study estimates that if, on average, a quarter of the working population spent £5 per day (based on 260 working dates per year) on convenience goods, there would be £0.7m of available convenience goods expenditure available at 2016, £3.2m at 2031 and £4.7m at 2041 available to local facilities.

The resident population at LW is anticipated to generate a level of leisure expenditure in the order of £89.8m at 2041.

7.37

Therefore, because of rising population and retail expenditure per capita, and as new development comes on stream, the level of new available convenience and comparison goods (and leisure) expenditure generated will increase year on year up to 2041.

7.38

With the proposed development forming a logical extension to the city over the next thirty years, and given that the proposed development will introduce 14,100 new residents and a working population of 17,400, it is anticipated that the proposal can only have a significant positive impact on the city centre as a whole. The development has been specifically designed to ensure that the level of retail floorspace proposed relates appropriately to the scale of demand/need that will be created by the new local population in each of the neighbourhoods rather than relying on expenditure from elsewhere within the city to support it.

7.39

Given the extended time horizon of the proposed development, it is difficult to assess the potential impact of the proposal within the five year test period as advised in PG accompanying PPS419. Indeed, the proposed retail development serve to absorb expenditure that will be generated by future residents and employees and that surplus expenditure during the infancy years of the

19

PPS4: Planning For Town Centres, Practice Guidance on need, Impact and the Sequential Approach (DCLG) (December, 2009).

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 59


project will be available to be spent within the city centre or other facilities in the sub region. To predict the impact of the proposed development at 5 years intervals is not applicable in this instance. Given that the scheme is designed to be self-sufficient it is clear that the scheme will not have an adverse impact on the performance of the existing city centre (as it will not rely on trade from elsewhere), but will actually provide further expenditure generated locally that can be spent at facilities in the City Centre and other destinations within the city and sub region.

Turnover of the Proposal Convenience Goods 7.40

In considering potential impact on in-centre trade/turnover and on trade in the wider area it is necessary to set out the expected turnover of the proposed development. The proposed convenience goods elements will be spread across all five neighbourhoods but will mainly be delivered in neighbourhoods C, D and E and therefore, after 2032. It is expected that the proposed foodstores will be small to medium in size ranging between 1,000 and 1,500 sq.m and located within the ground floor of proposed building blocks.

7.41

For the purposes of this assessment, a net to gross internal of 95% and a sales floorspace ratio of 70:30 has been assumed. Accordingly, given the proposed gross floorspace of 7,800 sq.m, it is estimated that the combined net sales area will be 4,900 sq.m20. Given the more localised nature of the stores, we believe that the level of comparison goods retailing associated within them will be somewhat limited compared to the levels found in larger freestanding superstores.

7.42

As the stores will be relatively small in size (1,000 to 1,500 sq. m (net) it is anticipated that they will be occupied by a range of potential operators including both leading grocers with their ‘local’ formats and discount convenience food and grocer operators. At this time we estimate that between 3 and 4 stores will be dispersed through the masterplan. Table 5 in Appendix 1 reviews the average turnover figures of such retailers and arrives at an average sales density of £7,176 per sq.m21 at 2011. We have also assumed an increased productivity of 0.5% per annum up to 2041 as agreed22 with GL Hearn. By applying this growth to the sales density and net convenience floorspace proposed, this equates to a potential turnover across three to four stores of £39.8 per annum (Table 6 at Appendix 1) when fully operational at 2041.

20

Taken from Table 6, Appendix 1 Taken from Table 5 Appendix 1, from Mintel Retail Rankings (2011), which is an average of small/medium foodstore operators 22 WYG note this that 0.5% per annum productivity for convenience goods represents a worst case scenario as WYG usually adopt 0.2% per annum in other cases. 21

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 60


7.43

Of this turnover, 10 per cent (or £4.0m) is identified to be derived from beyond the proposed development – i.e. inflow. This assumption is based on existing shopping patterns within the city and professional assumptions but also agreed with GL Hearn. This ‘inflow’ will be primarily from visitors from outside the development and the city who are visiting Liverpool as part of a tourist or cultural derived visit. The level (10%) of inflow of visitors/tourists is lower to that which informed the Liverpool Quantitative Retail Study (May 2006), which found that the City Centre had a convenience goods inflow of 20%23 from beyond the city, however, this demonstrates a more cautious approach.

7.44

As set out earlier in this section, the proposed retail and leisure elements of LW will also support local employees who will use local facilities as part of ‘linked trip’ with their journey to work. As highlighted above, it is estimated that £4.7m of convenience goods expenditure will be generated by employees at LW by 2041.

7.45

After taking into account inflow and the anticipated spend by employees, the likely turnover will be £31.0m at 2041. As set out in Table 1 of Appendix 1, it is anticipated that the resident population alone will create £32.0m of convenience expenditure per annum. This demonstrates the convenience goods element will be self-sufficient and will absorb circa 95%-100% of the expenditure that will be generated within the proposed development. In addition, it is also important to note that the phasing of convenience goods retail floorspace will primarily occur between 2021 and 2032, which will actually mean that the expenditure generated before 2032 will initially be available to other facilities within Liverpool City Centre and other surrounding district and local centres, which will only have a positive impact in the medium term and further strengthen their future viability. In 2016 there would be £3.8m (min) of convenience expenditure generated from residents, £1.4m in 2021, £5.8m in 2026 and £11.8m by 203124 that will available to spend at existing convenience goods facilities elsewhere. In 2036 the level of convenience goods turnover will be higher than level of convenience goods generated and therefore there may be initial impact on other facilities. However, this position will be rebalanced at 2041 where expenditure will be above the estimated turnover of LW, and £1.0m will be available to other facilities. This will be explored in more detail later in this section.

23

24

Taken from Table 3.2 of Liverpool Quantitative Retail Study (May 2006) Taken from Table 6 in Appendix 1

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 61


Comparison Goods 7.46

With regard to the comparison goods element of the masterplan, the scale of floorspace is similarly designed to serve future residents and employees within LW. The proposed development will create 19,100 sq.m (gross) of comparison goods floorspace over lifetime of the scheme. It is estimated that this will create a net sales area of 13,600 sq.m based on a net to gross ratio of 71%.

7.47

As highlighted earlier, the resident population alone will generate £104.4m comparison goods expenditure at 2041. Similar to convenience goods retailing, the RLOS allows for an element of inflow from outside the city. Drawing on the Liverpool Quantitative Retail Study, which found that a third of trade was drawn from outside the adopted Study Area, the RLOS has assumed a more conservative estimate of inflow of 20%. This will comprises 10% inflow from future workers and 10% from visitors/tourists to the area. This figure does not take into account the potential ‘spin off’ from users of the proposed Cruise liner terminal as well as other residents within Liverpool and is therefore considered a cautious approach.

7.48

This assessment assumes an average comparison goods sales density of £5,000 per sq.m at 2010 which is reflective of a variety of different comparison goods sectors. By applying this sales density (with a increased productivity of rate of 2% per annum as agreed with GL Hearn

25

) to the level of

proposed floorspace, this equates to a potential turnover of £123.1m at 2041. £24.6m of this will be derived from inflow from expenditure generated outside the area/development. 7.49

After taking into account potential inflow, the anticipated surplus turnover will be approximately £98.4m at 2041. This compares to the expenditure generated by local residents within LW which equates to £104.4m at 2041. This demonstrates the comparison goods element will be selfsufficient and will absorb around 95% of the comparison goods expenditure that will be generated by new residents within the scheme. Therefore, there will be significant surplus (assuming all spent at LW) of comparison goods expenditure (£6.0m) which will be available to other facilities within and around the city centre which again can only have a positive impact.

7.50

In light of the above this study confirms that there will be sufficient expenditure generated by local residents and employees to support the level of comparison goods retail floorspace proposed. Therefore, apart form the anticipated inflow, the proposed retail floorspace will not rely on any

25 WYG note this that 2% per annum productivity for convenience goods represents a worst case scenario as WYG usually adopt 1% per annum in other cases. WYG believe this is worse case scenario.

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 62


expenditure generated elsewhere with the city. Furthermore, there will be surplus expenditure generated by local residents which will be available to facilities elsewhere in the City which will bring significant positive benefits. Trade Impact Methodology 7.51

To consider impact, this study has drawn on floorspace data for convenience and comparison floorspace provided by GL Hearn. We have applied benchmark sales densities (with assumptions of sales productivity - 0.5% for convenience and 2% for comparison per annum respectively) to estimate the benchmark turnover of the city centre and other centres in north and central Liverpool.

7.52

On this basis, we have been able to estimate both the convenience and comparison goods turnover of each of the centres and rolled this forward to 2041 as well as allowing for known planning commitments in relation to each of the identified centres. For the purposes of this assessment we have considered the total turnover of each centre.

7.53

The combined turnover of the City Centre at 2016 is £1,118.4m increasing to £1,806.1m by 204126. The assessment assumes the St Johns Centre redevelopment will trade at 2014, other small scale schemes have been excluded at this stage, and in reality more development is likely to occur within the main retail area (MRA) over the next 30 years. As outlined above, and after taking into account the expenditure generated from residents at LW, there will be a surplus £7.0m (£1.0m convenience goods and £6.0m comparison goods) of all expenditure generated available to be spent at the facilities in the city centre or elsewhere. If all directed to Liverpool City Centre it would increase its estimated combined turnover to £1,813.1m by 2041, which would represent a +0.4% positive impact.

7.54

The above analysis is simplistic and it is difficult given the longevity of the project to consider the impact, as there are likely to be many variables over the next thirty years which can not be predicted at this time. However, future planning applications for different development blocks will still be subject to updated retail impact assessments or a statement of conformity, and therefore these impacts (if applicable) can be tested again to ensure compatibility with future planning policy at an appropriate time in the future. This mechanism will allow the City Council to have sufficient safeguards to control the future release of development against the future vitality and viability of existing centres at that time.

26

Table 13, Appendix 1

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 63


7.55

To demonstrate potential impact to the Council, this assessment has considered a number of impact sensitivity testing scenarios, which consider a number of potential circumstances that may or may not occur over the next 30 years. These are set out below: Impact Scenario

Assumption

1 - Baseline Impact

Considers the impact on the City Centre, assuming that Liverpool Waters is self sufficient and that any residual expenditure is spent or diverted to Liverpool City Centre

2 – Baseline (50%)

As with 1 above, however, assumes that 50% of the proposed retail turnover is directly drawn from existing retail businesses in the City Centre.

3 – Baseline (100%)

As with 1 and 2 above, assumes the unlikely event that 100% of the proposed retail turnover is drawn from existing retail businesses in the City Centre.

Shown in Table 13 of Appendix 1 1a – Baseline Cumulative Impact

Considers the impact on the City Centre as with Scenario 1 above, but also considers the trade assumptions by approved Wirral Waters on Liverpool City Centre.

2b - Baseline Cumulative (50%)

As with 1a above, but also assumes that 50% (as with Scenario 2 above) of the proposed retail turnover of LW is directly drawn from existing businesses in the City Centre.

3b – Baseline Cumulative (100%)

As with 1a above, but also assumes the unlikely event that 100% of the proposed retail turnover of LW is drawn from existing businesses in the City Centre.

Shown in Table 14 of Appendix 1.

7.56

The baseline scenario (Table 14, Appendix 1) considers the position that Liverpool Waters is self sufficient and that the any surplus or residual expenditure is either spent or drawn from the City Centre. However, the assessment has also considered the scenario, whereby either 50% of the residential population does not materialise or alternatively the proposed retail directly competes with the City Centre and draws 50% of its turnover directly from the city centre. We note that this is an unlikely scenario, as the applicant would not implement LW if they were not satisfied that the proposed residential units would be sellable. The second scenario considers the extreme scenario that the proposed retail is built with no residential elements and therefore in affect acts as a

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 64


standalone retail park, rather than the proposed mixed use regeneration scheme. The extreme scenario assumes that 100% of the turnover of LW is diverted from the City Centre. 7.57

As with the above baseline position, the impact analysis (Table 15, Appendix 1) also considers the cumulative impact of LW with Wirral Waters (WW), based on the submitted evidence from Turley Associates (TA). Based on the same methodology as above, the impact looks at the baseline position, and 50% and 100% trade diversion scenario. The assessment draws on TA’s approach, which considers the potential comparison goods impact on Birkenhead, Liskard, Liverpool and Chester. TA’s convenience goods impact assessment only considers the impact on Wirral’s existing convenience goods facilities, with no trade diversion from adjoining authorities. For robustness WYG assume that one third of the comparison goods turnover of WW will be drawn directly from Liverpool City Centre. This represents a worse case scenario and a worse case to that adopted by Turley Associates.

7.58

The cumulative impact of both LW and WW has also considered the impact on Birkenhead. This is based on one third of both convenience and comparison goods turnover from WW is diverted from Birkenhead and we have also applied the baseline, 50% and 100% scenarios adopted for trade diversion from LW. This sensitivity testing has allowed a series of worse case scenarios to be demonstrated.

7.59

In addition, the assessment has considered the impact on Bootle Town Centre in adjoining Sefton, the assessment has taken a scenario which assumes that 10% of LW’s turnover will be diverted directly from Bootle based on the baseline, 50% and 100% trade diversion scenarios adopted for both Liverpool and Birkenhead. We note that TA considered that WW will not impact on Bootle. We believe the above demonstrates a worse case position.

7.60

After taking into account WW, a further assessment has focused on the impact of LW on surrounding centres. We have considered a number of potential trade diversion scenarios on existing defined centres across central and north Liverpool. The assessment has also sought to examine the following centres in agreement with the Council and their consultants. Figure 7.1 below shows the spatial distribution of the network of established centres in the context of LW.

Liverpool City Centre

Breck Road District Centre

Great Homer Local Centre

London Road

County Road District Centre

Rice Lane Local Centre

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 65


Birkenhead Town Centre *

Walton Vale District Centre

Kensington Local Centre

Bootle Town Centre **

Edge Hill District Centre

Lodge Lane/Smithdown Road North Local Centre

* located in Wirral MBC, ** located in Sefton MBC

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 66


Figure 7.1: Liverpool Waters – Centres Impact Analysis

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 67


7.61

For the impact assessment of centres in central and north Liverpool, we have again utilised the baseline, 50% and 100% trade diversion scenarios. To illustrate a range of potential impacts, we have applied a number of sensitivity scenarios to the above trade diversion scenarios which allows us to consider differing impacts on the established centres. The sensitivity scenarios consider high, medium and low trade draw from the city centre, whereby scenario 1b considers high trade diversion (90%) from the city centre and less limited draw from the district and local centres, Scenario 2b considers a medium trade diversion (70%) on the city centre but higher levels drawn from existing district and local centres. The final Scenario 3b considers a 50% trade diversion on the city centre with the remaining 50% drawn from surrounding district and local centres. The trade diversion assumptions are shown in Table 7.1 below. Table 7.1: Sensitivity Impact Testing of LW.

1b – City Centre (High)

Consider trade diversion as: 90% from City Centre, 2.5% from Bootle Town Centre, 2.5% from District Centres 5.0% on Local Centres

2b – City Centre (Medium)

Consider trade diversion as: 70% on City Centre, 5% on Bootle Town Centre, 13.5% on District Centres 11.5% on Local Centres

3b – City Centre (low)

Consider trade diversion as: 50% on City Centre, 10% on Bootle Town Centre, 24% on District Centres 16% on Local Centres

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 68


7.62

Notwithstanding the positive benefits LW will bring to the City Centre, after taking into account inflow and working population linked trips, the combined turnover of the retail elements of LW will be £134.2m at 204127. To sensitivity test any potential impact, this study (Table 13, Appendix 1) has considered two scenarios 28 in addition to the baseline which assume that 50% and 100% of the combined turnover of LW’s is directed from the City Centre. These scenarios assume that either the population does not materialise as estimated or that the expenditure generated within the scheme is not directed to the local facilities provided. Whilst this is (in the applicant’s view is) unrealistic it is important to test this to show that the figures are not sensitive to adjustments in the trade draw assumptions. However, even when applying the 50% assumptions, the impact on the City Centre would be negligible (less than -1.1%) up to 2031 increasing to -3.3% by 2036 and -3.7% by 204110. Even after adopting this unrealistic scenario, the impact on the City Centre is not considered to be significant. In the adverse scenario (100%) that retail floorspace is realised but no population is accommodated at LW, then the impact would be -2.3% in 2031, -6.6% in 2036 and -7.4% in 2041. Even in these adverse and unlikely scenarios the impact would not have an adverse impact on the future viability and vitality of the city centre.

7.63

This assessment has considered the impact on Bootle town centre, based on the baseline, 50% and 100% scenarios, it was found that the impact would be -4.7% and -8.2% at 2041 respectively29. It is clear that the LW will not adversely impact the future vitality and viability of Bootle in the short to long term.

7.64

Tables 15, 16 and 17 (Appendix 1) set out the sensitivity impact assessment for Liverpool, Bootle and the existing district and local centres, based on the baseline, 50% and 100% scenarios and the trade draw assumptions for the city centre (high, medium, low). The results clearly show that there will be no significant impact on the baseline and 50% trade diversion scenario. However, based on the adverse 100% trade diversion scenario, there would be some potential impact on centres such as London Road, County Road, Greater Homer Street, and Lodge Lane/Smithdown Road North after 2036. However, this is based on a worse case (extreme) scenario which will not happen. Furthermore, the proposed conditions for reserved matters applications for the release of future neighbourhood and development blocks will ensure that the impact can be reconsider in more detail at that point in time. The results show that in the short and medium term, if the scheme is phased as stated by the applicant then the impact on surrounding centres will be negligible.

27

Table 13, Appendix 1 Scenario 2, Table 13, Appendix 1 29 Table 3c, Table 16, and Table 3d, Table 17, Appendix 1 28

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 69


Cumulative Impact of LW and WW 7.65

Taking the above impact assessment further, the RLOS has considered the impact of LW and WW cumulatively on Liverpool City Centre and Birkenhead. This study has drawn on evidence 30 provided for the WW development proposals prepared by TA.

7.66

As no evidence is provided by TA as to how much trade will be drawn from Liverpool City Centre in the retail study for WW we have assumed that a third (or £25.7m) of WW’s comparison goods turnover will be derived from Liverpool City Centre (no convenience goods impact was considered as the impact would be on existing Wirral facilities). We believe that this is a cautious assessment.

7.67

When this diversion is combined with the expenditure generated by LW which will be available to facilities within the City Centre it is evident that there will still be a negligible impact of -1.3%31 on Liverpool City Centre on the baseline scenario at 2041.

7.68

For completeness, we have also tested the cumulative impact if 50% of the turnover at LW and WW is diverted from the City Centre. This scenario32 has considered the impact of LW with trade diversion at 50% but also assumes that a third of WW turnover will be diverted from Liverpool City Centre. Even in this unlikely scenario, the impact up to 2031 would be just -2.3% increasing to 5.1% at 2041 as the bulk of retail floorspace is delivered (and assumed to be fully occupied). Even in this unlikely scenario with 100% trade diversion, the impact is estimated to be -7.9% in 2031 and -8.8% in 2041; which even on the extreme scenario it is not considered significant and certainly would not adversely affect the trading performance of a thriving regional centre such as Liverpool. It is also important to point out that this analysis has assumed that the retail offer within Liverpool City centre will ‘stand still’ until 2041 which is again highly unlikely.

7.69

The assessment has also considered the cumulative impact of both WW and LW on Birkenhead town centre. We note that a decision has already been established on WW and the impact on Birkenhead has been found to be acceptable. The scenarios have assumed that one third of the WW turnover will be drawn from Birkenhead as well as 10% of the surplus expenditure from LW. In the baseline study, we estimate that the impact will be -0.5% by 2031 and -0.2% by 204133. Based on the 50% trade diversion scenario, we estimate that the impact would increase to -2.3%

30

Retail, Leisure & Office Statement (December 2009) produced by Turley Associates Scenario 1a, Table 14, Appendix 1 32 Scenario 2a, Table 14, Appendix 1 33 Scenario 1b, Table 15, Appendix 1 31

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 70


by 2031 and -2.6% by 204134. Based on the adverse scenario of 100% trade diversion, this impact would increase to -4.0% by 2031 and -4.4% by 204135. 7.70

The impact assessment, clearly demonstrates that both the cumulative impact on Liverpool city centre and Birkenhead town centre will not be adverse and impact on the future vitality and viability of those centres. The impact of LW on the surrounding network of local and district centres as well Liverpool city centre and Bootle town centre has also been found to be negligible based on the comprehensive sensitivity testing over the study period. The results show that (subject to the occupancy of LW) the impact on surrounding local and district centres will only be positive as the expenditure generated from the new introduced resident and working population will be available to existing businesses.

The Appropriateness of Scale 7.71

This RLOS confirms that the proposed development forms a logical northern extension to the existing city centre in an area which is already an established office location. Given that Liverpool city centre performs a regional role as a retail and leisure destination, it is clear that the proposed level of commercial retail and leisure floorspace (168,000 sq.m) represents less than 50% of the current city centre (Goad, 2009). It must be remember that this level of floorspace will be phased over a 30 year period which will be implemented in accordance with the introduction of new residents and workers to the area.

7.72

As shown earlier in the section, the scale of proposed floorspace has been designed to reflect the likely resident and working populations and therefore, is considered wholly appropriate to its future role and function to the newly formed community within distinct neighbourhoods.

Any Locally Important Impacts 7.73

The final consideration under the terms of Policy EC16 allows LPAs to consider any locally important impacts. Through discussions with the LPA, the only local issue raised has been in relation to the potential impact on the delivery of Project Jennifer to the east of the proposed scheme. This study has considered any impacts that would arise but it must be noted that any significant retail development will not occur within LW until 2021. This will give Project Jennifer more than 10 years to establish itself as a new centre within the local hierarchy. In addition, as

34 35

Scenario 3c, Table 16, Appendix 1 Scenario 3d, Table 17, Appendix 1

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 71


the scale of the development within LW has specifically been controlled to meet local needs, any impact on the centre after the 10 year period would be minimal.

Conclusions Regarding Centre Impact Considerations 7.74

By testing the likely impacts that would arise as a result of the proposed development, this study has arrived at the following conclusions in relation to Policy EC16 of PPS4 and Policy S12 of the adopted UDP: •

Given the strength of retail provision both in terms of convenience and comparison goods, there is no evidence to suggest that the proposal will put at risk investment in the city centre or other existing or planned surrounding centres, including Project Jennifer.

There is no evidence to suggest that the proposed development will have an impact on the city centre’s vitality and viability. The level of expenditure generated by future residents and employees will provide a opportunity for ‘spin off’ expenditure to be diverted to the city centre to support existing and future businesses.

The quantitative assessment has tested the impact of the proposal on in centre trade/turnover throughout the project time horizon (up to 2041).

This analysis demonstrates that the

proposed development is self sustaining in terms of the level of retail floorspace proposed and expenditure generated by future residents and employees. It is considered that even in a worse case scenario, that there would be no long term adverse impact on the city centre’s vitality and viability. •

In summary, no significant adverse impacts have been identified in relation to Policy EC16 criteria.

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 72


8.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 8.01 As set out in sections 4 to 7, the study demonstrates that the proposed ‘main town centres uses’ which form part of the LW development conforms to both the development plan and PPS4. 8.02 Policy EC17 of PPS4 requires the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed development complies with the sequential approach and will not result in any significant adverse impact. As highlighted above, LW is identified as a key regeneration opportunity within Liverpool and is a fundamental part of the emerging LDF. The scale of retail and leisure development within the scheme has been specifically controlled to ensure that the development can meet the needs of its future population (both residents and employees) but will not act as a retail destination in its own right. This is fundamental if any impact on existing facilities is to be minimised. 8.03 In addition, it must be noted that much of the planned retail and leisure development will not occur until significant elements of the scheme have been delivered. Therefore, there will be no front loading of retail development as these uses are viewed as being support facilities rather than stand alone attractions. 8.04 Accordingly and without repeating the content of accompanying statements to this planning application, the positive impacts of LW are clearly extensive and far reaching, in retail, leisure, commercial and physical regeneration terms. Indeed, the proposed transformation of this part of Liverpool will be a welcomed investment to the decline that stemmed for many decades and shows a continued commitment to the economic, social and environmental recovery of the city. The opportunity to secure a form of development which will form a logical extension of the city centre in accordance with the development plan, and fully consistent with the objectives and requirements of PPS4, the adopted UDP and the merging LDF. 8.05 EC17 also requires cumulative impact of other major development to be tested. As set out in Sections 6 and 7, this study has clearly demonstrated that the proposed development combined with the other major development at WW as well as Pall Mall will not have a significant impact on the future role and function of Liverpool City Centre. 8.06 In conclusion, there are distinctive benefits associated with the proposed development which will result is the transformation of the City Region. This issue is fundamental whereby the positive benefits achieved by the proposed development will far outweigh and potential negative impacts that

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 73


will occur as a result of the proposed retail, leisure and office development. As a result, the proposed development fully accords with the development plan and national planning policy.

Liverpool Waters Retail, Leisure and Office Statement - November 2011

Page 74


Appendices


Appendix 1 – Retail Statistical Tables


WYG PLANNING & DESIGN LIVERPOOL WATERS RETAIL, LEISURE & OFFICE STATEMENT (2011)

TABLE 1: RESIDENT POPULATION AND EXPENDITURE (CONVENIENCE) Project Year

Population

Annual Development (a)

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041

211 240 259 138 192 131 49 49 49 49 243 195 84 84 346 262 262 262 262 324 439 277 343 433 820 1,024 385 265 499 739 240

TOTAL

9,152

Average Household Size (b)

1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68

EXPENDITURE CONVENIENCE (£)

Annualised Population (a x b)

354 403 435 232 322 221 82 82 82 82 409 327 141 141 581 440 440 440 440 545 737 465 577 727 1,377 1,720 647 444 838 1,242 404

Cumulative Takeup/ Occupancy assumes 50% occupancy for first year, and 95% thereafter

Per Capita Expenditure (c) (d) (e)

Cumulative Expenditure

Summary £m

177 538 937 1,249 1,514 1,769 1,909 1,987 2,064 2,142 2,383 2,731 2,948 3,082 3,436 3,917 4,335 4,753 5,171 5,641 6,255 6,819 7,317 7,940 8,956 10,435 11,533 12,046 12,665 13,664 14,424

1,823 1,806 1,811 1,811 1,818 1,832 1,846 1,861 1,875 1,890 1,907 1,923 1,940 1,957 1,975 1,992 2,010 2,027 2,045 2,063 2,077 2,091 2,105 2,120 2,134 2,149 2,163 2,178 2,194 2,209 2,224 2,240 2,256 2,271

0 320,838 978,595 1,717,005 2,305,698 2,817,276 3,317,615 3,608,274 3,787,960 3,970,528 4,156,015 4,664,549 5,391,686 5,872,656 6,193,356 6,965,088 8,010,612 8,943,164 9,871,900 10,812,850 11,876,843 13,258,416 14,552,454 15,720,781 17,175,743 19,508,600 22,891,281 25,476,133 26,796,279 28,370,549 30,820,542 32,764,056

0.32 0.98 1.72 2.31 2.82 3.32 3.61 3.79 3.97 4.16 4.66 5.39 5.87 6.19 6.97 8.01 8.94 9.87 10.81 11.88 13.26 14.55 15.72 17.18 19.51 22.89 25.48 26.80 28.37 30.82 32.76

Notes: a. Population Based on creation of 9,152 dwelling units over the 28 year period, assumes first year occupied at 2014 to take into account construction and occupany lag b. Average Household Formation taken from Regeneris assumptions in the ES, which are derived from English Housing Survey (2008) by DCLG c. Per Capita convenience goods expenditure from Experian Micromarketer G3 software (2008 data) covering Liverpool Adminstrative Area d. Excludes SFT as found by GL Hearn at 0.9% at 2010 and assumes constant over project period e. Projected forward using actual growth recorded between 2008 and 2010 and projected forward in accordance with Table 1 of Experian Retail Planner Brief Note 8.1 (August 2010) up to 2027, thereafter WYG has adopted long term trend projections (0.7% per annum) 2008 PRICES


WYG PLANNING & DESIGN LIVERPOOL WATERS RETAIL, LEISURE & OFFICE STATEMENT (2011)

TABLE 2: RESIDENT POPULATION AND EXPENDITURE (COMPARISON) Project Year

Population

Annual Development (a)

Average Household Size (b)

EXPENDITURE COMPARISON (£)

Annualised Population (a x b)

Cumulative Takeup/ Occupancy assumes 50% occupancy for first year, and 95% thereafter

2011

211

1.68

354

177

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

240 259 138 192 131

1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68

403 435 232 322 221

538 937 1,249 1,514 1,769

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

49 49 49 49 243

1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68

82 82 82 82 409

1,909 1,987 2,064 2,142 2,383

2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

195 84 84 346 262

1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68

327 141 141 581 440

2,731 2,948 3,082 3,436 3,917

2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

262 262 262 324 439

1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68

440 440 440 545 737

4,335 4,753 5,171 5,641 6,255

2032 2033 2034 2035 2036

277 343 433 820 1,024

1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68

465 577 727 1,377 1,720

6,819 7,317 7,940 8,956 10,435

2037 2038 2039 2040 2041

385 265 499 739 240

1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68

647 444 838 1,242 404

11,533 12,046 12,665 13,664 14,424

TOTAL

9,152

Per Capita Expenditure (c) (d) (e)

2,490 2,544 2,606 2,669 2,735 2,801 2,870 2,946 3,023 3,103 3,185 3,270 3,356 3,445 3,536 3,629 3,725 3,913 4,110 4,317 4,534 4,763 5,002 5,254 5,519 5,797 6,089 6,396 6,718 7,056 7,412

Cumulative Expenditure

Summary £m

441,129

0.44

1,369,141 2,441,893 3,333,244 4,140,033 4,955,758

1.37 2.44 3.33 4.14 4.96

5,478,899 5,852,253 6,241,513 6,647,262 7,591,005

5.48 5.85 6.24 6.65 7.59

8,927,671 9,894,005 10,616,653 12,148,206 14,215,928

8.93 9.89 10.62 12.15 14.22

16,148,222 18,596,573 21,250,592 24,351,771 28,360,889

16.15 18.60 21.25 24.35 28.36

32,476,042 36,601,566 41,719,563 49,426,758 60,494,785

32.48 36.60 41.72 49.43 60.49

70,225,227 77,045,261 85,084,604 96,412,940 106,906,599

70.23 77.05 85.08 96.41 106.91

15,020

Notes: a. Population Based on creation of 9,152 dwelling units over the 28 year period, assumes first year occupied at 2014 to take into account construction and occupany lag b. Average Household Formation taken from Regeneris assumptions in the ES, which are derived from English Housing Survey (2008) by DCLG c. Per Capita comparison goods expenditure from Experian Micromarketer G3 software (2008 data) covering Liverpool Adminstrative Area (Appendix 2) d. Excludes SFT for comparison goods as found by Gl Hearn at 6.82% at 2010 and assumed to grow by 0.25% per annum (as recommended by GL Hearn) e. Projected forward using actual growth recorded between 2008 and 2010 and projected forward in accordance with Table 1 of Experian Retail Planner Brief Note 8.1 (August 2010) up to 2027, thereafter WYG has adopted long term trend projections (5.3% per annum) (as agreed with GL Hearn) 2008 PRICES


WYG PLANNING & DESIGN LIVERPOOL WATERS RETAIL, LEISURE & OFFICE STATEMENT (2011)

TABLE 3: WORKER POPULATION & EXPENDITURE (CONVENIENCE) Project Year

WORKING POPULATION

Cumulative Population (a)

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041

386 947 1,200 1,392 1,793 2,531 2,882 3,233 3,583 3,934 4,606 5,064 6,194 7,119 8,549 9,799 10,304 10,810 11,316 12,133 13,012 13,591 14,205 14,948 15,988 17,076 17,222 17,279 17,474 17,729 17,788

EXPENDITURE CONVENIENCE (£) Cumulative Per Capita Expenditure (b x Active Population (b) Expenditure (c) c)

348 448 633 720 808 896 984 1,151 1,266 1,549 1,780 2,137 2,450 2,576 2,703 2,829 3,033 3,253 3,398 3,551 3,737 3,997 4,269 4,306 4,320 4,369 4,432 4,447

780 788 796 804 812 820 828 836 845 853 862 870 879 888 897 906 915 924 933 942 952 961 971 981 990 1,000 1,010 1,020 1,031 1,041 1,051 1,062 1,072 1,083

Summary £m

288,137 374,927 534,368 614,555 696,291 779,601 864,507 1,022,096 1,135,117 1,402,360 1,627,750 1,974,291 2,285,559

0.29 0.37 0.53 0.61 0.70 0.78 0.86 1.02 1.14 1.40 1.63 1.97 2.29

2,427,545 2,572,142 2,719,389 2,944,814 3,189,856 3,365,231 3,552,347 3,775,530 4,078,447 4,399,714 4,481,733 4,541,444 4,638,755 4,753,320 4,816,770

2.43 2.57 2.72 2.94 3.19 3.37 3.55 3.78 4.08 4.40 4.48 4.54 4.64 4.75 4.82

TOTAL Notes: a. Population Based on creation of 14,800 working population from commercial uses (excludes Cruise liner employment) figures derived from Regeneris assumptions taken from accompanying ES b. Assumed active working population is one third of working population c. Assumed that £5 is spent per active person (and grown to reflect growth at 1% per annum) at 260 working days per annum 2008 PRICES


WYG PLANNING & DESIGN LIVERPOOL WATERS RETAIL, LEISURE & OFFICE STATEMENT (2011)

TABLE 4: RESIDENT POPULATION AND EXPENDITURE (LEISURE) Project Year

Population

Annual Development (a)

Average Household Size (b)

EXPENDITURE LEISURE (£)

Annualised Population (a x b)

Cumulative Takeup/ Occupancy assumes 50% occupancy for first year, and 95% thereafter

Per Capita Expenditure (c) (d) (e)

3,644 3,670 3,717 3,773 3,830

2011

211

1.68

354

177

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

240 259 138 192 131

1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68

403 435 232 322 221

538 937 1,249 1,514 1,769

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

49 49 49 49 243

1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68

82 82 82 82 409

1,909 1,987 2,064 2,142 2,383

3,945 4,020 4,097 4,175

2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

195 84 84 346 262

1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68

327 141 141 581 440

2,731 2,948 3,082 3,436 3,917

4,335 4,417 4,501 4,586

2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

262 262 262 324 439

1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68

440 440 440 545 737

4,335 4,753 5,171 5,641 6,255

4,762 4,862 4,965 5,069

2032 2033 2034 2035 2036

277 343 433 820 1,024

1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68

465 577 727 1,377 1,720

6,819 7,317 7,940 8,956 10,435

5,284 5,395 5,508 5,624

2037 2038 2039 2040 2041

385 265 499 739 240

1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68

647 444 838 1,242 404

11,533 12,046 12,665 13,664 14,424

TOTAL

Cumulative Expenditure

Summary £m

645,541

0.65

1,975,253 3,483,592 4,711,406 5,797,889 6,876,363

1.98 3.48 4.71 5.80 6.88

7,532,250 7,987,308 8,456,939 8,941,532 10,137,115

7.53 7.99 8.46 8.94 10.14

11,835,842 13,022,040 13,872,043 15,758,355 18,307,111

11.84 13.02 13.87 15.76 18.31

20,645,017 23,110,424 25,670,273 28,593,971 32,370,412

20.65 23.11 25.67 28.59 32.37

5,742

36,030,970 39,472,714 43,734,236 50,364,947 59,919,565

36.03 39.47 43.73 50.36 59.92

5,862 5,986 6,111 6,240 6,371

67,612,709 72,105,033 77,402,520 85,255,796 91,891,971

67.61 72.11 77.40 85.26 91.89

3,887

4,254

4,674

5,175

9,152

Notes: a. Population Based on creation of 9,152 dwelling units over the 28 year period, assumes first year occupied at 2014 to take into account construction and occupany lag b. Average Household Formation taken from Regeneris assumptions in the ES, which are derived from English Housing Survey (2008) by DCLG c. Per Capita leisure expenditure from Experian Micromarketer G3 software (2008 data) covering Liverpool Adminstrative Area d. No allowance for SFT taken for leisure spending e. Projected forward using actual growth recorded between 2008 and 2010 and projected forward in accordance with Table 1 of Experian Retail Planner Brief Note 8.1 (August 2010) up to 2027, thereafter WYG has adopted ultra long term leisure trend projections (2.1% per annum) 2008 PRICES


WYG PLANNING & DESIGN LIVERPOOL WATERS RETAIL, LEISURE & OFFICE STATEMENT (2011)

TABLE 5: AVERAGE SALES DENSITY FOR CONVENIENCE PROVISION (SMALL TO MEDIUM OPERATORS) Sales per sq m (£)

£ per sq.m

Turnover Sensitivity

Convenience Floorspace Release (sq.m net)

£m

Mintel 2011 (1)

Verdict 2011 (2)

Tesco

10,315

12,421

2011

3,000

6,000

12,000

0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Sainsbury's

8,908

11,173

2016

3,076

6,152

12,303

63

0.2

0.4

0.8

7,176.8

Marks & Spencers (Simply Food)

8,615

10,004

2021

3,153

6,307

12,614

693

2.2

4.4

8.7

7,358.0

Waitrose

9,382

10,329

2026

3,233

6,466

12,932

693

2.2

4.5

9.0

7,543.8

Co-operative Food

5,053

7,010

2031

3,315

6,629

13,259

693

2.3

4.6

9.2

7,734.3

Aldi

3,370

-

2036

3,398

6,797

13,594

4,264

14.5

29.0

58.0

7,929.6

Lidl

2,543

-

2041

3,484

6,968

13,937

4,894

17.1

34.1

68.2

8,129.8

Spar

5,059

-

Average

6,656

10,187

Source: 1. Mintel Retail Rankings 2011 (Year 09/10) - where data available (except Lidl (Year 06/07), Aldi (Year 05/06) and Co-op (Year 03/04) and adjust to exclude VAT at 2010 2. Verdict UK Grocery Retailers, 2011, where data is available

Low

Mid

High

Low

Mid

High

Average

Source: Low turnover retailers considers discounters operators such as Llidl, Aldi and Netto with Mid turnover retailers considers grocers such as Co-Operative Food, Spar High turnover retailers are average sales density of Sainsbury's Local, Tesco Express/Metro and M&S Simply Food


WYG PLANNING & DESIGN LIVERPOOL WATERS RETAIL, LEISURE & OFFICE STATEMENT (2011)

TABLE 6: TURNOVER OF PROPOSED CONVENIENCE GOODS FLOORSPACE AT LW TURNOVER OF PROPOSED CONVENIENCE SALES AREA

Neighbourhood

A B B&C C C, D & E D&E

Completion Year

2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041

Net Sales Floorspace (sq.m)

Cumulative Net Sales (sq.m) (a)

63 630 0 0 3,571 630

63 693 693 693 4,264 4,894

Sales Density (£ per sq.m) (b)

Total Turnover (£m)

Inflow (@10%) (£m)

Turnover (£m)

0.45 5.10 5.23 5.36 33.81 39.78

0.05 0.51 0.52 0.54 3.38 3.98

-

7,177 7,358 7,544 7,734 7,930 8,130

Source: a. Assumed a Gross External to Gross Internal ratio of 90%, with a gross internal to net internal assumption of 70% will be used as sales trading area b. Average Sales Density based on £7,177 per sq. m (2011), with increased productivity of 0.5% per annum c. Inflow of 10% based on agreed figure with GL Hearn d. Turnover derived from working population taken from Table 3 e. Sales density derived from average of low, mid and high scenarios demonstrated in Table 5.

2008 PRICES

0.41 4.59 4.71 4.82 30.43 35.81

Expenditure Generated from LW

Expenditure Generated From Workers (£m) (d)

3.32 4.66 8.01 13.26 22.89 32.76

0.53 1.02 2.29 3.19 4.40 4.82

Total Expenditure Available (£m)

3.85 5.69 10.30 16.45 27.29 37.58


WYG PLANNING & DESIGN LIVERPOOL WATERS RETAIL, LEISURE & OFFICE STATEMENT (2011)

TABLE 7: TURNOVER OF PROPOSED COMPARISON GOODS FLOORSPACE AT LW

TURNOVER OF PROPOSED COMPARISON SALES AREA

Neighbourhood

A B B&C C C, D & E D&E

Completion Year

Net Sales Floorspace (sq.m)

2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041

0 558 1,191 3,048 7,018 1,674

Cumulative Net Sales (sq.m) (a)

0 589 1,845 4,893 11,912 13,586

Sales Density (£ per sq.m) (b)

Total Turnover (£m)

Inflow (@20%) (£m)

Turnover (£m)

Expenditure Generated from LW

5,000 5,520 6,095 6,729 7,430 8,203 9,057

0.00 0.00 3.59 12.42 36.36 97.71 123.05

0.00 0.00 0.72 2.48 7.27 19.54 24.61

0.00 0.00 2.87 9.93 29.09 78.17 98.44

0.44 4.96 7.59 14.22 28.36 60.49 106.91

Source: a. Assumed a Gross External to Gross Internal ratio of 95%, with a gross internal to net internal assumption of 75% will be used as total sales area b. Average Sales Density based on £5,000 per sq. m (2011), with increased productivity of 2% per annum c. Inflow of 20% assumed which is more conservative than the comparison goods inflow findings of Cushman & Wakefield Quantitative Retail Assessment (2006) and agreed with GL Hearn (12th January 2011)

2008 PRICES

Expenditure Available (£m) for Facilites Elsewhere

0.44 4.96 4.72 4.28 -0.72 -17.67 8.47


WYG PLANNING & DESIGN LIVERPOOL WATERS RETAIL, LEISURE & OFFICE STATEMENT (2011)

TABLE 8: ESTIMATED BENCHMARK TURNOVER OF LIVERPOOL CITY CENTRE (2011-2041)

TURNOVER OF CITY CENTRE Existing Convenience Net Sales (sq.m) (a) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041

7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650

Existing

Sales Density (£ per sq.m) (b)

Total Convenience Turnover (£m)

9,000 9,045 9,090 9,136 9,181 9,227 9,273 9,320 9,366 9,413 9,460 9,508 9,555 9,603 9,651 9,699 9,748 9,796 9,845 9,895 9,944 9,994 10,044 10,094 10,144 10,195 10,246 10,297 10,349 10,401 10,453

68.85 69.19 69.54 69.89 70.24 70.59 70.94 71.30 71.65 72.01 72.37 72.73 73.10 73.46 73.83 74.20 74.57 74.94 75.32 75.69 76.07 76.45 76.83 77.22 77.60 77.99 78.38 78.77 79.17 79.56 79.96

Comparison Net Sales (sq.m) (c) 157,000 157,000 157,000 157,000 157,000 157,000 157,000 157,000 157,000 157,000 157,000 157,000 157,000 157,000 157,000 157,000 157,000 157,000 157,000 157,000 157,000 157,000 157,000 157,000 157,000 157,000 157,000 157,000 157,000 157,000 157,000

Planning Commitment

Sales Density (£ per sq.m) (d)

Total Comparison Turnover (£m)

6,000 6,120 6,242 6,367 6,495 6,624 6,757 6,892 7,030 7,171 7,314 7,460 7,609 7,762 7,917 8,075 8,237 8,401 8,569 8,741 8,916 9,094 9,276 9,461 9,651 9,844 10,041 10,241 10,446 10,655 10,868

942.00 960.84 980.06 999.66 1,019.65 1,040.04 1,060.84 1,082.06 1,103.70 1,125.78 1,148.29 1,171.26 1,194.68 1,218.58 1,242.95 1,267.81 1,293.16 1,319.03 1,345.41 1,372.32 1,399.76 1,427.76 1,456.31 1,485.44 1,515.15 1,545.45 1,576.36 1,607.89 1,640.04 1,672.85 1,706.30

Comparison Net Sales (sq.m) (f)

3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500

Sales Density (£ per sq.m) (g)

5,000 5,100 5,202 5,306 5,412 5,520 5,631 5,743 5,858 5,975 6,095 6,217 6,341 6,468 6,597 6,729 6,864 7,001 7,141 7,284 7,430 7,578 7,730 7,884 8,042 8,203 8,367 8,534

Total Total Comparison Turnover (£m)

Comparison Net Sales (sq.m) (a)

Sales Density (£ per sq.m) (e)

Total Comparison Turnover (£m)

Total City Centre Turnover (£m)

17.50 17.85 18.21 18.57 18.94 19.32 19.71 20.10 20.50 20.91 21.33 21.76 22.19 22.64 23.09 23.55 24.02 24.50 24.99 25.49 26.00 26.52 27.05 27.60 28.15 28.71 29.28 29.87

157,000 157,000 157,000 160,500 160,500 160,500 160,500 160,500 160,500 160,500 160,500 160,500 160,500 160,500 160,500 160,500 160,500 160,500 160,500 160,500 160,500 160,500 160,500 160,500 160,500 160,500 160,500 160,500 160,500 160,500 160,500

6,000 6,120 6,242 6,337 6,464 6,593 6,725 6,860 6,997 7,137 7,280 7,425 7,574 7,725 7,880 8,037 8,198 8,362 8,529 8,700 8,874 9,051 9,232 9,417 9,605 9,798 9,993 10,193 10,397 10,605 10,817

942.00 960.84 980.06 1,017.16 1,037.50 1,058.25 1,079.42 1,101.00 1,123.02 1,145.49 1,168.39 1,191.76 1,215.60 1,239.91 1,264.71 1,290.00 1,315.80 1,342.12 1,368.96 1,396.34 1,424.27 1,452.75 1,481.81 1,511.44 1,541.67 1,572.51 1,603.96 1,636.03 1,668.76 1,702.13 1,736.17

1,010.85 1,030.03 1,049.60 1,087.05 1,107.74 1,128.84 1,150.36 1,172.30 1,194.68 1,217.50 1,240.77 1,264.50 1,288.69 1,313.37 1,338.54 1,364.20 1,390.37 1,417.06 1,444.28 1,472.03 1,500.34 1,529.20 1,558.64 1,588.66 1,619.28 1,650.50 1,682.34 1,714.81 1,747.92 1,781.70 1,816.14

Source: a. Assumed 60% GOAD Figure us for convenience goods sales area b. Average Sales Density based on £9,000 per sq. m (2011), with increased productivity of 0.5% per annum up to 2041 (WYG note this is worse case scenario as WYG usually adopt 0.2% per annum) c. Assumed 80% GOAD Figure us for comparison goods sales area d. Average Sales Density based on £6,000 per sq. m (2011), with increased productivity of 2% per annum upto 2041 (WYG note this is worse case scenario as WYG usually adopt 1% per annum) e. Includes the redevelopment/refurbishment of St Johns Centre whichs includes an additional 3,500 sq.m (net) of floorspace (assumed to be comparison goods), provded by GL Hearn. WYG identified that there are a number of other commitments with the City Centre, however, limited information is held on new sales floorspace.

2008 PRICES


WYG PLANNING & DESIGN LIVERPOOL WATERS RETAIL, LEISURE & OFFICE STATEMENT (2011)

TABLE 9: ESTIMATED TURNOVER OF BOOTLE TOWN CENTRE (2011-2041)

TURNOVER OF CITY CENTRE Convenience Goods Existing

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041

Comparison Goods

Planning Commitments

Total

Planning Commitments

Total Town Centre Turnover (£m)

Total

Sales Density (£ per sq.m) (b)

Total Convenience Turnover (£m)

Convenience Net Sales (sq.m) (c)

Sales Density (£ per sq.m) (b)

Total Convenience Turnover (£m)

Convenience Net Sales (sq.m) (a)

Sales Density (£ per sq.m) (b)

Total Convenience Turnover (£m)

Comparison Net Sales (sq.m) (a)

Sales Density (£ per sq.m) (e)

Total Comparison Turnover (£m)

Comparison Net Sales (sq.m) (f)

Sales Density (£ per sq.m) (g)

Total Comparison Turnover (£m)

Comparison Net Sales (sq.m) (a)

Sales Density (£ per sq.m) (e)

Total Comparison Turnover (£m)

4,608 4,608 4,608 4,608 4,608 4,608 4,608 4,608 4,608 4,608 4,608 4,608 4,608 4,608 4,608 4,608 4,608 4,608 4,608 4,608 4,608 4,608 4,608 4,608 4,608 4,608 4,608 4,608 4,608 4,608 4,608

9,967 10,017 10,067 10,117 10,168 10,219 10,270 10,321 10,373 10,425 10,477 10,529 10,582 10,635 10,688 10,741 10,795 10,849 10,903 10,958 11,012 11,068 11,123 11,178 11,234 11,291 11,347 11,404 11,461 11,518 11,576

45.93 46.16 46.39 46.62 46.85 47.09 47.32 47.56 47.80 48.04 48.28 48.52 48.76 49.00 49.25 49.50 49.74 49.99 50.24 50.49 50.75 51.00 51.25 51.51 51.77 52.03 52.29 52.55 52.81 53.08 53.34

4,582 4,582 4,582 4,582 4,582 4,582 4,582 4,582 4,582 4,582 4,582 4,582 4,582 4,582 4,582 4,582 4,582 4,582 4,582 4,582 4,582 4,582 4,582 4,582 4,582 4,582 4,582 4,582 4,582 4,582 4,582

6,386 6,418 6,450 6,482 6,515 6,547 6,580 6,613 6,646 6,679 6,713 6,746 6,780 6,814 6,848 6,882 6,917 6,951 6,986 7,021 7,056 7,091 7,127 7,162 7,198 7,234 7,270 7,307 7,343 7,380 7,417

29.26 29.41 29.55 29.70 29.85 30.00 30.15 30.30 30.45 30.60 30.76 30.91 31.06 31.22 31.37 31.53 31.69 31.85 32.01 32.17 32.33 32.49 32.65 32.82 32.98 33.14 33.31 33.48 33.64 33.81 33.98

9,190 9,190 9,190 9,190 9,190 9,190 9,190 9,190 9,190 9,190 9,190 9,190 9,190 9,190 9,190 9,190 9,190 9,190 9,190 9,190 9,190 9,190 9,190 9,190 9,190 9,190 9,190 9,190 9,190 9,190 9,190

8,182 8,223 8,264 8,305 8,347 8,388 8,430 8,472 8,515 8,557 8,600 8,643 8,686 8,730 8,773 8,817 8,861 8,906 8,950 8,995 9,040 9,085 9,131 9,176 9,222 9,268 9,315 9,361 9,408 9,455 9,502

75.19 75.56 75.94 76.32 76.70 77.09 77.47 77.86 78.25 78.64 79.03 79.43 79.82 80.22 80.62 81.03 81.43 81.84 82.25 82.66 83.07 83.49 83.91 84.33 84.75 85.17 85.60 86.03 86.46 86.89 87.32

18,440 18,440 18,440 18,440 18,440 18,440 18,440 18,440 18,440 18,440 18,440 18,440 18,440 18,440 18,440 18,440 18,440 18,440 18,440 18,440 18,440 18,440 18,440 18,440 18,440 18,440 18,440 18,440 18,440 18,440 18,440

3,804 3,880 3,958 4,037 4,118 4,200 4,284 4,370 4,457 4,546 4,637 4,730 4,824 4,921 5,019 5,120 5,222 5,327 5,433 5,542 5,653 5,766 5,881 5,999 6,119 6,241 6,366 6,493 6,623 6,755 6,891

70.15 71.55 72.98 74.44 75.93 77.45 79.00 80.58 82.19 83.83 85.51 87.22 88.96 90.74 92.56 94.41 96.30 98.22 100.19 102.19 104.23 106.32 108.45 110.61 112.83 115.08 117.39 119.73 122.13 124.57 127.06

3,427 3,427 3,427 3,427 3,427 3,427 3,427 3,427 3,427 3,427 3,427 3,427 3,427 3,427 3,427 3,427 3,427 3,427 3,427 3,427 3,427 3,427 3,427 3,427 3,427 3,427 3,427 3,427 3,427 3,427 3,427

6,347 6,474 6,603 6,735 6,870 7,007 7,147 7,290 7,436 7,585 7,737 7,891 8,049 8,210 8,374 8,542 8,713 8,887 9,065 9,246 9,431 9,619 9,812 10,008 10,208 10,412 10,621 10,833 11,050 11,271 11,496

21.75 22.18 22.63 23.08 23.54 24.01 24.49 24.98 25.48 25.99 26.51 27.04 27.58 28.13 28.70 29.27 29.86 30.45 31.06 31.68 32.32 32.96 33.62 34.30 34.98 35.68 36.39 37.12 37.86 38.62 39.39

21,867 21,867 21,867 21,867 21,867 21,867 21,867 21,867 21,867 21,867 21,867 21,867 21,867 21,867 21,867 21,867 21,867 21,867 21,867 21,867 21,867 21,867 21,867 21,867 21,867 21,867 21,867 21,867 21,867 21,867 21,867

4,203 4,287 4,372 4,460 4,549 4,640 4,733 4,827 4,924 5,022 5,123 5,225 5,330 5,436 5,545 5,656 5,769 5,885 6,002 6,122 6,245 6,370 6,497 6,627 6,759 6,895 7,033 7,173 7,317 7,463 7,612

91.90 93.73 95.61 97.52 99.47 101.46 103.49 105.56 107.67 109.82 112.02 114.26 116.55 118.88 121.25 123.68 126.15 128.68 131.25 133.87 136.55 139.28 142.07 144.91 147.81 150.76 153.78 156.86 159.99 163.19 166.46

Source: a. Convenience and Comparison net floorspace for Bootle Town Centre figure taken from Sefton Retail Strategy Review Update 2009, assumed constant over project period b. Average Sales (Convenience Goods) Density derived from Sefton RSR (2009), adjusted to 2008 price base, and with increased productivity of 0.5% per annum up to 2041 c. Planning commitments (Lidl, Asda and Aldi stores) net floorspace assumed to be trading at 2011 d. Turnover of planning commitments based on benchmark turnovers derived from Verdict (2011) and Mintel (2011), sales densities assumed increased productivity of 0.5% per annum e. Average Sales (Comparison Goods) Density derived from Sefton RSR (2009) adjusted to 2008 price base, and with increased productivity of 2% per annum up to 2041 f. Comparison goods planning commitments net floorspace assumed to be trading at 2011 g. Turnover of planning commitments based on benchmark turnovers derived from Verdict (2011) or WYG assumption where no known data available, sales densities assumed to have increased productivity of 2% per annum

2008 PRICES

Existing

Convenience Net Sales (sq.m) (a)

162.04 165.28 168.59 171.96 175.40 178.91 182.49 186.14 189.86 193.66 197.53 201.48 205.51 209.62 213.81 218.09 222.45 226.90 231.44 236.07 240.79 245.60 250.51 255.53 260.64 265.85 271.17 276.59 282.12 287.76 293.52


WYG PLANNING & DESIGN LIVERPOOL WATERS RETAIL, LEISURE & OFFICE STATEMENT (2011)

TABLE 10: ESTIMATED TURNOVER OF BIRKENHEAD TOWN CENTRE (2011-2041)

TURNOVER OF TOWN CENTRE Convenience Goods

Convenience Net Sales (sq.m) (a) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041

8,834 8,834 8,834 8,834 8,834 8,834 8,834 8,834 8,834 8,834 8,834 8,834 8,834 8,834 8,834 8,834 8,834 8,834 8,834 8,834 8,834 8,834 8,834 8,834 8,834 8,834 8,834 8,834 8,834 8,834 8,834

Sales Density (£ per Total Convenience sq.m) (b) Turnover (£m) 3,439 3,456 3,474 3,491 3,508 3,526 3,544 3,561 3,579 3,597 3,615 3,633 3,651 3,670 3,688 3,706 3,725 3,743 3,762 3,781 3,800 3,819 3,838 3,857 3,876 3,896 3,915 3,935 3,955 3,974 3,994

Comparison Goods

Planning Commitments

Existing

30.38 30.53 30.69 30.84 30.99 31.15 31.30 31.46 31.62 31.78 31.94 32.09 32.26 32.42 32.58 32.74 32.91 33.07 33.24 33.40 33.57 33.74 33.90 34.07 34.24 34.42 34.59 34.76 34.93 35.11 35.28

Convenience Net Sales (sq.m) (c)

2,555 2,555 2,555 2,555 2,555 2,555 2,555 2,555 2,555 2,555 2,555 2,555 2,555 2,555 2,555 2,555 2,555 2,555 2,555 2,555 2,555 2,555 2,555 2,555 2,555 2,555 2,555 2,555 2,555 2,555

Total

Sales Density (£ per Total Convenience sq.m) (d) Turnover (£m)

12,126 12,187 12,248 12,309 12,371 12,433 12,495 12,557 12,620 12,683 12,746 12,810 12,874 12,939 13,003 13,068 13,134 13,199 13,265 13,332 13,398 13,465 13,533 13,600 13,668 13,737 13,805 13,874 13,944 14,013

30.98 31.14 31.29 31.45 31.61 31.77 31.92 32.08 32.24 32.41 32.57 32.73 32.89 33.06 33.22 33.39 33.56 33.72 33.89 34.06 34.23 34.40 34.58 34.75 34.92 35.10 35.27 35.45 35.63 35.80

Convenience Net Sales (sq.m) 8,834 11,389 11,389 11,389 11,389 11,389 11,389 11,389 11,389 11,389 11,389 11,389 11,389 11,389 11,389 11,389 11,389 11,389 11,389 11,389 11,389 11,389 11,389 11,389 11,389 11,389 11,389 11,389 11,389 11,389 11,389

Existing

Sales Density (£ per Total Convenience sq.m) Turnover (£m) 3,439 5,401 5,428 5,455 5,483 5,510 5,538 5,565 5,593 5,621 5,649 5,678 5,706 5,734 5,763 5,792 5,821 5,850 5,879 5,909 5,938 5,968 5,998 6,028 6,058 6,088 6,119 6,149 6,180 6,211 6,242

30.38 61.52 61.82 62.13 62.44 62.76 63.07 63.38 63.70 64.02 64.34 64.66 64.99 65.31 65.64 65.96 66.29 66.63 66.96 67.29 67.63 67.97 68.31 68.65 68.99 69.34 69.69 70.03 70.38 70.74 71.09

Planning Commitments

Sales Density (£ per sq.m) (f)

Total Comparison Turnover (£m)

Comparison Net Sales (sq.m) (g)

Sales Density (£ per sq.m) (h)

Total Comparison Turnover (£m)

Convenience Net Sales (sq.m)

34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552

6,546 6,677 6,811 6,947 7,086 7,228 7,372 7,520 7,670 7,823 7,980 8,139 8,302 8,468 8,638 8,810 8,987 9,166 9,350 9,537 9,727 9,922 10,120 10,323 10,529 10,740 10,955 11,174 11,397 11,625 11,858

226.18 230.71 235.32 240.03 244.83 249.73 254.72 259.81 265.01 270.31 275.72 281.23 286.86 292.59 298.45 304.41 310.50 316.71 323.05 329.51 336.10 342.82 349.68 356.67 363.80 371.08 378.50 386.07 393.79 401.67 409.70

8,519 8,519 8,519 8,519 8,519 8,519 8,519 8,519 8,519 8,519 8,519 8,519 8,519 8,519 8,519 8,519 8,519 8,519 8,519 8,519 8,519 8,519 8,519 8,519 8,519 8,519 8,519 8,519 8,519 8,519

3,906 3,984 4,063 4,145 4,227 4,312 4,398 4,486 4,576 4,667 4,761 4,856 4,953 5,052 5,153 5,256 5,361 5,469 5,578 5,690 5,803 5,919 6,038 6,159 6,282 6,407 6,536 6,666 6,800 6,936

33.27 33.94 34.62 35.31 36.01 36.73 37.47 38.22 38.98 39.76 40.56 41.37 42.20 43.04 43.90 44.78 45.67 46.59 47.52 48.47 49.44 50.43 51.44 52.47 53.51 54.58 55.68 56.79 57.93 59.08

34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552 34,552

Source: a. Convenience Goods Floorspace figure taken from Goad (2008) as shown in the Roger Tym "Strategy for Town centres, Retail and Commercial Leisure" for Wirral Council (2009). WYG has included Birkenhead Town Centre figures from Appendix 3. WYG has adjusted GOAD by 70% to represent the net floorspace b. Average Sales Density based on derived turnover for Birkenhead Town Centre from Roger Tym Study (2009) adjusted to reflect 2008 prices, with increased productivity of 0.5% per annum up to 2041

c. Planning commitments include the new Asda store (APP/2007/5951), Assumed to be fully operational by early 2012 d. Asda turnover assumed based on net floorspace of 2,555 sq. m drawing on benchmark sales density from Verdict UK Food & Grocery Retailers (2010). e. Comparison Goods Floorspace figure taken from Goad (2008) as shown in the Roger Tym "Strategy for Town centres, Retail and Commercial Leisure" for Wirral Council (2009). WYG has included Birkenhead Town Centre figures from Appendix 3. WYG has adjusted GOAD by 80% to represent the net floorspace f. Average Sales Density based on £6,500 per sq. m (2006 price base) at 2009 adopted by Roger Tym, but adjusted by WYG to 2008 price base, with increased productivity of 2% per annum upto 2041 g. Planning commitments include comparison goods florospace within proposed Asda supermarket (APP/2007/5951) and Hind Street redevelopment (OUT/2005/7764) assumed both are trading at 2012.

h. Turnover based on Asda benchmark comaprison goods turnover taken from Verdict (2010) and Hind Street taken from Roger Tym (2009) and adjusted forward. Assumed both commitments operational by 2012 2008 PRICES

Total Town Centre Turnover (£m)

Total

Comparison Net Sales (sq.m) (e)

Sales Density (£ per Total Convenience sq.m) Turnover (£m) 6546.20 7,640 7,793 7,949 8,108 8,270 8,435 8,604 8,776 8,952 9,131 9,313 9,499 9,689 9,883 10,081 10,282 10,488 10,698 10,912 11,130 11,353 11,580 11,811 12,048 12,289 12,534 12,785 13,041 13,302 13,568

226.18 263.98 269.26 274.64 280.14 285.74 291.45 297.28 303.23 309.29 315.48 321.79 328.22 334.79 341.48 348.31 355.28 362.39 369.63 377.03 384.57 392.26 400.10 408.11 416.27 424.59 433.09 441.75 450.58 459.59 468.79

256.57 325.49 331.08 336.78 342.58 348.49 354.52 360.67 366.93 373.31 379.82 386.45 393.21 400.10 407.12 414.28 421.58 429.01 436.59 444.32 452.20 460.23 468.41 476.76 485.26 493.93 502.77 511.78 520.97 530.33 539.87


WYG PLANNING & DESIGN LIVERPOOL WATERS RETAIL, LEISURE & OFFICE STATEMENT (2011)

TABLE 110: ESTIMATED TURNOVER OF DISTRICT CENTRES (2011-2041) BENCHMARK TURNOVER OF DISTRICT CENTRES Convenience Net Sales (sq.m) (a) London Road 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 Breck Road 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 County Road 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 Walton Vale 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 Edge Hill 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041

1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150

Sales Density (£ per sq.m) (b)

Planning Commitments (£m)

(Within City Centre boundary) 3,000 3,015 3,030 3,045 3,060 3,076 3,091 3,107 3,122 3,138 3,153 3,169 3,185 3,201 3,217 3,233 3,249 3,265 3,282 3,298 3,315 3,331 3,348 3,365 3,381 3,398 3,415 3,432 3,450 3,467 3,484 7.76 7.80 7.84 7.88 7.92 7.96 8.00 8.04 8.08 8.12 8.16 8.20 8.24 8.28 8.32 8.36 8.41 8.45 8.49 8.53 8.57 8.62 8.66 8.70 8.75 8.79 8.84 8.88 8.92 8.97 9.01

Total Convenience Turnover (£m)

Comparison Net Sales (sq.m) (c)

Sales Density (£ per sq.m) (d)

3.45 3.47 3.48 3.50 3.52 3.54 3.55 3.57 3.59 3.61 3.63 3.64 3.66 3.68 3.70 3.72 3.74 3.76 3.77 3.79 3.81 3.83 3.85 3.87 3.89 3.91 3.93 3.95 3.97 3.99 4.01

10,100 10,100 10,100 10,100 10,100 10,100 10,100 10,100 10,100 10,100 10,100 10,100 10,100 10,100 10,100 10,100 10,100 10,100 10,100 10,100 10,100 10,100 10,100 10,100 10,100 10,100 10,100 10,100 10,100 10,100 10,100

3,000 3,060 3,121 3,184 3,247 3,312 3,378 3,446 3,515 3,585 3,657 3,730 3,805 3,881 3,958 4,038 4,118 4,201 4,285 4,370 4,458 4,547 4,638 4,731 4,825 4,922 5,020 5,121 5,223 5,328 5,434

31.03 31.18 31.34 39.37 39.57 39.77 39.97 40.17 40.37 40.57 40.77 40.98 41.18 41.39 41.59 41.80 42.01 42.22 42.43 42.64 42.86 43.07 43.29 43.50 43.72 43.94 44.16 44.38 44.60 44.83 45.05

5,632 5,632 5,632 5,632 5,632 5,632 5,632 5,632 5,632 5,632 5,632 5,632 5,632 5,632 5,632 5,632 5,632 5,632 5,632 5,632 5,632 5,632 5,632 5,632 5,632 5,632 5,632 5,632 5,632 5,632 5,632

3,757 3,832 3,909 3,987 4,067 4,148 4,231 4,316 4,402 4,490 4,580 4,671 4,765 4,860 4,957 5,056 5,157 5,261 5,366 5,473 5,583 5,694 5,808 5,924 6,043 6,164 6,287 6,413 6,541 6,672 6,805

Planning Commitments (£m)

4.12 4.20 4.28 4.37 4.46 4.55 4.64 4.73 4.83 4.92 5.02 5.12 5.22 5.33 5.43 5.54 5.65 5.77 5.88 6.00 6.12 6.24 6.37 6.49 6.62 6.76 6.89 7.03 7.17 7.31 7.46

Total Comparison Turnover (£m)

Total District Centres Turnover (£m)

30.30 30.91 31.52 32.15 32.80 33.45 34.12 34.81 35.50 36.21 36.94 37.67 38.43 39.20 39.98 40.78 41.60 42.43 43.28 44.14 45.02 45.92 46.84 47.78 48.74 49.71 50.70 51.72 52.75 53.81 54.88

33.75 34.37 35.01 35.66 36.32 36.99 37.68 38.38 39.09 39.82 40.56 41.32 42.09 42.88 43.68 44.50 45.33 46.18 47.05 47.93 48.84 49.76 50.69 51.65 52.62 53.62 54.63 55.67 56.72 57.79 58.89

21.16 21.58 22.01 26.57 27.36 27.91 28.47 29.04 29.62 30.21 30.81 31.43 32.06 32.70 33.35 34.02 34.70 35.39 36.10 36.82 37.56 38.31 39.08 39.86 40.66 41.47 42.30 43.15 44.01 44.89 45.79

52.19 52.77 53.35 65.95 66.93 67.68 68.43 69.20 69.98 70.78 71.59 72.41 73.24 74.09 74.95 75.82 76.71 77.62 78.53 79.47 80.42 81.38 82.37 83.36 84.38 85.41 86.46 87.53 88.61 89.71 90.84

3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650

8,501 8,543 8,586 8,629 8,672 8,715 8,759 8,803 8,847 8,891 8,936 8,980 9,025 9,070 9,116 9,161 9,207 9,253 9,299 9,346 9,392 9,439 9,487 9,534 9,582 9,630 9,678 9,726 9,775 9,824 9,873

3,440 3,440 3,440 3,440 3,440 3,440 3,440 3,440 3,440 3,440 3,440 3,440 3,440 3,440 3,440 3,440 3,440 3,440 3,440 3,440 3,440 3,440 3,440 3,440 3,440 3,440 3,440 3,440 3,440 3,440 3,440

3,000 3,015 3,030 3,045 3,060 3,076 3,091 3,107 3,122 3,138 3,153 3,169 3,185 3,201 3,217 3,233 3,249 3,265 3,282 3,298 3,315 3,331 3,348 3,365 3,381 3,398 3,415 3,432 3,450 3,467 3,484

10.32 10.37 10.42 10.48 10.53 10.58 10.63 10.69 10.74 10.79 10.85 10.90 10.96 11.01 11.07 11.12 11.18 11.23 11.29 11.35 11.40 11.46 11.52 11.57 11.63 11.69 11.75 11.81 11.87 11.93 11.99

8,180 8,180 8,180 8,180 8,180 8,180 8,180 8,180 8,180 8,180 8,180 8,180 8,180 8,180 8,180 8,180 8,180 8,180 8,180 8,180 8,180 8,180 8,180 8,180 8,180 8,180 8,180 8,180 8,180 8,180 8,180

3,000 3,060 3,121 3,184 3,247 3,312 3,378 3,446 3,515 3,585 3,657 3,730 3,805 3,881 3,958 4,038 4,118 4,201 4,285 4,370 4,458 4,547 4,638 4,731 4,825 4,922 5,020 5,121 5,223 5,328 5,434

24.54 25.03 25.53 26.04 26.56 27.09 27.64 28.19 28.75 29.33 29.91 30.51 31.12 31.75 32.38 33.03 33.69 34.36 35.05 35.75 36.47 37.19 37.94 38.70 39.47 40.26 41.07 41.89 42.72 43.58 44.45

34.86 35.40 35.95 36.52 37.09 37.67 38.27 38.88 39.49 40.12 40.76 41.41 42.08 42.76 43.45 44.15 44.87 45.60 46.34 47.10 47.87 48.65 49.46 50.27 51.10 51.95 52.81 53.69 54.59 55.51 56.44

1,570 1,570 1,570 1,570 1,570 1,570 1,570 1,570 1,570 1,570 1,570 1,570 1,570 1,570 1,570 1,570 1,570 1,570 1,570 1,570 1,570 1,570 1,570 1,570 1,570 1,570 1,570 1,570 1,570 1,570 1,570

3,000 3,015 3,030 3,045 3,060 3,076 3,091 3,107 3,122 3,138 3,153 3,169 3,185 3,201 3,217 3,233 3,249 3,265 3,282 3,298 3,315 3,331 3,348 3,365 3,381 3,398 3,415 3,432 3,450 3,467 3,484

4.71 4.73 4.76 4.78 4.80 4.83 4.85 4.88 4.90 4.93 4.95 4.98 5.00 5.03 5.05 5.08 5.10 5.13 5.15 5.18 5.20 5.23 5.26 5.28 5.31 5.34 5.36 5.39 5.42 5.44 5.47

6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000

3,000 3,060 3,121 3,184 3,247 3,312 3,378 3,446 3,515 3,585 3,657 3,730 3,805 3,881 3,958 4,038 4,118 4,201 4,285 4,370 4,458 4,547 4,638 4,731 4,825 4,922 5,020 5,121 5,223 5,328 5,434

18.00 18.36 18.73 19.10 19.48 19.87 20.27 20.68 21.09 21.51 21.94 22.38 22.83 23.28 23.75 24.23 24.71 25.20 25.71 26.22 26.75 27.28 27.83 28.38 28.95 29.53 30.12 30.72 31.34 31.97 32.60

22.71 23.09 23.48 23.88 24.29 24.70 25.12 25.55 25.99 26.44 26.89 27.36 27.83 28.31 28.80 29.30 29.81 30.33 30.86 31.40 31.95 32.51 33.08 33.67 34.26 34.87 35.48 36.11 36.75 37.41 38.07

2,570 2,570 2,570 2,570 2,570 2,570 2,570 2,570 2,570 2,570 2,570 2,570 2,570 2,570 2,570 2,570 2,570 2,570 2,570 2,570 2,570 2,570 2,570 2,570 2,570 2,570 2,570 2,570 2,570 2,570 2,570

3,000 3,015 3,030 3,045 3,060 3,076 3,091 3,107 3,122 3,138 3,153 3,169 3,185 3,201 3,217 3,233 3,249 3,265 3,282 3,298 3,315 3,331 3,348 3,365 3,381 3,398 3,415 3,432 3,450 3,467 3,484

7.71 7.75 7.79 7.83 7.87 7.90 7.94 7.98 8.02 8.06 8.10 8.14 8.19 8.23 8.27 8.31 8.35 8.39 8.43 8.48 8.52 8.56 8.60 8.65 8.69 8.73 8.78 8.82 8.87 8.91 8.95

2,950 2,950 2,950 2,950 2,950 2,950 2,950 2,950 2,950 2,950 2,950 2,950 2,950 2,950 2,950 2,950 2,950 2,950 2,950 2,950 2,950 2,950 2,950 2,950 2,950 2,950 2,950 2,950 2,950 2,950 2,950

3,000 3,060 3,121 3,184 3,247 3,312 3,378 3,446 3,515 3,585 3,657 3,730 3,805 3,881 3,958 4,038 4,118 4,201 4,285 4,370 4,458 4,547 4,638 4,731 4,825 4,922 5,020 5,121 5,223 5,328 5,434

8.85 9.03 9.21 9.39 9.58 9.77 9.97 10.17 10.37 10.58 10.79 11.00 11.22 11.45 11.68 11.91 12.15 12.39 12.64 12.89 13.15 13.41 13.68 13.96 14.23 14.52 14.81 15.11 15.41 15.72 16.03

16.56 16.78 16.99 17.22 17.44 17.68 17.91 18.15 18.39 18.64 18.89 19.15 19.41 19.67 19.94 20.22 20.50 20.78 21.07 21.37 21.67 21.97 22.29 22.60 22.93 23.25 23.59 23.93 24.27 24.63 24.98

a. Convenience goods floorspace taken from information provided by GL Hearn's in relation to emerging Retail Study (provided March 2011), which were confirmed as net floorspace b. Average convenience goods sales density based on £3,000 per sq. m (2011), with increased productivity of 0.5% per annum up to 2041 (agreed with GL Hearn). Breck Road includes Asda store, where turnover is estimated based on Verdict Grocers (2010) information c. Comparison goods floorspace taken from information provided by GL Hearn's in relation to emerging Retail Study (provided March 2011), which were confirmed as net floorspace d. Average comparison goods sales density based on £3,000 per sq. m (2011), with increased productivity of 2% per annum upto 2041 e. Planning commitment at Breck Road, relates to the extension to the existing Asda store, which includes 640sq.m (net) of convenience and 505 sq. m (net) of comparison floorspace, WYG assumed first full year trading at 2014. Turnover based on Verdict (2011) sales densities.

2008 PRICES


WYG PLANNING & DESIGN LIVERPOOL WATERS RETAIL, LEISURE & OFFICE STATEMENT (2011)

TABLE 12: ESTIMATED TURNOVER OF LOCAL CENTRES (2011-2041) TURNOVER OF LOCAL CENTRES Convenience Net Sales (sq.m) (a)

Sales Density (£ per sq.m) (b)

+ Great Homer Redevelopment (c)

Great Homer Street (To become District Centre post redevelopment) 2011 260 3,000 57.05 2012 260 3,015 57.33 2013 260 3,030 57.62 2014 260 3,045 57.91 2015 260 3,060 58.20 2016 260 3,076 58.49 2017 260 3,091 58.78 2018 260 3,107 59.07 2019 260 3,122 59.37 2020 260 3,138 59.67 2021 260 3,153 59.96 2022 260 3,169 60.26 2023 260 3,185 60.56 2024 260 3,201 60.87 2025 260 3,217 61.17 2026 260 3,233 61.48 2027 260 3,249 61.79 2028 260 3,265 62.09 2029 260 3,282 62.40 2030 260 3,298 62.72 2031 260 3,315 63.03 2032 260 3,331 63.35 2033 260 3,348 63.66 2034 260 3,365 63.98 2035 260 3,381 64.30 2036 260 3,398 64.62 2037 260 3,415 64.94 2038 260 3,432 65.27 2039 260 3,450 65.60 2040 260 3,467 65.92 2041 260 3,484 66.25 Rice Lane (includes Sainsbury's store) 2011 2,655 10,635 2012 2,655 10,688 2013 2,655 10,741 2014 2,655 10,795 2015 2,655 10,849 2016 2,655 10,903 2017 2,655 10,958 2018 2,655 11,012 2019 2,655 11,067 2020 2,655 11,123 2021 2,655 11,178 2022 2,655 11,234 2023 2,655 11,290 2024 2,655 11,347 2025 2,655 11,404 2026 2,655 11,461 2027 2,655 11,518 2028 2,655 11,576 2029 2,655 11,633 2030 2,655 11,692 2031 2,655 11,750 2032 2,655 11,809 2033 2,655 11,868 2034 2,655 11,927 2035 2,655 11,987 2036 2,655 12,047 2037 2,655 12,107 2038 2,655 12,167 2039 2,655 12,228 2040 2,655 12,289 2041 2,655 12,351 Kensington 2011 2,400 3,000 24.39 2012 2,400 3,015 24.51 2013 2,400 3,030 24.64 2014 2,400 3,045 24.76 2015 2,400 3,060 24.88 2016 2,400 3,076 25.01 2017 2,400 3,091 25.13 2018 2,400 3,107 25.26 2019 2,400 3,122 25.38 2020 2,400 3,138 25.51 2021 2,400 3,153 25.64 2022 2,400 3,169 25.77 2023 2,400 3,185 25.90 2024 2,400 3,201 26.03 2025 2,400 3,217 26.16 2026 2,400 3,233 26.29 2027 2,400 3,249 26.42 2028 2,400 3,265 26.55 2029 2,400 3,282 26.68 2030 2,400 3,298 26.82 2031 2,400 3,315 26.95 2032 2,400 3,331 27.08 2033 2,400 3,348 27.22 2034 2,400 3,365 27.36 2035 2,400 3,381 27.49 2036 2,400 3,398 27.63 2037 2,400 3,415 27.77 2038 2,400 3,432 27.91 2039 2,400 3,450 28.05 2040 2,400 3,467 28.19 2041 2,400 3,484 28.33 Lodge Lane / Smithdown Road North 2011 1,440 3,000 2012 1,440 3,015 2013 1,440 3,030 2014 1,440 3,045 2015 1,440 3,060 2016 1,440 3,076 2017 1,440 3,091 2018 1,440 3,107 2019 1,440 3,122 2020 1,440 3,138 2021 1,440 3,153 2022 1,440 3,169 2023 1,440 3,185 2024 1,440 3,201 2025 1,440 3,217 2026 1,440 3,233 2027 1,440 3,249 2028 1,440 3,265 2029 1,440 3,282 2030 1,440 3,298 2031 1,440 3,315 2032 1,440 3,331 2033 1,440 3,348 2034 1,440 3,365 2035 1,440 3,381 2036 1,440 3,398 2037 1,440 3,415 2038 1,440 3,432 2039 1,440 3,450 2040 1,440 3,467 2041 1,440 3,484

Total Convenience Turnover (£m)

Comparison Net Sales (sq.m) (d)

Sales Density (£ per sq.m) (e)

+ Great Homer Redevelopment (f)

Total Comparison Turnover (£m)

Total District Centre Turnover (£m)

0.78 0.78 0.79 0.79 58.99 59.29 59.58 59.88 60.18 60.48 60.78 61.09 61.39 61.70 62.01 62.32 62.63 62.94 63.26 63.57 63.89 64.21 64.53 64.86 65.18 65.51 65.83 66.16 66.49 66.83 67.16

1,380 1,380 1,380 1,380 1,380 1,380 1,380 1,380 1,380 1,380 1,380 1,380 1,380 1,380 1,380 1,380 1,380 1,380 1,380 1,380 1,380 1,380 1,380 1,380 1,380 1,380 1,380 1,380 1,380 1,380 1,380

3,000 3,060 3,121 3,184 3,247 3,312 3,378 3,446 3,515 3,585 3,657 3,730 3,805 3,881 3,958 4,038 4,118 4,201 4,285 4,370 4,458 4,547 4,638 4,731 4,825 4,922 5,020 5,121 5,223 5,328 5,434

16.72 17.06 17.40 17.75 18.10 18.46 18.83 19.21 19.59 19.99 20.38 20.79 21.21 21.63 22.07 22.51 22.96 23.42 23.88 24.36 24.85 25.35 25.85 26.37 26.90 27.44 27.98 28.54 29.11 29.70 30.29

4.14 4.22 4.31 4.39 18.10 18.46 18.83 19.21 19.59 19.99 20.38 20.79 21.21 21.63 22.07 22.51 22.96 23.42 23.88 24.36 24.85 25.35 25.85 26.37 26.90 27.44 27.98 28.54 29.11 29.70 30.29

4.92 5.01 5.10 5.19 77.09 77.75 78.42 79.09 79.77 80.47 81.17 81.88 82.60 83.33 84.07 84.82 85.59 86.36 87.14 87.94 88.74 89.56 90.39 91.22 92.08 92.94 93.82 94.71 95.61 96.52 97.45

28.23 28.38 28.52 28.66 28.80 28.95 29.09 29.24 29.38 29.53 29.68 29.83 29.98 30.13 30.28 30.43 30.58 30.73 30.89 31.04 31.20 31.35 31.51 31.67 31.82 31.98 32.14 32.30 32.47 32.63 32.79

1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100

4,807 4,903 5,001 5,102 5,204 5,308 5,414 5,522 5,632 5,745 5,860 5,977 6,097 6,219 6,343 6,470 6,599 6,731 6,866 7,003 7,143 7,286 7,432 7,581 7,732 7,887 8,045 8,205 8,370 8,537 8,708

5.29 5.39 5.50 5.61 5.72 5.84 5.96 6.07 6.20 6.32 6.45 6.57 6.71 6.84 6.98 7.12 7.26 7.40 7.55 7.70 7.86 8.01 8.18 8.34 8.51 8.68 8.85 9.03 9.21 9.39 9.58

33.52 33.77 34.02 34.27 34.53 34.79 35.05 35.31 35.58 35.85 36.12 36.40 36.68 36.97 37.25 37.54 37.84 38.14 38.44 38.74 39.05 39.37 39.68 40.01 40.33 40.66 40.99 41.33 41.67 42.02 42.37

7.20 7.24 7.27 32.07 32.23 32.39 32.55 32.71 32.88 33.04 33.21 33.37 33.54 33.71 33.88 34.05 34.22 34.39 34.56 34.73 34.91 35.08 35.26 35.43 35.61 35.79 35.97 36.15 36.33 36.51 36.69

1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720

3,000 3,060 3,121 3,184 3,247 3,312 3,378 3,446 3,515 3,585 3,657 3,730 3,805 3,881 3,958 4,038 4,118 4,201 4,285 4,370 4,458 4,547 4,638 4,731 4,825 4,922 5,020 5,121 5,223 5,328 5,434

0.00 5.26 5.37 10.33 10.53 10.75 10.96 11.18 11.40 11.63 11.86 12.10 12.34 12.59 12.84 13.10 13.36 13.63 13.90 14.18 14.46 14.75 15.05 15.35 15.65 15.97 16.29 16.61 16.94 17.28 17.63

7.20 12.50 12.64 42.40 42.76 43.13 43.51 43.89 44.28 44.67 45.07 45.47 45.88 46.30 46.72 47.14 47.58 48.01 48.46 48.91 49.37 49.83 50.30 50.78 51.26 51.75 52.25 52.76 53.27 53.79 54.32

4.32 4.34 4.36 4.39 4.41 4.43 4.45 4.47 4.50 4.52 4.54 4.56 4.59 4.61 4.63 4.66 4.68 4.70 4.73 4.75 4.77 4.80 4.82 4.85 4.87 4.89 4.92 4.94 4.97 4.99 5.02

1,205 1,205 1,205 1,205 1,205 1,205 1,205 1,205 1,205 1,205 1,205 1,205 1,205 1,205 1,205 1,205 1,205 1,205 1,205 1,205 1,205 1,205 1,205 1,205 1,205 1,205 1,205 1,205 1,205 1,205 1,205

3,000 3,060 3,121 3,184 3,247 3,312 3,378 3,446 3,515 3,585 3,657 3,730 3,805 3,881 3,958 4,038 4,118 4,201 4,285 4,370 4,458 4,547 4,638 4,731 4,825 4,922 5,020 5,121 5,223 5,328 5,434

0.00 3.69 3.76 3.84 3.91 3.99 4.07 4.15 4.24 4.32 4.41 4.49 4.58 4.68 4.77 4.87 4.96 5.06 5.16 5.27 5.37 5.48 5.59 5.70 5.81 5.93 6.05 6.17 6.29 6.42 6.55

4.32 8.03 8.12 8.22 8.32 8.42 8.52 8.63 8.73 8.84 8.95 9.06 9.17 9.29 9.40 9.52 9.64 9.76 9.89 10.02 10.14 10.28 10.41 10.55 10.68 10.82 10.97 11.11 11.26 11.41 11.57

4.57 4.66 4.76 4.85 4.95 5.05 5.15 5.25 5.36 5.46 5.57 5.69 5.80 5.91 6.03 6.15 6.28 6.40 6.53 6.66 6.79 6.93 7.07 7.21 7.35 7.50 7.65 7.80 7.96 8.12 8.28

a. Convenience goods floorspace taken from information provided by GL Hearn's in relation to emerging Retail Study (provided March 2011), which were confirmed as net floorspace b. Average convenience goods sales density based on £3,000 per sq. m (2011), with increased productivity of 0.5% per annum up to 2041 (agreed with GL Hearn). Rice Lane includes Sainsburys store, where turnover is estimated based on Verdict Grocers (2011) information

c. Great Homer Street is based on new supermarket of 11,173 net floorspace, WYG has estimated turnover based on Verdict (2011) net convenience/comparison ratios and sales densities c. Comparison goods floorspace taken from information provided by GL Hearn's in relation to emerging Retail Study (provided March 2011), which were confirmed as net floorspace d. Average comparison goods sales density based on £3,000 per sq. m (2011), with increased productivity of 2% per annum upto 2041 e. Planning permission (10O/2379) for new superstore at Kensington, with no named operator, WYG based on average of Top 4 operator drawing on Verdcit sales densities, and assume will be fully trading by 2014.

2008 PRICES


WYG PLANNING & DESIGN LIVERPOOL WATERS RETAIL, LEISURE & OFFICE STATEMENT (2011)

TABLE 13: IMPACT ON LIVERPOOL CITY CENTRE Scenario 1: Baseline Impact IMPACT

2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041

Combined City Centre Turnover (£m) (a)

Convenience Turnover of LW (£m) (b)

1,128.84 1,240.77 1,364.20 1,500.34 1,650.50 1,816.14

0.41 4.59 4.71 4.82 30.43 35.81

Comparison Turnover Net Turnover of LW (£m) of LW (£m) (c) (d=a-(b+c))

0.00 2.87 9.93 29.09 78.17 98.44

0.41 7.46 14.64 33.91 108.60 134.24

Expenditure Generated at LW (e) (£m)

Trade Division (£m) (f)

7.94 12.26 22.23 41.62 83.39 139.67

7.53 4.80 7.59 7.71 -25.21 5.43

Trade Division (%) (e)

Trade Division (£m) (f)

50 50 50 50 50 50

0.20 3.73 7.32 16.95 54.30 67.12

Trade Division (%) (e)

Trade Division (£m) (f)

100 100 100 100 100 100

0.41 7.46 14.64 33.91 108.60 134.24

Residual Turnover (£m) (g)

Impact (%) (h)

1,136.37 1,245.56 1,371.79 1,508.05 1,625.29 1,821.56

0.7 0.4 0.6 0.5 -1.5 0.3

Residual Turnover (£m) (e)

Impact (%) (f)

1,128.64 1,237.04 1,356.88 1,483.38 1,596.20 1,749.01

0.0 -0.3 -0.5 -1.1 -3.3 -3.7

Residual Turnover (£m) (e)

Impact (%) (f)

1,128.43 1,233.31 1,349.56 1,466.43 1,541.90 1,681.89

0.0 -0.6 -1.1 -2.3 -6.6 -7.4

Source: a. Taken from Table 8 b. Taken from surplus expenditure from Table 6 c. Taken from surplus expenditure from Table 7 d. Net Turnover is combined convenience and comparison goods turnover e. Combined convenience and comaprison goods expenditure taken from Tables 1 and 2 f. Equals e minus d g. Equals a plus f h. Equals residual city centre turnover (a) divided by existing city centre turnover x 100 i. has excluded any inflow which again demonstrates worse case scenario

Scenario 2: Sensitivity Impact Analysis (50% Trade Draw) IMPACT

2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041

Combined City Centre Turnover (£m) (a)

Convenience Turnover of LW (£m) (b)

1,128.84 1,240.77 1,364.20 1,500.34 1,650.50 1,816.14

0.41 4.59 4.71 4.82 30.43 35.81

Comparison Turnover Net Turnover of LW (£m) of LW (£m) (c) (d=a-(b+c))

0.00 2.87 9.93 29.09 78.17 98.44

0.41 7.46 14.64 33.91 108.60 134.24

Source: a. Taken from Table 8 b. Taken from surplus expenditure from Table 6 c. Taken from surplus expenditure from Table 7 d. Net Turnover is combined convenience and comparison goods turnover e. Assumes that 50% of LW proposed LW turnover is diverted directly from Liverpool City Centre f. e divide by d e. a minus f f equals residual city centre turnover (a) divided by existing city centre turnover x 100

2008 PRICES

Scenario 2: Sensitivity Impact Analysis (100% Trade Draw) IMPACT

2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041

Combined City Centre Turnover (£m) (a)

Convenience Turnover of LW (£m) (b)

1,128.84 1,240.77 1,364.20 1,500.34 1,650.50 1,816.14

0.41 4.59 4.71 4.82 30.43 35.81

Comparison Turnover Net Turnover of LW (£m) of LW (£m) (c) (d=a-(b+c))

0.00 2.87 9.93 29.09 78.17 98.44

Source: a. Taken from Table 8 b. Taken from surplus expenditure from Table 6 c. Taken from surplus expenditure from Table 7 d. Net Turnover is combined convenience and comparison goods turnover e. Assumes that 50% of LW proposed LW turnover is diverted directly from Liverpool City Centre f. e divide by d e. a minus f f equals residual city centre turnover (a) divided by existing city centre turnvoer x 100

2008 PRICES

0.41 7.46 14.64 33.91 108.60 134.24


WYG PLANNING & DESIGN LIVERPOOL WATERS RETAIL, LEISURE & OFFICE STATEMENT (2011)

TABLE 14: CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF LW AND WW ON LIVERPOOL CITY CENTRE Scenario 1a: Baseline Cumulative Impact CUMULATIVE IMPACT LIVERPOOL WATERS Combined City Centre Turnover (£m) (a) 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041

1,128.84 1,240.77 1,364.20 1,500.34 1,650.50 1,816.14

Liverpool Waters Trade Division (£m) (b)

7.53 4.80 7.59 7.71 -25.21 5.43

Wirral Waters Trade Diversion (£m) (c)

Net Trade Diversion (£m) (d)

Residual City Centre Turnover (£m) (e)

Impact (%) (f)

0.00 0.00

7.53 4.80 7.59 -10.29 -47.07 -20.30

1,136.37 1,245.56 1,371.79 1,490.05 1,603.43 1,795.84

0.7 0.4 0.6 -0.7 -2.9 -1.1

-18.00

-21.86 -25.73

Source: a. Taken from Table 8 b. Taken from surplus expenditure from Table 9 (Scenario 1) c. Taken from RLOS for Wirral Waters (2009) produced by Turley Associates, combination of scenario 2 for comparison goods and scenario 1 for convenience goods trade draw assumptions (Appendix 1) adjusted to reflect LW project periods. Assumes one third of Wirral Waters turnover will be drawn from Liverpool City Centre d Equals b minus c e. Equals a minus d f. Equals residual city centre turnover (a) divided by existing city centre turnvover x 100 2008 PRICES

Scenario 2a: Sensitivity Cumulative Impact (50% Trade Diversion) CUMULATIVE IMPACT LIVERPOOL WATERS Combined City Centre Turnover (£m) (a) 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041

1,128.84 1,240.77 1,364.20 1,500.34 1,650.50 1,816.14

Liverpool Waters Trade Division (£m) (b)

0.20 3.73 7.32 -16.95 -54.30 -67.12

Wirral Waters Trade Diversion (£m) (c)

Net Trade Diversion (£m) (d)

Residual City Centre Turnover (£m) (e)

Impact (%) (f)

0.00 0.00

0.20 3.73 7.32 -34.95 -76.16 -92.85

1,129.04 1,244.50 1,371.52 1,465.38 1,574.34 1,723.29

0.0 0.3 0.5 -2.3 -4.6 -5.1

-18.00 -21.86 -25.73

Source: a. Taken from Table 8 b. Taken from surplus expenditure from Table 9 (Scenario 2) c. Taken from RLOS for Wirral Waters (2009) produced by Turley Associates, combination of scenario 2 for comparison goods and scenario 1 for convenience goods trade draw assumes (Appendix 1) adjusted to reflect LW project periods. Assumes one third of Wirral Waters turnover will be drawn from Liverpool City Centre d Equals b minus c e. Equals a minus d f. Equals residual city centre turnover (a) divided by existing city centre turnvover x 100 2008 PRICES

Scenario 3a: Sensitivity Cumulative Impact (100% Trade Diversion) CUMULATIVE IMPACT LIVERPOOL WATERS Combined City Centre Turnover (£m) (a) 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041

1,128.84 1,240.77 1,364.20 1,500.34 1,650.50 1,816.14

Liverpool Waters Trade Division (£m) (b)

-0.41 -7.46 -14.64 -33.91 -108.60 -134.24

Wirral Waters Trade Diversion (£m) (c)

Net Trade Diversion (£m) (d)

Residual City Centre Turnover (£m) (e)

Impact (%) (f)

0.00 0.00

-0.41 -7.46 -14.64 -51.91 -130.46 -159.97

1,129.25 1,248.22 1,378.84 1,552.25 1,780.96 1,976.10

0.0 0.6 1.1 3.5 7.9 8.8

-18.00 -21.86 -25.73

Source: a. Taken from Table 8 b. Taken from surplus expenditure from Table 9 (Scenario 2) c. Taken from RLOS for Wirral Waters (2009) produced by Turley Associates, combination of scenario 2 for comparison goods and scenario 1 for convenience goods trade draw assumes (Appendix 1) adjusted to reflect LW project periods. Assumes one third of Wirral Waters turnover will be drawn from Liverpool City Centre d Equals b minus c e. Equals a minus d f. Equals residual city centre turnover (a) divided by existing city centre turnvover x 100 2008 PRICES


WYG PLANNING & DESIGN LIVERPOOL WATERS RETAIL, LEISURE & OFFICE STATEMENT (2011)

TABLE 15: CUMULATIVE IMPACT (RESIDUAL EXPENDITURE) (BASELINE SCENARIO) 1. Turnover of Existing Surrounding Centres CUMULATIVE IMPACT

Liverpool City Centre Turnover (£m) (a)

2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041

Bootle Town Centre Turnover (£m)

Birkenhead Town Centre Turnover (£m)

MRA

Bootle

B'head

1,128.84 1,240.77 1,364.20 1,500.34 1,650.50 1,816.14

178.91 197.53 218.09 240.79 265.85 293.52

348.49 379.82 414.28 452.20 493.93 539.87

District Centres Turnover (£m)

Liverpool Waters Trade Division (£m) (b)

Local Centres Turnover (£m)

L

1

2

3

4

London Road

Breck Road

County Road

Walton Vale

Edge Hill

Great Homer Street

Rice Lane

Kensington

Lodge Lane / Smithdown Road North

36.99 40.56 44.50 48.84 53.62 58.89

67.68 71.59 75.82 80.42 85.41 90.84

37.67 40.76 44.15 47.87 51.95 56.44

24.70 26.89 29.30 31.95 34.87 38.07

17.68 18.89 20.22 21.67 23.25 24.98

77.75 81.17 84.82 88.74 92.94 97.45

34.79 36.12 37.54 39.05 40.66 42.37

10.75 11.86 13.10 14.46 15.97 17.63

3.99 4.41 4.87 5.37 5.93 6.55

1

2

3

4

7.53 4.80 7.59 7.71 -25.21 5.43

Wirral Net Trade Waters Diversion Trade (£m) (d) Diversion (£m) (c)

0.00 0.00 -18.00 -21.86 -25.73

7.53 4.80 7.59 -10.29 -47.07 -20.30

Source: a. Turnover of Existing established city, town, district and local centrest taken From Tables 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 b. Taken From surplus expenditure From Table 9 (Scenario 1) c. Taken From RLOS For Wirral Waters (2009) produced by Turley Associates, combination oF scenario 2 for comparison goods and scenario 1 For convenience goods trade draw assumptions (Appendix 1) adJusted to reflect LW project periods. Assumes one third of Wirral Waters turnover will be drawn From Liverpool City Centre d Equals b minus c e. Equals a minus d F. Equals residual city centre turnover (a) divided by existing city centre turnvover x 100 2008 PRICES

Scenario 1b: City Centre (high) CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS Liverpool Waters Trade Division (£m) Wirral Waters Trade Diversion (£m) (c) (b)

2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041

7.53 4.80 7.59 7.71 25.21 5.43

0.00 0.00 0.00 -18.00 21.86 -25.73

Cumulative Trade Diversion (£m)

7.53 4.80 7.59 -10.29 -47.07 -20.30

Liverpool City Centre

Bootle Town Centre

Residual (£m)

Residual (£m)

%TD

TD (£m)

70.00 70.00 70.00 70.00 70.00 70.00

5.3 3.4 5.3 -7.2 -33.0 -14.2

1,134.11 1,244.12 1,369.51 1,493.14 1,617.55 1,801.93

% Impact

%TD

TD (£m)

0.47 0.27 0.39 -0.48 -2.00 -0.78

5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

0.4 0.2 0.4 -0.5 -2.4 -1.0

179.28 197.77 218.47 240.27 263.49 292.50

Birkenhead Town Centre

% Impact

%TD

TD (£m)

0.21 0.12 0.17 -0.21 -0.89 -0.35

5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

0.4 0.2 0.4 -0.5 -2.4 -1.0

Residual (£m) 348.87 380.06 414.66 451.68 491.58 538.86

London Road

% Impact

%TD

TD (£m)

0.11 0.06 0.09 -0.11 -0.48 -0.19

5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

0.4 0.2 0.4 -0.5 -2.4 -1.0

Breck Road (%)

Residual (£m) % Impact 37.37 40.80 44.88 48.32 51.26 57.88

1.02 0.59 0.85 -1.05 -4.39 -1.72

%TD

TD (£m)

2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50

0.2 0.1 0.2 -0.3 -1.2 -0.5

County Road

Residual (£m) % Impact 67.86 71.71 76.01 80.16 84.23 90.33

0.28 0.17 0.25 -0.32 -1.38 -0.56

%TD

TD (£m)

5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

0.4 0.2 0.4 -0.5 -2.4 -1.0

Walton Vale (%)

Residual (£m) % Impact 38.05 41.00 44.53 47.35 49.60 55.42

1.00 0.59 0.86 -1.07 -4.53 -1.80

%TD

TD (£m)

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.1

%TD

TD (£m)

2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

0.2 0.1 0.2 -0.2 -0.9 -0.4

%TD

TD (£m)

2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

0.2 0.1 0.2 -0.2 -0.9 -0.4

Edge Hill

Residual (£m) % Impact 24.74 26.92 29.34 31.90 34.63 37.97

0.15 0.09 0.13 -0.16 -0.68 -0.27

%TD

TD (£m)

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.1

%TD

TD (£m)

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

0.1 0.0 0.1 -0.1 -0.5 -0.2

%TD

TD (£m)

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

0.1 0.0 0.1 -0.1 -0.5 -0.2

Great Homer Street (%)

Residual (£m) % Impact 17.71 18.92 20.26 21.62 23.02 24.88

0.21 0.13 0.19 -0.24 -1.01 -0.41

%TD

TD (£m)

5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

0.4 0.2 0.4 -0.5 -2.4 -1.0

Rice Lane (%)

Residual (£m) % Impact 78.13 81.41 85.20 88.23 90.59 96.44

0.48 0.30 0.45 -0.58 -2.53 -1.04

%TD

TD (£m)

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.1

%TD

TD (£m)

2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

0.2 0.1 0.2 -0.2 -0.9 -0.4

%TD

TD (£m)

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

0.1 0.0 0.1 -0.1 -0.5 -0.2

Kensington

Residual (£m) % Impact 34.82 36.15 37.58 39.00 40.42 42.27

0.11 0.07 0.10 -0.13 -0.58 -0.24

%TD

TD (£m)

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.1

%TD

TD (£m)

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.1

%TD

TD (£m)

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.1

Lodge Lane / Smithdown Road North

Residual (£m) % Impact 10.78 11.89 13.14 14.41 15.73 17.53

0.35 0.20 0.29 -0.36 -1.47 -0.58

%TD

TD (£m)

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.1

Residual (£m) % Impact 4.03 4.43 4.90 5.32 5.70 6.45

0.94 0.54 0.78 -0.96 -3.97 -1.55

Source: a. Taken from Table 8 b. Taken from surplus expenditure from Table 9 (Scenario 2) c. Taken from RLOS for Wirral Waters (2009) produced by Turley Associates, combination of scenario 2 for comparison goods and scenario 1 for convenience goods trade draw assumes (Appendix 1) adjusted to reflect LW project periods. Assumes one third of Wirral Waters turnover will be drawn from Liverpool City Centre d Equals b minus c e. Equals a minus d f. Equals residual city centre turnover (a) divided by existing city centre turnvover x 100 2008 PRICES

Scenario 2d: City Centre (Med)

CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS Liverpool Waters Trade Division (£m) Wirral Waters Trade Diversion (£m) (c) (b)

2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041

7.53 4.80 7.59 7.71 25.21 5.43

0.00 0.00 0.00 -18.00 21.86 -25.73

Cumulative Trade Diversion (£m)

7.53 4.80 7.59 -10.29 -47.07 -20.30

Liverpool City Centre

Bootle Town Centre

Residual (£m)

Residual (£m)

%TD

TD (£m)

50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00

3.8 2.4 3.8 -5.1 -23.5 -10.1

1,132.61 1,243.16 1,367.99 1,495.19 1,626.96 1,805.99

% Impact

%TD

TD (£m)

0.33 0.19 0.28 -0.34 -1.43 -0.56

10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00

0.8 0.5 0.8 -1.0 -4.7 -2.0

179.66 198.01 218.85 239.76 261.14 291.49

Birkenhead Town Centre

% Impact

%TD

TD (£m)

0.42 0.24 0.35 -0.43 -1.77 -0.69

10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00

0.8 0.5 0.8 -1.0 -4.7 -2.0

Residual (£m) 349.25 380.30 415.04 451.17 489.22 537.85

London Road

% Impact

%TD

TD (£m)

0.22 0.13 0.18 -0.23 -0.95 -0.38

9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00

0.7 0.4 0.7 -0.9 -4.2 -1.8

Breck Road (%)

Residual (£m) % Impact 37.67 40.99 45.18 47.91 49.38 57.06

1.83 1.06 1.53 -1.90 -7.90 -3.10

%TD

TD (£m)

5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

0.4 0.2 0.4 -0.5 -2.4 -1.0

County Road

Residual (£m) % Impact 68.05 71.83 76.20 79.90 83.06 89.82

0.56 0.34 0.50 -0.64 -2.76 -1.12

%TD

TD (£m)

5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

0.4 0.2 0.4 -0.5 -2.4 -1.0

Walton Vale (%)

Residual (£m) % Impact 38.05 41.00 44.53 47.35 49.60 55.42

1.00 0.59 0.86 -1.07 -4.53 -1.80

Edge Hill

Residual (£m) % Impact 24.85 26.99 29.45 31.75 33.92 37.67

0.61 0.36 0.52 -0.64 -2.70 -1.07

Great Homer Street (%)

Residual (£m) % Impact 17.75 18.94 20.30 21.57 22.78 24.78

0.43 0.25 0.38 -0.47 -2.02 -0.81

%TD

TD (£m)

5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

0.4 0.2 0.4 -0.5 -2.4 -1.0

Rice Lane (%)

Residual (£m) % Impact 78.13 81.41 85.20 88.23 90.59 96.44

0.48 0.30 0.45 -0.58 -2.53 -1.04

Kensington

Residual (£m) % Impact 34.94 36.22 37.70 38.85 39.72 41.96

0.43 0.27 0.40 -0.53 -2.32 -0.96

Lodge Lane / Smithdown Road North

Residual (£m) % Impact 10.78 11.89 13.14 14.41 15.73 17.53

0.35 0.20 0.29 -0.36 -1.47 -0.58

%TD

TD (£m)

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.1

Residual (£m) % Impact 4.03 4.43 4.90 5.32 5.70 6.45

0.94 0.54 0.78 -0.96 -3.97 -1.55

Source: a. Taken from Table 8 b. Taken from surplus expenditure from Table 9 (Scenario 2) c. Taken from RLOS for Wirral Waters (2009) produced by Turley Associates, combination of scenario 2 for comparison goods and scenario 1 for convenience goods trade draw assumes (Appendix 1) adjusted to reflect LW project periods. Assumes one third of Wirral Waters turnover will be drawn from Liverpool City Centre d Equals b minus c e. Equals a minus d f. Equals residual city centre turnover (a) divided by existing city centre turnvover x 100 2008 PRICES

Scenario 3d: City Centre (Low) CUMULATIVE IMPACT Liverpool Waters Trade Division (£m) Wirral Waters Trade Diversion (£m) (c) (b)

2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041

7.53 4.80 7.59 7.71 25.21 5.43

0.00 0.00 0.00 -18.00 21.86 -25.73

Cumulative Trade Diversion (£m)

7.53 4.80 7.59 -10.29 -47.07 -20.30

Liverpool City Centre %TD

TD (£m)

20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00

1.5 1.0 1.5 -2.1 -9.4 -4.1

Residual (£m) 1,130.35 1,241.73 1,365.72 1,498.28 1,641.08 1,812.08

Bootle Town Centre

% Impact

%TD

TD (£m)

0.13 0.08 0.11 -0.14 -0.57 -0.22

15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00

0.8 0.7 1.1 -1.5 -7.1 -3.0

Residual (£m) 179.66 198.25 219.23 239.24 258.79 290.47

Birkenhead Town Centre

% Impact

%TD

TD (£m)

0.42 0.36 0.52 -0.64 -2.66 -1.04

15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00

1.1 0.7 1.1 -1.5 -7.1 -3.0

Residual (£m) 349.62 380.54 415.42 450.65 486.87 536.83

London Road

% Impact

%TD

TD (£m)

0.32 0.19 0.27 -0.34 -1.43 -0.56

10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00

0.8 0.5 0.8 -1.0 -4.7 -2.0

Residual (£m) % Impact 37.74 41.04 45.26 47.81 48.91 56.86

Source: a. Taken from Table 8 b. Taken from surplus expenditure from Table 9 (Scenario 2) c. Taken from RLOS for Wirral Waters (2009) produced by Turley Associates, combination of scenario 2 for comparison goods and scenario 1 for convenience goods trade draw assumes (Appendix 1) adjusted to reflect LW project periods. Assumes one third of Wirral Waters turnover will be drawn from Liverpool City Centre d Equals b minus c e. Equals a minus d f. Equals residual city centre turnover (a) divided by existing city centre turnvover x 100 2008 PRICES

Breck Road (%)

2.04 1.18 1.71 -2.11 -8.78 -3.45

%TD

TD (£m)

10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00

0.8 0.5 0.8 -1.0 -4.7 -2.0

County Road

Residual (£m) % Impact 68.43 72.06 76.58 79.39 80.70 88.81

1.11 0.67 1.00 -1.28 -5.51 -2.23

%TD

TD (£m)

10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00

0.8 0.5 0.8 -1.0 -4.7 -2.0

Walton Vale (%)

Residual (£m) % Impact 38.43 41.24 44.91 46.84 47.24 54.41

2.00 1.18 1.72 -2.15 -9.06 -3.60

Edge Hill

Residual (£m) % Impact 24.85 26.99 29.45 31.75 33.92 37.67

0.61 0.36 0.52 -0.64 -2.70 -1.07

Great Homer Street (%)

Residual (£m) % Impact 17.75 18.94 20.30 21.57 22.78 24.78

0.43 0.25 0.38 -0.47 -2.02 -0.81

%TD

TD (£m)

15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00

1.1 0.7 1.1 -1.5 -7.1 -3.0

Rice Lane (%)

Residual (£m) % Impact 78.88 81.89 85.96 87.20 85.88 94.41

1.45 0.89 1.34 -1.74 -7.60 -3.12

Kensington

Residual (£m) % Impact 34.86 36.17 37.62 38.95 40.19 42.17

0.22 0.13 0.20 -0.26 -1.16 -0.48

Lodge Lane / Smithdown Road North

Residual (£m) % Impact 10.78 11.89 13.14 14.41 15.73 17.53

0.35 0.20 0.29 -0.36 -1.47 -0.58

%TD

TD (£m)

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.1

Residual (£m) % Impact 4.03 4.43 4.90 5.32 5.70 6.45

0.94 0.54 0.78 -0.96 -3.97 -1.55


WYG PLANNING & DESIGN LIVERPOOL WATERS RETAIL, LEISURE & OFFICE STATEMENT (2011)

TABLE 15: CUMULATIVE IMPACT (RESIDUAL EXPENDITURE) (50% TRADE DIVERSION SCENARIO) 1. Turnover of Existing Surrounding Centres CUMULATIVE IMPACT

Liverpool City Centre Turnover (£m) (a)

Bootle Town Centre Turnover (£m)

MRA 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041

1,128.84 1,240.77 1,364.20 1,500.34 1,650.50 1,816.14

Bootle

178.91 197.53 218.09 240.79 265.85 293.52

Birkenhead Town Centre Turnover (£m)

B'head

348.49 379.82 414.28 452.20 493.93 539.87

District Centres Turnover (£m)

Liverpool Waters Trade Division (£m) (b)

Local Centres Turnover (£m)

L

1

London Road

Breck Road

County Road

Walton Vale

Edge Hill

Great Homer Street

Rice Lane

Kensington

Lodge Lane / Smithdown Road North

36.99 40.56 44.50 48.84 53.62 58.89

67.68 71.59 75.82 80.42 85.41 90.84

37.67 40.76 44.15 47.87 51.95 56.44

24.70 26.89 29.30 31.95 34.87 38.07

17.68 18.89 20.22 21.67 23.25 24.98

77.75 81.17 84.82 88.74 92.94 97.45

34.79 36.12 37.54 39.05 40.66 42.37

10.75 11.86 13.10 14.46 15.97 17.63

3.99 4.41 4.87 5.37 5.93 6.55

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

0.20 3.73 7.32 -16.95 -54.30 -67.12

Wirral Net Trade Waters Diversion Trade (£m) (d) Diversion (£m) (c)

0.00 0.00 0.00 -18.00 -21.86 -25.73

0.20 3.73 7.32 -34.95 -76.16 -92.85

Source: a. Turnover of Existing established city, town, district and local centrest taken From Tables 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 b. Taken From surplus expenditure From Table 9 (Scenario 1) c. Taken From RLOS For Wirral Waters (2009) produced by Turley Associates, combination oF scenario 2 For comparison goods and scenario 1 For convenience goods trade draw assumptions (Appendix 1) adJusted to reFlect LW proJect periods. Assumes one third oF Wirral Waters turnover will be drawn From Liverpool City Centre d Equals b minus c e. Equals a minus d F. Equals residual city centre turnover (a) divided by existing city centre turnvover x 100 2008 PRICES

Scenario 1b: City Centre (high) CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS Liverpool Waters Trade Division (£m) Wirral Waters Trade Diversion (£m) (c) (b)

2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041

0.20 3.73 7.32 -16.95 54.30 -67.12

0.00 0.00 0.00 -18.00 21.86 -25.73

Cumulative Trade Diversion (£m)

0.20 3.73 7.32 -34.95 -76.16 -92.85

Liverpool City Centre

Bootle Town Centre

Residual (£m)

Residual (£m)

%TD

TD (£m)

70.00 70.00 70.00 70.00 70.00 70.00

0.1 2.6 5.1 -24.5 -53.3 -65.0

1,128.98 1,243.38 1,369.32 1,475.87 1,597.19 1,751.14

% Impact

%TD

TD (£m)

0.01 0.21 0.38 -1.63 -3.23 -3.58

5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

0.2 0.4 -1.7 -1.7 -3.8 -4.6

179.09 197.90 216.34 239.04 262.04 288.88

Birkenhead Town Centre

% Impact

%TD

TD (£m)

0.10 0.19 -0.80 -0.73 -1.43 -1.58

5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

0.0 0.2 0.4 -1.7 -3.8 -4.6

Residual (£m) 348.50 380.01 414.65 450.45 490.12 535.23

%TD

% Impact

%TD

TD (£m)

0.00 0.05 0.09 -0.39 -0.77 -0.86

5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

0.0 0.2 0.4 -1.7 -3.8 -4.6

Breck Road (%)

Residual (£m) % Impact 37.00 40.75 44.86 47.09 49.81 54.25

0.03 0.46 0.82 -3.58 -7.10 -7.88

%TD

TD (£m)

2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50

0.0 0.1 0.2 -0.9 -1.9 -2.3

County Road

Residual (£m) % Impact 67.68 71.68 76.00 79.54 83.51 88.51

0.01 0.13 0.24 -1.09 -2.23 -2.56

%TD

TD (£m)

5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

0.0 0.2 0.4 -1.7 -3.8 -4.6

Walton Vale (%)

Residual (£m) % Impact 37.68 40.95 44.52 46.12 48.14 51.79

0.03 0.46 0.83 -3.65 -7.33 -8.23

%TD

TD (£m)

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.5

%TD

TD (£m)

2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

0.0 0.1 0.1 -0.7 -1.5 -1.9

%TD

TD (£m)

2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

0.0 0.1 0.1 -0.7 -1.5 -1.9

Edge Hill

Residual (£m) % Impact 24.70 26.91 29.34 31.78 34.49 37.61

0.00 0.07 0.12 -0.55 -1.09 -1.22

%TD

TD (£m)

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.5

%TD

TD (£m)

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

0.0 0.0 0.1 -0.3 -0.8 -0.9

%TD

TD (£m)

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

0.0 0.0 0.1 -0.3 -0.8 -0.9

Great Homer Street (%)

Residual (£m) % Impact 17.68 18.91 20.26 21.49 22.87 24.52

0.01 0.10 0.18 -0.81 -1.64 -1.86

%TD

TD (£m)

5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

0.0 0.2 0.4 -1.7 -3.8 -4.6

Rice Lane (%)

Residual (£m) % Impact 77.76 81.35 85.19 86.99 89.13 92.81

0.01 0.23 0.43 -1.97 -4.10 -4.76

%TD

TD (£m)

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.5

%TD

TD (£m)

2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

0.0 0.1 0.1 -0.7 -1.5 -1.9

%TD

TD (£m)

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

0.0 0.0 0.1 -0.3 -0.8 -0.9

%TD

Residual (£m) % Impact 34.79 36.14 37.58 38.88 40.28 41.91

0.00 0.05 0.10 -0.45 -0.94 -1.10

%TD

TD (£m)

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.5

%TD

TD (£m)

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.5

%TD

TD (£m)

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.5

%TD

Residual (£m) % Impact 10.75 11.88 13.14 14.29 15.59 17.16

0.01 0.16 0.28 -1.21 -2.38 -2.63

%TD

TD (£m)

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.5

Residual (£m) % Impact 3.99 4.43 4.90 5.20 5.55 6.08

0.03 0.42 0.75 -3.25 -6.42 -7.09

Source: a. Taken from Table 8 b. Taken from surplus expenditure from Table 9 (Scenario 2) c. Taken from RLOS for Wirral Waters (2009) produced by Turley Associates, combination of scenario 2 for comparison goods and scenario 1 for convenience goods trade draw assumes (Appendix 1) adjusted to reflect LW project periods. Assumes one third of Wirral Waters turnover will be drawn from Liverpool City Centre d Equals b minus c e. Equals a minus d f. Equals residual city centre turnover (a) divided by existing city centre turnvover x 100 2008 PRICES

Scenario 2d: City Centre (Med) CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS Liverpool Waters Trade Division (£m) Wirral Waters Trade Diversion (£m) (c) (b)

2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041

0.20 3.73 7.32 -16.95 -54.30 -67.12

0.00 0.00 -18.00 -21.86 -25.73

Cumulative Trade Diversion (£m)

0.20 3.73 7.32 -34.95 -76.16 -92.85

Liverpool City Centre %TD

TD (£m)

50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00

0.1 1.9 3.7 -17.5 -38.1 -46.4

Residual (£m) 1,128.94 1,242.63 1,367.86 1,482.86 1,612.42 1,769.71

Bootle Town Centre

% Impact

%TD

TD (£m)

0.01 0.15 0.27 -1.16 -2.31 -2.56

10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00

0.0 0.4 0.7 -3.5 -7.6 -9.3

Residual (£m) 178.93 197.90 218.82 237.29 258.23 284.23

Birkenhead Town Centre

% Impact

%TD

TD (£m)

0.01 0.19 0.34 -1.45 -2.86 -3.16

10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00

0.0 0.4 0.7 -3.5 -7.6 -9.3

Residual (£m) 348.52 380.19 415.01 448.70 486.32 530.59

London Road

% Impact

%TD

TD (£m)

0.01 0.10 0.18 -0.77 -1.54 -1.72

9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00

0.0 0.3 0.7 -3.1 -6.9 -8.4

Breck Road (%)

Residual (£m) % Impact 37.01 40.90 45.16 45.69 46.76 50.53

0.05 0.83 1.48 -6.44 -12.78 -14.19

%TD

TD (£m)

5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

0.0 0.2 0.4 -1.7 -3.8 -4.6

County Road

Residual (£m) % Impact 67.69 71.77 76.19 78.67 81.60 86.19

0.02 0.26 0.48 -2.17 -4.46 -5.11

%TD

TD (£m)

5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

0.0 0.2 0.4 -1.7 -3.8 -4.6

Walton Vale (%)

Residual (£m) % Impact 37.68 40.95 44.52 46.12 48.14 51.79

0.03 0.46 0.83 -3.65 -7.33 -8.23

Edge Hill

Residual (£m) % Impact 24.71 26.97 29.45 31.25 33.34 36.22

0.02 0.28 0.50 -2.19 -4.37 -4.88

Great Homer Street (%)

Residual (£m) % Impact 17.68 18.93 20.29 21.32 22.49 24.06

0.01 0.20 0.36 -1.61 -3.28 -3.72

%TD

TD (£m)

5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

0.0 0.2 0.4 -1.7 -3.8 -4.6

Rice Lane (%)

Residual (£m) % Impact 77.76 81.35 85.19 86.99 89.13 92.81

0.01 0.23 0.43 -1.97 -4.10 -4.76

Kensington

Residual (£m) % Impact 34.79 36.20 37.69 38.35 39.14 40.51

0.01 0.21 0.39 -1.79 -3.75 -4.38

Lodge Lane / Smithdown Road North

Residual (£m) % Impact 10.75 11.88 13.14 14.29 15.59 17.16

0.01 0.16 0.28 -1.21 -2.38 -2.63

%TD

TD (£m)

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.5

Residual (£m) % Impact 3.99 4.43 4.90 5.20 5.55 6.08

0.03 0.42 0.75 -3.25 -6.42 -7.09

Source: a. Taken from Table 8 b. Taken from surplus expenditure from Table 9 (Scenario 2) c. Taken from RLOS for Wirral Waters (2009) produced by Turley Associates, combination of scenario 2 for comparison goods and scenario 1 for convenience goods trade draw assumes (Appendix 1) adjusted to reflect LW project periods. Assumes one third of Wirral Waters turnover will be drawn from Liverpool City Centre d Equals b minus c e. Equals a minus d f. Equals residual city centre turnover (a) divided by existing city centre turnvover x 100 2008 PRICES

Scenario 3d: City Centre (Low) CUMULATIVE IMPACT Liverpool Waters Trade Division (£m) Wirral Waters Trade Diversion (£m) (c) (b)

2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041

0.20 3.73 7.32 -16.95 -54.30 -67.12

0.00 0.00 -18.00 -21.86 -25.73

Cumulative Trade Diversion (£m)

0.20 3.73 7.32 -34.95 -76.16 -92.85

Liverpool City Centre %TD

TD (£m)

20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00

0.1 0.7 1.5 -7.0 -15.2 -18.6

Residual (£m) 1,128.94 1,241.51 1,365.66 1,493.35 1,635.27 1,797.57

Bootle Town Centre

% Impact

%TD

TD (£m)

0.01 0.06 0.11 -0.47 -0.92 -1.02

15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00

0.0 0.6 1.1 -5.2 -11.4 -13.9

Residual (£m) 178.93 198.09 219.19 235.54 254.42 279.59

Birkenhead Town Centre

% Impact

%TD

TD (£m)

0.01 0.28 0.50 -2.18 -4.30 -4.74

15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00

0.0 0.6 1.1 -5.2 -11.4 -13.9

Residual (£m) 348.53 380.38 415.38 446.95 482.51 525.95

London Road

% Impact

%TD

TD (£m)

0.01 0.15 0.27 -1.16 -2.31 -2.58

10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00

0.0 0.4 0.7 -3.5 -7.6 -9.3

37.01 40.93 45.23 45.34 46.00 49.61

Source: a. Taken from Table 8 b. Taken from surplus expenditure from Table 9 (Scenario 2) c. Taken from RLOS for Wirral Waters (2009) produced by Turley Associates, combination of scenario 2 for comparison goods and scenario 1 for convenience goods trade draw assumes (Appendix 1) adjusted to reflect LW project periods. Assumes one third of Wirral Waters turnover will be drawn from Liverpool City Centre d Equals b minus c e. Equals a minus d f. Equals residual city centre turnover (a) divided by existing city centre turnvover x 100 2008 PRICES

Breck Road (%)

Residual (£m) % Impact 0.06 0.92 1.64 -7.16 -14.20 -15.77

%TD

TD (£m)

10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00

0.0 0.4 0.7 -3.5 -7.6 -9.3

County Road

Residual (£m) % Impact 67.70 71.96 76.55 76.92 77.79 81.55

0.03 0.52 0.97 -4.35 -8.92 -10.22

%TD

TD (£m)

10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00

0.0 0.4 0.7 -3.5 -7.6 -9.3

Walton Vale (%)

Residual (£m) % Impact 37.70 41.13 44.88 44.37 44.33 47.15

0.05 0.91 1.66 -7.30 -14.66 -16.45

Edge Hill

Residual (£m) % Impact 24.71 26.97 29.45 31.25 33.34 36.22

0.02 0.28 0.50 -2.19 -4.37 -4.88

Great Homer Street (%)

Residual (£m) % Impact 17.68 18.93 20.29 21.32 22.49 24.06

0.01 0.20 0.36 -1.61 -3.28 -3.72

%TD

TD (£m)

15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00

0.0 0.6 1.1 -5.2 -11.4 -13.9

Rice Lane (%)

Residual (£m) % Impact 77.78 81.73 85.92 83.50 81.52 83.52

0.04 0.69 1.29 -5.91 -12.29 -14.29

Kensington

Residual (£m) % Impact 34.79 36.16 37.62 38.70 39.90 41.44

0.01 0.10 0.19 -0.90 -1.87 -2.19

Lodge Lane / Smithdown Road North

Residual (£m) % Impact 10.75 11.88 13.14 14.29 15.59 17.16

0.01 0.16 0.28 -1.21 -2.38 -2.63

%TD

TD (£m)

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.5

Residual (£m) % Impact 3.99 4.43 4.90 5.20 5.55 6.08

0.03 0.42 0.75 -3.25 -6.42 -7.09


WYG PLANNING & DESIGN LIVERPOOL WATERS RETAIL, LEISURE & OFFICE STATEMENT (2011)

TABLE 17: CUMULATIVE IMPACT (RESIDUAL EXPENDITURE) (100% TRADE DIVERSION SCENARIO) 1. Turnover of Existing Surrounding Centres CUMULATIVE IMPACT

Liverpool City Centre Turnover (£m) (a)

Bootle Town Centre Turnover (£m)

MRA

2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041

1,128.84 1,240.77 1,364.20 1,500.34 1,650.50 1,816.14

Bootle

178.91 197.53 218.09 240.79 265.85 293.52

Birkenhead Town Centre Turnover (£m)

B'head

348.49 379.82 414.28 452.20 493.93 539.87

District Centres Turnover (£m)

Liverpool Waters Trade Division (£m) (b)

Local Centres Turnover (£m)

L

1

London Road

Breck Road

County Road

Walton Vale

Edge Hill

Great Homer Street

Rice Lane

Kensington

Lodge Lane / Smithdown Road North

36.99 40.56 44.50 48.84 53.62 58.89

67.68 71.59 75.82 80.42 85.41 90.84

37.67 40.76 44.15 47.87 51.95 56.44

24.70 26.89 29.30 31.95 34.87 38.07

17.68 18.89 20.22 21.67 23.25 24.98

77.75 81.17 84.82 88.74 92.94 97.45

34.79 36.12 37.54 39.05 40.66 42.37

10.75 11.86 13.10 14.46 15.97 17.63

3.99 4.41 4.87 5.37 5.93 6.55

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

-0.41 -7.46 -14.64 -33.91 -108.60 -134.24

Wirral Net Trade Waters Diversion Trade (£m) (d) Diversion (£m) (c)

0.00 0.00 0.00 -18.00 -21.86 -25.73

-0.41 -7.46 -14.64 -51.91 -130.46 -159.97

Source: a. Turnover of Existing established city, town, district and local centrest taken From Tables 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 b. Taken From surplus expenditure From Table 9 (Scenario 1) c. Taken From RLOS For Wirral Waters (2009) produced by Turley Associates, combination oF scenario 2 For comparison goods and scenario 1 For convenience goods trade draw assumptions (Appendix 1) adJusted to reFlect LW proJect periods. Assumes one third oF Wirral Waters turnover will be drawn From Liverpool City Centre d Equals b minus c e. Equals a minus d F. Equals residual city centre turnover (a) divided by existing city centre turnvover x 100 2008 PRICES

Scenario 1b: City Centre (high) CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS Liverpool Waters Trade Division (£m) Wirral Waters Trade Diversion (£m) (c) (b)

2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041

-0.41 -7.46 -14.64 -33.91 108.60 -134.24

0.00 0.00 0.00 -18.00 21.86 -25.73

Cumulative Trade Diversion (£m)

-0.41 -7.46 -14.64 -51.91 -130.46 -159.97

Liverpool City Centre

Bootle Town Centre

Residual (£m)

Residual (£m)

%TD

TD (£m)

70.00 70.00 70.00 70.00 70.00 70.00

-0.3 -5.2 -10.2 -36.3 -91.3 -112.0

1,128.55 1,235.54 1,353.95 1,464.00 1,559.18 1,704.16

% Impact

%TD

TD (£m)

-0.03 -0.42 -0.75 -2.42 -5.53 -6.17

5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

-0.4 -0.7 -2.6 -2.6 -6.5 -8.0

178.54 196.80 215.49 238.19 259.33 285.52

Birkenhead Town Centre

% Impact

%TD

TD (£m)

-0.21 -0.37 -1.19 -1.08 -2.45 -2.72

5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

0.0 -0.4 -0.7 -2.6 -6.5 -8.0

Residual (£m) 348.47 379.45 413.55 449.60 487.41 531.88

%TD

% Impact

%TD

TD (£m)

-0.01 -0.10 -0.18 -0.57 -1.32 -1.48

5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

0.0 -0.4 -0.7 -2.6 -6.5 -8.0

Breck Road (%)

Residual (£m) % Impact 36.97 40.19 43.77 46.24 47.10 50.89

-0.06 -0.92 -1.64 -5.31 -12.17 -13.58

%TD

TD (£m)

2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50

0.0 -0.2 -0.4 -1.3 -3.3 -4.0

County Road

Residual (£m) % Impact 67.67 71.40 75.46 79.12 82.15 86.84

-0.02 -0.26 -0.48 -1.61 -3.82 -4.40

%TD

TD (£m)

5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

0.0 -0.4 -0.7 -2.6 -6.5 -8.0

Walton Vale (%)

Residual (£m) % Impact 37.65 40.39 43.42 45.27 45.43 48.44

-0.05 -0.91 -1.66 -5.42 -12.56 -14.17

%TD

TD (£m)

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.3 -0.7 -0.8

%TD

TD (£m)

2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

0.0 -0.1 -0.3 -1.0 -2.6 -3.2

%TD

TD (£m)

2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

0.0 -0.1 -0.3 -1.0 -2.6 -3.2

Edge Hill

Residual (£m) % Impact 24.70 26.86 29.23 31.69 34.21 37.27

-0.01 -0.14 -0.25 -0.81 -1.87 -2.10

%TD

TD (£m)

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.3 -0.7 -0.8

%TD

TD (£m)

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.5 -1.3 -1.6

%TD

TD (£m)

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.5 -1.3 -1.6

Great Homer Street (%)

Residual (£m) % Impact 17.67 18.86 20.15 21.41 22.60 24.19

-0.01 -0.20 -0.36 -1.20 -2.81 -3.20

%TD

TD (£m)

5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

0.0 -0.4 -0.7 -2.6 -6.5 -8.0

Rice Lane (%)

Residual (£m) % Impact 77.73 80.80 84.09 86.15 86.42 89.45

-0.03 -0.46 -0.86 -2.92 -7.02 -8.21

%TD

TD (£m)

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.3 -0.7 -0.8

%TD

TD (£m)

2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

0.0 -0.1 -0.3 -1.0 -2.6 -3.2

%TD

TD (£m)

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.5 -1.3 -1.6

%TD

Residual (£m) % Impact 34.78 36.09 37.47 38.79 40.01 41.57

-0.01 -0.10 -0.19 -0.66 -1.60 -1.89

%TD

TD (£m)

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00

0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.3 -0.7 0.0

%TD

TD (£m)

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.3 -0.7 -0.8

%TD

TD (£m)

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.3 -0.7 -0.8

%TD

Residual (£m) % Impact 10.74 11.83 13.03 14.20 15.31 17.63

-0.02 -0.31 -0.56 -1.79 -4.09 0.00

%TD

TD (£m)

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.3 -0.7 -0.8

Residual (£m) % Impact 3.99 4.37 4.79 5.11 5.28 5.75

-0.05 -0.85 -1.50 -4.83 -11.00 -12.21

Source: a. Taken from Table 8 b. Taken from surplus expenditure from Table 9 (Scenario 2) c. Taken from RLOS for Wirral Waters (2009) produced by Turley Associates, combination of scenario 2 for comparison goods and scenario 1 for convenience goods trade draw assumes (Appendix 1) adjusted to reflect LW project periods. Assumes one third of Wirral Waters turnover will be drawn from Liverpool City Centre d Equals b minus c e. Equals a minus d f. Equals residual city centre turnover (a) divided by existing city centre turnvover x 100 2008 PRICES

Scenario 2d: City Centre (Med) CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS Liverpool Waters Trade Division (£m) Wirral Waters Trade Diversion (£m) (c) (b)

2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041

-0.41 -7.46 -14.64 -33.91 -108.60 -134.24

0.00 0.00 -18.00 -21.86 -25.73

Cumulative Trade Diversion (£m)

-0.41 -7.46 -14.64 -51.91 -130.46 -159.97

Liverpool City Centre %TD

TD (£m)

50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00

-0.2 -3.7 -7.3 -26.0 -65.2 -80.0

Residual (£m) 1,128.64 1,237.04 1,356.88 1,474.38 1,585.27 1,736.15

Bootle Town Centre

% Impact

%TD

TD (£m)

-0.02 -0.30 -0.54 -1.73 -3.95 -4.40

10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00

0.0 -0.7 -1.5 -5.2 -13.0 -16.0

Residual (£m) 178.87 196.78 216.62 235.60 252.80 277.52

Birkenhead Town Centre

% Impact

%TD

TD (£m)

-0.02 -0.38 -0.67 -2.16 -4.91 -5.45

10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00

0.0 -0.7 -1.5 -5.2 -13.0 -16.0

Residual (£m) 348.45 379.07 412.82 447.01 480.89 523.88

London Road

% Impact

%TD

TD (£m)

-0.01 -0.20 -0.35 -1.15 -2.64 -2.96

9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00

0.0 -0.7 -1.3 -4.7 -11.7 -14.4

Breck Road (%)

Residual (£m) % Impact 36.95 39.89 43.18 44.16 41.88 44.49

-0.10 -1.65 -2.96 -9.57 -21.90 -24.45

%TD

TD (£m)

5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

0.0 -0.4 -0.7 -2.6 -6.5 -8.0

County Road

Residual (£m) % Impact 67.66 71.21 75.09 77.82 78.89 82.84

-0.03 -0.52 -0.97 -3.23 -7.64 -8.81

%TD

TD (£m)

5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

0.0 -0.4 -0.7 -2.6 -6.5 -8.0

Walton Vale (%)

Residual (£m) % Impact 37.65 40.39 43.42 45.27 45.43 48.44

-0.05 -0.91 -1.66 -5.42 -12.56 -14.17

Edge Hill

Residual (£m) % Impact 24.69 26.74 29.01 30.91 32.26 34.88

-0.03 -0.55 -1.00 -3.25 -7.48 -8.40

Great Homer Street (%)

Residual (£m) % Impact 17.67 18.82 20.07 21.15 21.95 23.39

-0.02 -0.39 -0.72 -2.40 -5.61 -6.40

%TD

TD (£m)

5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

0.0 -0.4 -0.7 -2.6 -6.5 -8.0

Rice Lane (%)

Residual (£m) % Impact 77.73 80.80 84.09 86.15 86.42 89.45

-0.03 -0.46 -0.86 -2.92 -7.02 -8.21

Kensington

Residual (£m) % Impact 34.78 35.98 37.25 38.02 38.05 39.17

-0.02 -0.41 -0.78 -2.66 -6.42 -7.55

Lodge Lane / Smithdown Road North

Residual (£m) % Impact 10.74 11.83 13.03 14.20 15.31 16.83

-0.02 -0.31 -0.56 -1.79 -4.09 -4.54

%TD

TD (£m)

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.3 -0.7 -0.8

Residual (£m) % Impact 3.99 4.37 4.79 5.11 5.28 5.75

-0.05 -0.85 -1.50 -4.83 -11.00 -12.21

Source: a. Taken from Table 8 b. Taken from surplus expenditure from Table 9 (Scenario 2) c. Taken from RLOS for Wirral Waters (2009) produced by Turley Associates, combination of scenario 2 for comparison goods and scenario 1 for convenience goods trade draw assumes (Appendix 1) adjusted to reflect LW project periods. Assumes one third of Wirral Waters turnover will be drawn from Liverpool City Centre d Equals b minus c e. Equals a minus d f. Equals residual city centre turnover (a) divided by existing city centre turnvover x 100 2008 PRICES

Scenario 3d: City Centre (Low) CUMULATIVE IMPACT Liverpool Waters Trade Division (£m) Wirral Waters Trade Diversion (£m) (c) (b)

2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041

-0.41 -7.46 -14.64 -33.91 -108.60 -134.24

0.00 0.00 -18.00 -21.86 -25.73

Cumulative Trade Diversion (£m)

-0.41 -7.46 -14.64 -51.91 -130.46 -159.97

Liverpool City Centre %TD

TD (£m)

20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00

-0.2 -1.5 -2.9 -10.4 -26.1 -32.0

Residual (£m) 1,128.64 1,239.27 1,361.27 1,489.96 1,624.41 1,784.14

Bootle Town Centre

% Impact

%TD

TD (£m)

-0.02 -0.12 -0.21 -0.69 -1.58 -1.76

15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00

0.0 -1.1 -2.2 -7.8 -19.6 -24.0

Residual (£m) 178.87 196.41 215.89 233.00 246.28 269.52

Birkenhead Town Centre

% Impact

%TD

TD (£m)

-0.02 -0.57 -1.01 -3.23 -7.36 -8.17

15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00

-0.1 -1.1 -2.2 -7.8 -19.6 -24.0

Residual (£m) 348.43 378.70 412.08 444.41 474.36 515.88

London Road

% Impact

%TD

TD (£m)

-0.02 -0.29 -0.53 -1.72 -3.96 -4.44

10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00

0.0 -0.7 -1.5 -5.2 -13.0 -16.0

36.95 39.82 43.03 43.65 40.57 42.89

Source: a. Taken from Table 8 b. Taken from surplus expenditure from Table 9 (Scenario 2) c. Taken from RLOS for Wirral Waters (2009) produced by Turley Associates, combination of scenario 2 for comparison goods and scenario 1 for convenience goods trade draw assumes (Appendix 1) adjusted to reflect LW project periods. Assumes one third of Wirral Waters turnover will be drawn from Liverpool City Centre d Equals b minus c e. Equals a minus d f. Equals residual city centre turnover (a) divided by existing city centre turnvover x 100 2008 PRICES

Breck Road (%)

Residual (£m) % Impact -0.11 -1.84 -3.29 -10.63 -24.33 -27.16

%TD

TD (£m)

10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00

0.0 -0.7 -1.5 -5.2 -13.0 -16.0

County Road

Residual (£m) % Impact 67.64 70.84 74.36 75.23 72.36 74.84

-0.06 -1.04 -1.93 -6.45 -15.27 -17.61

%TD

TD (£m)

10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00

0.0 -0.7 -1.5 -5.2 -13.0 -16.0

Walton Vale (%)

Residual (£m) % Impact 37.63 40.02 42.69 42.68 38.91 40.44

-0.11 -1.83 -3.32 -10.84 -25.11 -28.34

Edge Hill

Residual (£m) % Impact 24.69 26.74 29.01 30.91 32.26 34.88

-0.03 -0.55 -1.00 -3.25 -7.48 -8.40

Great Homer Street (%)

Residual (£m) % Impact 17.67 18.82 20.07 21.15 21.95 23.39

-0.02 -0.39 -0.72 -2.40 -5.61 -6.40

%TD

TD (£m)

15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00

-0.1 -1.1 -2.2 -7.8 -19.6 -24.0

Rice Lane (%)

Residual (£m) % Impact 77.69 80.05 82.63 80.95 73.37 73.46

-0.08 -1.38 -2.59 -8.77 -21.06 -24.62

Kensington

Residual (£m) % Impact 34.78 36.05 37.40 38.53 39.35 40.77

-0.01 -0.21 -0.39 -1.33 -3.21 -3.78

Lodge Lane / Smithdown Road North

Residual (£m) % Impact 10.74 11.83 13.03 14.20 15.31 16.83

-0.02 -0.31 -0.56 -1.79 -4.09 -4.54

%TD

TD (£m)

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.3 -0.7 -0.8

Residual (£m) % Impact 3.99 4.37 4.79 5.11 5.28 5.75

-0.05 -0.85 -1.50 -4.83 -11.00 -12.21


Appendix 2 – Experian Micromarketer G3 Data


Appendix 3 – Health Check Indicator



Liverpool Waters - Retail leisure and office statement