Barking Retail Study May 2009 - Residents - London … Brief updates the earlier Study prepared by CBRE, specifically addressing retail needs, as an evidential base to the Barking

BARKING TOWN CENTRE

RETAIL STUDY UPDATE 2009

MAY 2009

King Sturge LLP 30 Warwick Street London W1B 5NH

T +44 (0)20 7493 4933 F +44 (0)20 7087 5555

BARKING TOWN CENTRE RETAIL STUDY UPDATE 2009

CONTENTS PAGE

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 BARKING TOWN CENTRE – VITALITY & VIABILITY UPDATE 2

3 RETAIL CAPACITY ANALYSIS 8

4 RETAIL AUDIT 19

5 CONCLUSIONS 35

Appendices

1 Study Area Plan 2 Economic Analysis


1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Study was commissioned by the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC), in partnership with the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (LBBD) to update the Retail and Leisure Capacity Study (RLCS) prepared by CB Richard Ellis (CBRE) for Barking Town Centre in 2004.

1.2 The Brief updates the earlier Study prepared by CBRE, specifically addressing retail needs, as an evidential base to the Barking Town Centre Action Plan (AAP), and to plan for future growth and development in Barking Town Centre.

1.3 This Study comprehensively updates the earlier Study, in relation to the need for additional retail floorspace within Barking Town Centre. This is to be considered for convenience and comparison goods. The analysis is considered in the context of current Government Guidance, contained within Planning Policy Statement 6 ‘Planning for Town Centres’ (PPS6) and the provisions of the Barking and Dagenham Unitary Development Plan 1996, Interim Planning Guidance for Barking Town Centre (December 2004) and the emerging suite of documents which will form the Borough’s Local Development Framework (LDF). In May 2009, a consultation draft of PPS4 ‘Planning for Prosperous Economies’ was issued, which consolidates national planning policy on economic development into a single streamlined PPS. This includes PPG4, PPG5, PPS6 and parts of PPS7 and PPG13.

1.4 The Study is presented under the following section headings:

� Barking Town Centre – a Vitality and Viability Update (Section 2); � Retail Capacity Analysis Update (Section 3); � Retail Audit (Section 4); and � Conclusions (Section 5).

1.5 An initial update was undertaken in June 2008 and chapters 2 and 4 of this Study rely upon data and evidence gathering undertaken at that time. The Retail Capacity Update has been comprehensively revised since then to take account of and ensure a consistency with, a report prepared by Experian for the GLA in March 2009 “Consumer expenditure and comparison goods retail floorspace need in London” (the GLA Retail Study).

1.6 The Study has been prepared in consultation with Officers at both the LTGDC (Amanda Peck) and the LBBD (Mike Robinson). King Sturge is grateful for the advice and guidance received during the course of the Study’s preparation from these Officers, but it is emphasised that the analysis and findings presented here have been independently prepared.

Page 1


2 BARKING TOWN CENTRE – VITALITY & VIABILITY UPDATE

2.1 Barking Town Centre is defined as a “Major Town Centre” in the regional shopping hierarchy and has a range of national multiple retailers, but is predominantly a convenience goods destination. The Town Centre benefits from excellent public transport links.

2.2 An assessment of Vitality and Viability of Barking Town Centre has been undertaken, using the appropriate indicators outlined in paragraph 4.4 of PPS6. Both on-theground and other data sources have been used, and reference is also made to the Town Centre Report undertaken by Experian Goad in 2007.

2.3 Reference is also made to an earlier assessment undertaken by CBRE in support of the Barking Retail and Leisure Capacity Study 2004. This provides a useful contrast for comparing how the Town Centre has changed over time.

2.4 The indicators used in this Vitality and Viability Assessment are:

� Diversity of Uses/Retailer Representation (including Retailer Requirements); � Proportion of Vacant Street Level Property; � Shopping Rents; � Commercial Yields on Non-Domestic Property, and � Accessibility.

2.5 Together these indicators provide a framework for measuring and comparing the vitality, attractiveness and viability of town centres.

Diversity of Uses/Retailer Representation

2.6 Barking Town Centre contains 141 retail outlets, totalling some 29,274 m² (gross source Experian Goad) 24,814 m² (net – source King Sturge), together with 103 service units totalling 13,220 m² (gross – source Experian Goad).

2.7 The main retail areas, within the Town Centre, include Vicarage Field, East Street, Ripple Road and an area around Barking Station, known as the “Station Quarter”.

2.8 The following table confirms that there has been a decrease in the number of comparison and service units and an increase in the number of convenience, vacant and miscellaneous outlets since the previous Retail Study carried out by Experian Goad in 2004.

2.9 Additionally, the table confirms that the service sector (use classes A2, A3, A4 and A5) account for 29% of all units, which is above the national average of 22%.

Page 2


Table 1 - Change in Retail and Service provision for Barking Town Centre 20042007 Unit Type Number

of Units 2008

Percentage (%) 2008

Number of Units 2004

Percentage (%) 2004

% Change

Convenience 31 12 26 10 +2% Comparison 110 41 121 45.4 -4.4% Services 103 38 98 38.1 -0.1% Vacant & Misc 24 9 15 6.5 +2.5%

Table 2 - Retail and Service provision in Barking Town Centre by Experian Goad Floorspace (Gross)

Unit Type Floorspace (sq m) 2008

% of Total 2008

Floorspace (sq m) 2004

% of Total 2004

% Change

Convenience 8,900 20 8,082 17 +3% Comparison 20,374 45 22,381 48 -3% Services 13,220 29 13,310 29 0% Vacant & Misc 3,084 7 2,771 6 +1%

Retailer Representation

2.10 Barking Town Centre contains a number of national multiple retailers. In January 2004, 93 of the 266 total outlets were occupied by multiple retailers (34.96%). This figure had increased to 95 (35.45%) by March 2008. This identifies a representation of multiple retailers in Barking Town Centre above the national average of 33.70%.

2.11 In the convenience sector, national multiple retailers currently represented include Asda, with a net floorspace of 1,765 m² located in Vicarage Fields, Lidl, comprising 722 m² on Ripple Road, and Iceland, with 527 m² located on East Street.

2.12 A street market also takes place every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday spanning East Street, the pedestrianised section of Ripple Road and part of Station Parade. Occasional speciality markets also take place in this area.

2.13 In addition to this, Experian Goad highlight 30 key attractors as a benchmark against which to assess the relative strength of town centres, and Barking has 12 of these retailers identified in the table below.

Table 3 - Experian Goad Key Attractors in Barking Town Centre

Major Retailer No. in Barking


Argos 1 New Look 1 BhS 0 Next 0 Boots the Chemist 1 River Island 0 Burtons 1 Sainsbury’s 0 Carphone Warehouse 1 Superdrug 1 Clarks 0 Tesco 0

Page 3




Clintons 2 Topman 0 Currys 0 Topshop 0 Debenhams 0 Virgin Megastore 0 Dorothy Perkins 1 Vodafone 1 H & M 0 WHSmith 2 H & V 0 Waitrose 0 House of Fraser 0 Waterstones 0 John Lewis 0 Wilkinsons 1 Marks & Spencer 0 Woolworths * 1

* Woolworths ceased trading nationally

2.14 It is, however, noteworthy that the Town Centre does not accommodate a department store or variety store. The likes of Marks & Spencer are clearly absent from the retail offer.

2.15 From our own observations, there is also scope to improve the current leisure infrastructure. The town is under supplied of ‘night-time’ leisure activities, such as pubs, bars, cinemas and restaurants.

2.16 In essence, while Barking’s existing retail offer does have inherent strengths, there is scope to consolidate and improve the existing retail offer.

Retailer Requirements

2.17 As described later in this Report, a comprehensive Retail Audit was undertaken by King Sturge in April 2008, which critically reviews the existing retail offer and identifies operators that trade in the benchmark centres but are currently absent from Barking.

2.18 Of the 35 gap comparison goods retailers identified in the Audit, Clarks the footwear retailer is the most apparent. There are no other footwear gaps but there are a number of general clothing gaps at the upper mass-market level i.e., Next, Topshop and Monsoon. Another significant sector that appears to have significant gaps is the value market, retailer gaps include Krisp, QS, Poundstretcher, Rosebys, Card Fair, M & Co and Priceless.

2.19 Most of the comparison gap retailers identified are small/medium space occupiers, with the notable exception being Marks & Spencer, as previously noted.

2.20 The non-comparison goods retailer gap includes retailers such as Sainsbury’s and Somerfield. However, Sainsbury’s do operate a store on the outskirts of Barking, whilst Somerfield previously traded in Barking, in the store now occupied by Asda.

Vacant Retail Property

2.21 The proportion of vacant street level property provides a strong indication of the health of a town centre. It should, however, be considered with a degree of caution as vacancies can arise even in the strongest town centres, particularly where properties are undergoing alteration. Our survey indicated that in the town centre, Barking has 18

Page 4

Town


vacant outlets, in January 2008, which accounts for 6.72% of the total retail units in the Centre. This figure compares favourably with the national average of 11.11%.

Shop Rents

2.22 The level of rent which retailers are prepared to pay for retail space within a centre is an indication of the perceived attractiveness of that centre.

2.23 The following table identifies the Prime Zone A rental values achieved in Barking Town Centre between 1987 and 2007 (the most recent figures available). Prime Zone A rental levels in Barking are £80 per sq.ft. This is an increase of 50% from 1997 to 2007. However the increase in recent years appears to have flattened.

Table 4 - Comparison of Prime Zone A Rental Values (£ per sq ft)

Region 1987 1994 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Barking Outer London 35 37 40 40 40 40 40 50 60 70 75 75 80

Ilford Outer London 70 85 90 120 130 130 130 140 150 160 160 160 170

Romford Outer London 100 110 120 120 175 175 160 170 180 190 200 205 210

2.24 As you would expect, Prime Zone A rental values are well below those in the nearby centres of Ilford and Romford. Over the same 10 year period form 1997 to 2007 Prime Zone A rental values have increased some 53% in Romford and this is matched by a 57% increase in Ilford. This is illustrated in the graph below:

Figure 1 - Comparison of Prime Zone A Rental Values 1987- 2007 (£ per sq ft)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1987 1994 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Barking Outer London Ilford Outer London Romford Outer London

Page 5


2.25 This is helpful for comparison purposes, and demonstrates that Barking sits beneath other centres in the local shopping hierarchy.

Commercial Yields

2.26 The following table shows the prime shop property investment yields in Barking over the past 15 years. The yield on property investment represents the return on capital to an investor. Yields are therefore an indicator of expectations of rental growth and of the general economic prospects for a town.

2.27 Prime retail yields in Barking are currently 6.5%, however these are expected to head towards 7% by the year end reflecting the current state of the debt markets.

2.28 Notwithstanding this however, prime retail yields in Barking have been improving consistently since 1996, broadly reflecting interest rates nationally.

Table 5 - Prime Shop Property Investment Yields (%)

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

7.75 8.25 9.25 9 8.75 8.75 8.75 8.75 8.25 8 - 6 5.5 6 6.5

Accessibility

2.29 Barking has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 6, the highest rating given.

2.30 Barking Town Centre is well served for public transport, served by 11 routes (62 buses per hour) as well as access to Barking station which is served by London Underground District and Hammersmith and City Line, c2c (Fenchurch Street to Southend) and Barking – Gospel Oak Line.

2.31 Barking will also benefit from the introduction of the East London Transit, which will improve public transport accessibility for all parts of the town centre.

Conclusions

2.32 Barking Town Centre has below national average representation of comparison goods retailers but above average representation of convenience goods retailers.

2.33 As identified above, the centre has witnessed a decrease in the number of comparison and service units and an increase in the number of convenience, vacant and miscellaneous outlets over the previous four years since the Retail Study was carried out by Experian Goad in 2004.

2.34 Notwithstanding this, the Town Centre still has a relatively low number of vacant units when compared nationally.

Page 6


2.35 Barking Town Centre is very accessible by a choice of means of transport including road, London Underground and overland railway.

2.36 There is, undoubtedly, scope for Barking to consolidate and improve its retail proposition. Whilst Barking’s existing retail offer does have inherent strengths, these could be reinforced and enhanced through careful planning.

2.37 There is, undoubtedly, scope for Barking to consolidate and improve its retail proposition within the retail hierarchy. Whilst Barking’s existing retail offer does have inherent strengths (such as low vacancy rate), these could be reinforced and enhanced through careful planning. Consideration is given in Section 4 of the Report to the types of additional retail provision that could be focused on.

Page 7


3 RETAIL CAPACITY ANALYSIS

3.1 The following assessment of quantitative need, which should be read in conjunction with the tables in Appendix 2, is based on a step-by-step approach, assessing the existing and projected available spending by residents of a defined catchment area, and comparing the expenditure potential with an estimate of turnover provision within Barking Town Centre. The approach follows that adopted in the CBRE Study, but it has been comprehensively updated to take account of more recent information including, in particular, the 2009 GLA Retail Study. In updating the Study, we have also had regard to other shopper survey results and background data contained in a Retail Assessment undertaken by G L Hearn in October 2008, to support a planning application for an extension to the Tesco store and Highbridge Road, Barking.

3.2 The analysis separately assesses the needs for convenience and comparison goods floorspace.

3.3 The main steps are:

i. Definition of a study period; ii. Definition of a catchment area; iii. Estimation of existing and future population; iv. Estimation of spending on convenience and comparison goods, as existing

and in the future; v. Estimation of expenditure attracted to Barking Town Centre, based on an

earlier household survey (2004); vi. Derivation of “benchmark” turnovers; vii. Estimation of expenditure attracted to Barking Town Centre, following the

implementation of retail floorspace proposals either within or beyond the catchment area, and

viii. Conclusions on the quantitative need for further convenience and comparison goods shop floorspace.

The Study Period

3.4 Reflecting the fundamental purpose to inform the Area Action Plan for Barking Town Centre, the Study Period relates to the years 2006 to 2016. Whilst longer term predictions can be undertaken, their reliability is reduced because of uncertainties relating to future retail expenditure and population growth.

Catchment Area

3.5 The catchment area is shown on the map in Appendix 1. We have adopted the same catchment area and sub-division into zones as the earlier RLCS (2004). This catchment area provides the basis for the 2004 shopper survey, which we consider remains reliable for the purposes of updating the Retail Capacity Analysis to 2016. Whilst there have been some changes in retail provision in the catchment area since it was undertaken (e.g. the Somerfield in Barking Town Centre changed to an Asda store), these are limited and having analysed the more recent shopper survey undertaken by G L Hearn in March 2007 (albeit based on a different catchment area

Page 8


and study zones), we consider the results are consistent. The adopted catchment area is extensive, which reflects the earlier scope of the RLCS which included an assessment for other towns within LBBD – Dagenham and Rainham. Nevertheless, the shopper survey results enable information to be derived on the market share of Barking (and other town centres within the Borough). Therefore, whilst the defined catchment area extends beyond that area where Barking has the greatest influence, the shopper survey results enable reliable estimates to be made on the current market share of Barking Town Centre. By adopting this approach, also enables comparisons to be made with the earlier RLCS.

3.6 Whilst the delineation of the catchment area does not necessarily affect the findings of a Retail Assessment, assumptions made about the inflows and outflows of spending to the catchment area can have significant effects. In updating the Retail Study, we have carefully assessed the likely affects of planned retail proposals within and beyond the catchment area, and how this might affect market shares in the future.

Population

3.7 Population change is one of the underlying drivers of changes in consumer retail demand. Population and projections therefore provide a valuable insight into projected future demand within local areas.

3.8 We have completely revised and updated population data included in the RLCS on the basis of more up-to-date information that is now available. Estimates of the catchment area’s zonal populations at 2008 to 2011 are based on small area statistics provided by the LBBD and The Greater London Authority. The demographic framework is based on commissioned population data, provided by Experian, who provide population and projections from the year 2006 (and, therefore, substantially more upto-date and reliable than 2001 census population figures).

3.9 Experian’s demographic model uses 2006 mid-year age and gender estimates as a base and then projects these forward year-on-year until the final year is reached (in this case, 2016).

3.10 In preparing these projections, the following components of population change are taken into account:

� Birth rates; � Ageing – population ‘received’ from the preceding age band; � Ageing – population lost to succeeding age band; � Net migration – by age band; � Death rate – by age band.

3.11 We have also added to the trend-based population forecast figures, our own assessment of the likely growth in population which will result from expected housing growth. This is based on information provided by the LBBD and includes proposals for new housing development in zones 1, 2, 7, 8 and 9.

Page 9

LBBD


3.12 In order to determine the projected population associated with this increase in the number of dwellings, we have assumed an occupancy rate of 2.44 persons per unit. This has been derived from data produced by the Office of National Statistics (ONS).

3.13 We accept that there may be an element of ‘double counting’, but suggest that the use of these locally generated figures is robust as these represent actual planned future developments, whereas Experian undertake their forecasts at a macro level, and do not take account of significant housing allocations in a particular area, that will have the effect of concentrating population growth.

3.14 The relevant figures for the catchment and its zones are presented in Table 1 of Appendix 2. The tables indicate the following:

1. At the base year of 2006, the study period has a population of 478,199. It is projected that this will rise to 494,069 in 2011, and to 506,937 in 2016.

2. This represents a growth in population in the period 2006 – 2011 of 15,870, representing an increase of 3.3%.

3. This rate of growth is projected to continue beyond 2011, with a further additional population of 12,868 by 2016, representing a growth of 2.6% over that 5 year period.

3.15 Although the catchment population in 2011 is higher then predicted in the RLCS (494,069 compared to 382,121) by 2016, the population estimates are very similar (506,937 in the current study compared to 506,734 in the RLCS).

Expenditure

3.16 We have used local expenditure estimates for LBBD area contained in the GLA Retail Study, 2009. These Experian derived estimates are up-to-date and fully take into account local factors, as well as ensuring consistency with the GLA London-wide analysis.

3.17 Per capita retail expenditure estimates in 2006 for LBBD and the Greater London area are set out below.

2006 Per Capital Retail Expenditure Estimates

Greater London %

Convenience 1,516 1,587 96 Comparison 2,659 3,111 85

3.18 The RLCS utilised figures provided by MapInfo, again derived from local expenditure estimates. However, these figures are about 15% above national average retail expenditure estimates, which we consider is inconsistent, taking into account the socio-economic characteristics of the LBBD area. This is borne out both by the recent GLA Retail Study, and also information contained in the G L Hearn Retail Study.

Page 10


3.19 The figures quoted in the RLCS were at 2001 price level, but these have been updated, and all figures are now expressed in 2003 prices, which is consistent with the price level based used in the GLA Retail Study.

3.20 The 2006 per capital retail expenditure estimates have been adjusted and projected forward to take account of:

� Deductions for Special Forms of Trading (SFT); � Annual growth rates.

3.21 Further explanations of these assumptions are set out below.

Special Forms of Trading

3.22 A significant factor in the estimation of retail capacity relates to the assumption relating to “Special Forms of Trading” (SFT), representing retail spending which does not take place in shops, by, for example, mail order, party plan and the internet. Per capita spending figures are reduced by SFT percentages, usually on the basis of national average rates.

3.23 The RLCS assumed constant SFT rates of 1.6% and 5.3% for convenience and comparison goods respectively (as derived from MapInfo Information Brief 04/02). MapInfo do not provide future predictions in any of their subsequent Information Briefs.

3.24 In forecasting future convenience and comparison goods capacity, we consider it incorrect to rely solely on information provided by MapInfo, which relates to the situation in 2003, rather than forecasting the future likely position.

3.25 The recent dramatic growth of internet sales is well documented. For many years, the proportion of Special Forms of Trading remained broadly constant, but in the last five years, there has been a very significant increase in SFT. It is reasonable to suggest that the amount of spending that will take place outside retail stores has, and will continue to increase, due to a number of factors including consumer confidence in using alternative mediums for addressing their shopping needs.

3.26 Experian recognise that an internet sale does not necessarily imply that items have not passed through a retail outlet, and note that some supermarkets source internet goods from store space. They also recognise that there is a higher degree of uncertainty in projecting the uptake of new technology. Nevertheless, they come to a view, at a national level, that a plausible “low case” for the broad market share of all non-store retail sales in 2016, including e-tailing, would be around 6% for convenience goods, 13% for comparison goods and 10% for total retail spending.

3.27 The per capital retail expenditure estimates, and forecasts contained in 2009 GLA Retail Study for SFT, have been used in this study. Set out below is a comparison of the GLA assumptions on SFT for convenience and comparison goods expenditure, with the Experian national average estimates provided for comparison.

Page 11


SFT – Proportion of Retail Expenditure

2006 2011 2016 GLA National GLA National GLA National

Average Average Average Convenience 2.9% 3.4% 6.2% 7.3% 6.9% 8.1% Comparison 7.1% 8.3% 11.4% 13.6% 11.8% 13.9%

Source: National Average Rates from Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note 6.1 (Table 5.1)

3.28 The figures for SFT in LBBD contained in the 2009 GLA Retail Study are based on an analysis undertaken by Experian of differences in SFT by Borough within London. This is based on an analysis of the socio-economic characteristics of each of the Boroughs. The results suggest that for comparison goods expenditure (on which Experian undertook their main analysis), the highest proportions absorbed by SFT are in areas such as the City of London, Kensington & Chelsea and Richmond-upon-Thames, and those Boroughs with the lowest proportion of comparison goods expenditure absorbed by SFT are Barking & Dagenham, Hackey and Brent.

3.29 We consider that the assumptions for SFT contained in the GLA Retail Study, which had been adopted in this Retail Study are robust, as they take into account the particular characteristics of the Barking & Dagenham area. We accept that, particularly for convenience goods, that a significant proportion of internet sales may pass through a retail outlet. However, as internet sales increase, we anticipate that the proportion of sales through retail stores will diminish, in order to increase efficiency of these types of home delivery operations. Clearly, this will be a matter for any applicant to take into account in a Retail Impact Assessment accompanying a planning application, and a lower proportion of SFT might be justified in a particular case.

Annual Growth Rates

3.30 The RLCS provided per capita expenditure on convenience and comparison goods in the catchment area for 2001, based on MapInfo local area expenditure estimates.

3.31 We have utilised expenditure forecasts produced by Experian, as incorporated in the GLA Retail Study. This assumes the growth in convenience goods expenditure of 1.2% between 2006 and 2011 and 0.9% for the period to 2012 - 2016. For comparison goods, it is assumed that expenditure will increase by 4.3% per annum for the period 2006 – 2016.

3.32 The figures for comparison goods are below Experian’s national average estimates (4.3% compared to 4.8%), which reflects the recent downturn in the UK economy. Although most recent retail expenditure information suggests that expenditure is static, or in decline, this is likely to be a short term phenomenon and analysis of retail data suggests that following previous recessions, retail expenditure growth has come back strongly. The annual growth rates provided by Experian are based upon ultra long term trends – between 1967 and 2007 - which take into account the various levels of growth (and decline) in retail expenditure that have occurred during this period.

Page 12


3.33 It is also relevant to note that the amount of disposable income spent on retail goods, whilst increasing significantly over the last 20-30 years, has declined as the proportion of disposable income. The amount of expenditure on retail goods is not necessarily fixed, and expenditure in a particular area may increase, for example, if shopping improved facilities are conveniently available.

3.34 Retail expenditure per head is set out for convenience and comparison goods in Tables 2a and 2b respectively. These figures take account of Experian’s predicted growth in retail expenditure, but with an increasing proportion of expenditure on SFT (as described above). Per capita expenditure on convenience goods is anticipated to grow from £1,516 in 2006 to £1,607 by 2011 and £1,678 in 2016. For comparison goods, per capita expenditure is anticipated to increase from £2,659 in 2006, to £3,186 by 2011 and £3,809 by 2016.

3.35 Application of these per capita estimates to the population figures produces the projected “generated spending” on convenience and comparison goods, presented in Tables 3a and 3b respectively. These indicate that the catchment area generates £724.95m and £1,271.53m on convenience and comparison goods respectively in 2006 (at the 2003 price level). It is projected that these will increase to £793.97m and £1,574.10m by 2011 and £850.64m and £1,930.92m by 2016.

3.36 The combined effect of the forecast growth in population and per capita expenditure is that we estimate that catchment area expenditure will increase by £125.7m (17%) and £659.39m (51%), during the period 2006 – 2016 for convenience and comparison goods respectively.

3.37 The RLCS inflated total retail expenditure by 8.5% to take account of additional expenditure derived from “visitors”. It is not entirely clear how this figure was derived and we do not consider it appropriate to make any such adjustment. However, it is relevant to note that Experian’s retail expenditure estimates (in the GLA Retail Study), that have been utilised in this Study, do make an allowance for day-to-day shopping spend from outside Greater London and also worker expenditure. These factors are of much greater significance in Central London, where a significant number of people commute to work, or visit for shopping trips, from beyond the Greater London area.

Survey Based Turnover for Barking Town Centre

3.38 Having established the amount of potentially available retail spending to support floorspace within Barking Town Centre, the next stage of the assessment is to consider the proportion of that potential which is actually, and might realistically be attracted to Barking Town Centre’s shops in the future.

3.39 In June 2004, CB Richard Ellis commissioned a household survey of shopping patterns in the Barking and London Riverside study area, which was used to inform the RLCS. The results of this survey have been used for the purposes of this assessment. This approach is based on “spending retention”, as indicated by where the respondents of the survey carried out their shopping. In so far as they have indicated that they make retail purchases at shops within Barking Town Centre, this represents “retained spending” – expressed as a proportion of the total estimated spending by study area residents. CBRE had assumed that for convenience goods expenditure, 75% would be main shopping trips, with the remaining 25% for top-up

Page 13


shopping. We have adjusted the survey results on the basis that main food shopping accounts for 67% of retail expenditure, with the remaining 33% for top-up shopping trips. The reason for this adjustment is two-fold. Firstly, it is evident from the further surveys we have undertaken is that there is a significant amount of convenience goods floorspace within the smaller shops, both in the town centre and in the various local centres and parades within the built-up area of Barking. This would suggest that a significant amount of expenditure is undertaken in these shops. Secondly, within a dense built-up area such as Barking, one would expect the proportion of top-up shopping to be greater than in a lower density town where food shopping trips undertaken by car dominate more.

3.40 Within the exception of Phase 2 of the Town Square scheme, there has been no major change in Barking’s shopping system since the date of the survey.

3.41 Tables 4b and 6b provide an estimate of turnover for convenience and comparison goods floorspace within Barking Town Centre in 2006, using the results of this survey (shown in Tables 4a and 6a). In total, Barking Town Centre retains £50.9m of convenience goods shopping out of a total of £724.9m at 2006. For comparison goods, shops within Barking Town Centre retain £89.6m, out of a total of £1,271.5m at 2006.

Benchmark Turnover

3.42 Benchmark turnovers are levels at which it is generally accepted shops trade viably. It is normally accepted as reasonable proxy for this, to assume that shops occupied by multiple traders perform at the national average levels for those traders. As such information is not available for all shops, particularly for independent and smaller chain stores, it is necessary to make assumptions about appropriate benchmark levels of trading performance.

3.43 The retail floorspace figures provided in the RLCS have been updated following further analysis of existing floorspace. This has included research into original planning permissions, information provided by supermarket operators and a comprehensive on-ground survey. It will be noted from Table 8a that within the town centre out of a total of 4,494 m² of net sales convenience floorspace, approximately half of this is in smaller outlets. There is also a significant amount of convenience goods floorspace within various local centres. This amounts to a total of 1,770 m² net (within Faircross Parade, Eastbury (Ripple Road), The Triangle and Fanshawe Avenue, Edgefield Court and Gibbards Cottages, Westbury (Ripple Road), Movers Lane and St Mary’s). We have made assumptions in respect of net to gross ratios, based on our own inspection of retail facilities. The resultant floorspace figures are set out in Tables 8a and 8b.

3.44 For convenience goods, the benchmark sales density levels are derived from Mintel Retail Rankings 2007 and Verdict. For comparison goods, we have relied upon the total turnover as set out in the GLA Retail Study, which is based on a modelling exercise undertaken by Experian, which assesses the turnover of all town centres within Greater London, having regard to overlapping catchment areas and their position in the retail hierarchy.

Page 14


3.45 In 2006, the base year, the total turnover of Barking convenience shops is £28.9m, compared to the survey derived turnover of £50.9m. For comparison goods, the total turnover in 2006 is £88m, compared to a survey derived turnover of £89.6m. This suggests that for convenience goods, existing stores are trading at levels significantly higher than the benchmark turnover. The same analysis cannot be undertaken for comparison goods, as benchmark turnovers cannot be assessed from company averages (because of the variety and nature of existing retail stores) and as noted above, we have adopted the GLA Retail Study turnover for Barking Town Centre as the benchmark level.

3.46 The purpose of estimating benchmark turnovers is to indicate a level at which existing retail floorspace can operate at a viable and effective level.

3.47 Evidently, retail floorspace can operate at significantly above and below such average trading levels successfully, without any harm to the objectives of meeting shopping needs and maintaining the vitality and viability of centres. These derived benchmark turnovers are simply to provide broad guidance on the adequacy of the general level of provision.

Retail Capacity Analysis

3.48 We have assessed capacity based on two scenarios. These are:

1. Scenario 1 – convenience goods market shares revised to take account of Asda’s occupation of the Somerfield unit within the Vicarage Fields Shopping Centre (the current position); and comparison goods market share is assumed to remain constant.

2. Scenario 2 – market shares are affected by committed developments, both within and beyond the study area, which affects the potential capacity for both convenience and comparison goods floorspace.

Scenario 1 – Convenience Goods

3.49 Tables 9a presents the projections of retained spending and benchmark turnover, with derived surplus spending for convenience goods to reflect constant market shares, following Asda’s occupation of the Somerfield unit within Vicarage Fields Shopping Centre.

3.50 The expenditure figures are projected forward by applying the 2006 trade draw (market share) for each year up to 2016.

3.51 The benchmark turnover figures are assumed to remain constant, i.e. no allowance for floorspace efficiency, because of the limited growth in convenience goods expenditure per annum, and also due to the nature of existing convenience goods floorspace, there is limited scope to increase floorspace efficiency over and above the current situation.

Page 15


3.52 Table 9 sets out a residual capacity for the years 2006 – 2016. This increases from £21.95m in 2006 to £28.16m by 2011 and £31.40m by 2016. We have applied a sales density figure derived from the average of main national food retailers to these residual capacities.

3.53 Table 9a indicates that the resultant floorspace capacity (expressed in net floorspace terms), is 2,090 m² in 2006, rising to 2,368 m² by 2011 and 2,676 m² by 2016.

3.54 It should be noted that this capacity is on the basis that the new floorspace would be for a supermarket operator. Some of this floorspace could be provided within smaller shops which would have a much lower sales density, and therefore justify additional floorspace. Such stores typically have a net sales density of less than half of the main supermarket operators.

Scenario 1 – Comparison Goods

3.55 Table 10a presents the projection of retained spending and benchmark turnover with derived surplus spending for comparison goods to reflect constant market shares.

3.56 In this case, we have assumed that existing floorspace sales density increases by 1.5% per annum. This takes account of a more significant retail expenditure increases anticipated for comparison goods and the anticipation that this will justify the construction of a significant amount of new retail floorspace, which will be more efficient than existing floorspace.

3.57 Table10a illustrates that the residual capacity to support new comparison goods floorspace rises from £1.61m in 2006, to £18.00m in 2011 and £34.6m in 2016. To these figures, we have applied a sales density for new comparison goods floorspace at 10% above the sales density of existing floorspace, reflecting that the new floorspace supported by this additional capacity is likely to be in the form of a new purpose-built shopping centre.

3.58 The resultant floorspace capacity (expressed in net floorspace) is 326 m² in 2006, rising to 3,373 m² and 6,018 m² by 2016.

Scenario 2 – Convenience Goods

3.59 In Scenario 2, we have adjusted the existing market shares (as shown in Table 4a) to take account of a number of proposed retail developments within and close to the catchment area that are likely to affect the existing market share of Barking Town Centre. In particular, after 2011, we anticipate that the market share of Barking Town Centre will diminish mainly as a consequence of the provision of convenience goods floorspace at Barking Riverside and the significant amount of additional convenience goods floorspace proposed as part of Stratford City, which will limit to some extent the trade draw from residents living on the western side of Barking, in places such as Canning Town, East Ham, Manor Park and Ilford. As will be seen from comparison of tables 9a and 9b, although the capacity for further convenience goods up to 2010 remains the same, from 2011, the capacity is reduced. We anticipate that the residual capacity will rise from £21.95m in 2006 to £23.86m in 2011, and to £26.80m by 2016.

Page 16


The resultant floorspace capacity for convenience goods (net) will be 2,090 m² in 2006, increasing to 1,959 m² in 2011, and 2,238 m² by 2016.

Scenario 2 – Comparison Goods

3.60 Scenario 2 seeks to take account of proposed retail developments in the vicinity of Barking that are likely to affect its market share. In particular, the 100,000 m² of comparison goods floorspace that will be provided at Stratford City and the potential for significant additional retail floorspace within Ilford Town Centre will have the affect of diminishing Barking’s trade drawn from the west. However, such reductions are likely to be fairly limited, as it is evident from Barking’s current market share from the various catchment areas sub-zones, and the nature of shops within the town, that residents in the area are already travelling to higher order centres to carry out much of their comparison goods shopping. This is reflected by the market penetration of only 27% within Zone 2 of the catchment area (where Barking is located), and 41% within Zone 1 – the area to the south of the town.

3.61 For Scenario 2, it has been assumed that a significant amount of new comparison goods floorspace can be achieved within the town centre, on the London Road site. This will have the effect of improving the attractiveness of Barking Town Centre, thereby enabling the market share to be increased. As a consequence, we have assumed that Barking Town Centre’s market share increases by 15% (from 27-31%) within Zone 2 of the catchment area, and by 10% (41% to 46%) within Zone 1 of the catchment area. These are modest assumed increases in market share and have regard to other competing towns. They are consistent with the assumptions contained in the 2004 RLCS.

3.62 Utilising the same assumptions regarding floorspace efficiency and the sales density of new floorspace as in Scenario 1, it is anticipated that the residual capacity will rise from £2.59m in 2006 to £17.07m by 2011 and £33.30m by 2016. The resultant floorspace, expressed in net terms, is equivalent to 524 m² in 2006, rising to 3,199 m² in 2011 and 5,792 m² in 2016.

Retail Capacity Conclusions

3.63 We consider Scenario 2 represents the most realistic analysis for the planning future retail floorspace provision in Barking Town Centre.

3.64 We estimate that the floorspace capacity of Barking will be as follows:

2011 (m² net)

2016 (m² net)

Convenience 1,959 2,238 Comparison 3,199 5,792 Total Class A1 5,158 8,030 Class A2/A5 516 803 Total Retail Floorspace Capacity 5,674 8,833 Total Gross Floorspace Capacity (based on gross/net ratio of 70/30

8,106 12,619

Page 17


3.65 In planning for additional retail floorspace within Barking Town Centre, it is important to recognise that it is most unlikely that any restrictions can be made in respect to the split between convenience and comparison goods floorspace. Bearing in mind that many shops sell a mixture of both convenience and comparison goods floorspace, this provides further justification for planning on the basis of total floorspace capacity.

3.66 The retail capacity analysis has examined future needs for Class A floorspace only. Inevitably within a town centre, there will be other Class A2/A5 floorspace. According to the Experian Goad floorspace breakdown (see Table 2 in paragraph 2.9), Class A1 floorspace only accounts for 65% of the total floorspace within Barking Town Centre, with services floorspace comprising 29%. For the purposes of this assessment, we have assumed a new retail floorspace within Barking Town Centre probably in the form of a shopping centre, would have a lower proportion of service outlets (Class A2/A5). We have assumed that this would increase the floorspace capacity by 10%, a cautious estimate. Much depends on the nature of the retail provision – for example a shopping centre development with a food court could increase the overall quantity of Class A2/A5 floorspace. Our overall conclusion is that the Area Action Plan for Barking Town Centre should plan to accommodate an additional 5,674 m² net (8,106 m² gross) of retail floorspace by 2011, and a total of 8,833 m² net (12,619 m² gross) of retail floorspace by 2016.

3.67 The future floorspace requirements will also be affected by the demolition of any existing retail floorspace within the town centre required to accommodate new shopping development (which will increase the overall capacity). In addition, should the Abbey Retail Park close, we would expect that the Town Centre could absorb an element of the expenditure currently spent by Barking residents at this facility.

3.68 It will therefore be appropriate for Barking to consolidate its position within shopping hierarchy and implement measures to ensure that this position is maintained in the sub-regional context. With this in mind, where possible, improvements in town centre quality should be encouraged.

Page 18


4 RETAIL AUDIT

Introduction

4.1 This section of the report represents an objective retail audit of Barking and is designed to inform the development and asset management strategy of the town, as part of wider regeneration initiatives. In essence a benchmarking exercise, the retail audit highlights the strengths and weaknesses of the current retail offer and provides significant insight into how the centre could be improved. The analysis is both quantitative and qualitative.

4.2 There are five key inter-linked stages in the analytical process:

1. Identification of Benchmark Centres

This involves selecting centres that are comparable to Barking in terms either of their catchment geodemographic mix or level of retail provision, or both. Towns with a similar geographic position, i.e. community centres on the fringes of Central London, are of particular relevance.

2. Headline Retail Data

This entails providing ‘top line’ retail statistics (floorspace and outlets and associated breakdowns) for Barking and comparing them with the benchmark centres.

3. Outlet and Floorspace Provision by Sector

Drilling down a level, we analyse Barking’s existing provision by product sector (e.g. clothing, department stores, music & video etc). This provides a top-level indicator of sectors where Barking’s existing retail offer may be underweight.

4. Unit Size Analysis

This compares the space occupied by individual retailers in Barking with the average unit size of that retailer’s sister stores in the benchmark centres. It identifies which retailers may be trading from under-spaced units and could potentially be candidates for re-location within Barking.

5. Gap Analysis

This process identifies retailers that trade in the benchmark centres but are currently absent from Barking. As such, these are potential new tenants to Barking, either as part of the existing infrastructure or potential new floorspace. Identified ‘gaps’ are compared with data on specified requirements from retailers themselves, in order to assess the likelihood of attracting those retailers to the town.

Page 19


Benchmark Centres

4.3 For the purposes of the retail audit, we have selected 12 benchmark centres on the basis of two key criteria.

� Centres with similar retail provision (towns which rank alongside Barking in national retail centre rankings)

� Centres with similar demographics (towns elsewhere in the country which have a similar customer profile to Barking).

4.4 We have also factored regional compatibility into the selection process and favoured centres located in Greater London and the South East. Centres with a similar geographic location to Barking, namely on the outskirts of the capital (albeit not necessarily to the east) are also of considerable significance.

4.5 The ranking we have used is Javelin’s VenueScore. This takes into account not just the level of retail floorspace provision and number of retail units, it also factors in the tenant mix of those centres. As a result, key attractor retailers (e.g. department stores such as John Lewis and Debenhams, and other anchors such as Marks & Spencer) carry a higher weighting than smaller high street multiples and independents. On this basis, each national centre is attributed a score, upon which they are ranked.

4.6 To assess geodemographics, we have used Experian’s MOSAIC classification. MOSAIC is a consumer segmentation system which classifies all residents in the UK into 61 types, aggregated into 11 groups. Using some 400 data variables (around half from the 2001 Census), the classification paints a rich picture of UK consumers in terms of their socio-demographics, lifestyles, culture and behaviour.

4.7 Table 1 lists the benchmark centres and the level of match with Barking. The two ‘Match’ columns are a subjective assessment, with the number of stars reflecting the level of compatibility with Barking.

4.8 In the 2007 VenueScore ranking, Barking came in at 315th, alongside other centres such as Castleford, Edgware and Cumbernauld in Scotland. Although on the surface a relatively lowly ranking, we would suggest that this owes much to the high presence of independent retailers in Barking, which are allocated a much lower score than their multiple counterparts (‘chains’). Although an explanation, this nevertheless remains a key issue for Barking and one that we will re-visit in the course of the report.

Table 6 – Barking Benchmark Centres

Benchmark Centre Geodemographic

Match Ranking Match Retail Ranking

2007 Zone A Rent 2007 (£/ft²)

Redhill ** ** 239 100

Clapham Junction ** ** 239 140

Tamworth *** ** 244 90

Orpington ** ** 267 55

Woolwich **** *** 276 95

Page 20


Benchmark Centre Geodemographic

Match Ranking Match Retail Ranking

2007 Zone A Rent 2007 (£/ft²)

Aldershot ** *** 284 60

Brentwood ** *** 290 75

Wandsworth ** **** 301 120

Tonbridge ***** **** 304 60

Walton-on-Thames ** **** 307 75

Barking - - 315 80

Edgware *** ***** 315 95

Stratford **** **** 335 130 Source: King Sturge, Experian, Javelin Group

4.9 In assessing benchmark centres on the basis of ranking, we have tended to favour centres ranked slightly above Barking, rather than below. The rationale for this is that Barking is proactively trying to improve its retail proposition and is therefore ‘aiming up’.

4.10 In terms of geodemographics, the closest match is Tonbridge in Kent, followed by Stratford (unsurprisingly), Woolwich and Tamworth (the only benchmark centre outside London and the South East). A number of centres may also be deemed to be ‘geographically comparable’ to Barking (located on the outskirts/fringes of London), especially Stratford, Edgware, Woolwich, Wandsworth, Clapham Junction and, to a slightly lesser degree, Orpington, Brentwood and Walton-on-Thames.

4.11 For additional information, we have also appended prime Zone A rental figures to each centre. Although a measure most commonly used by property agents for commercial valuations and transactions, Zone A rents are nevertheless a good barometer of the health of a retail centre in that they usually reflect the level of occupier demand.

4.12 Within the peer group, the Zone As range from £55/ft2 (Orpington) to £140/ft2

(Clapham Junction). The average across all 13 centres is £90/ft2, with Barking slightly lower at £80/ft2. This factors in some degree of upside into Barking’s performance, as well as underlining confidence in the choice of benchmark centres.

4.13 In summary, we believe the benchmark centres selected represent a good and realistic mix. In terms of overall match, Tonbridge is probably closest to Barking, albeit with a slightly higher retail ranking.

Headline Data

4.14 The source of all our spatial analysis and retail audit data is Experian’s Goad system, which covers around 1,300 centres across the UK. The boundaries of the Goad plan are determined by Experian’s surveyors, but are designed to capture all of the main town centre area of the respective centres. For reference, below is the Goad plan for Barking (Figs 1 and 2).

Page 21


Figure 9 – Goad plan of Barking (I)

4.15 Note that the Goad plan basically encapsulates Barking Town Centre, but excludes nearby retail developments, most notably the Abbey Retail Park. This approach will be consistent across the benchmark centres.

4.16 To put the benchmarking process into context, we have provided ‘headline’ retail data for Barking and all 13 peer group centres (Table 2).

Page 22


Fig 10 – Goad plan of Barking (2)

Page 23


Table 7 – Headline Retail Data for Barking and Benchmark Centres

Benchmark Centre

Total Retail

Floorspace (ft2)

% Multiple Floorspace

Comparison Goods

Floorspace (ft2)

Comparison Goods Outlets

Convenience Goods

Floorspace (ft2)

Convenience Goods Outlets

Leisure Floorspace

(ft2)

Leisure Outlets

Woolwich 1,388,400 36% 286,600 90 134,100 32 176,500 69 Stratford 968,500 51% 235,200 54 87,200 15 173,100 55 Aldershot 939,100 40% 267,500 97 79,300 22 136,000 55 Clapham Junction 866,700 48% 222,600 113 126,200 44 181,600 90 Wandsworth 856,900 54% 234,300 78 113,200 12 84,800 45 Barking 837,800 39% 210,700 102 96,800 33 158,800 72 Edgware 783,700 46% 218,600 107 102,100 34 115,200 69 Orpington 758,700 51% 273,600 99 65,300 25 105,300 43 Walton-on-Thames 732,500 51% 221,400 76 85,900 9 79,500 37 Tamworth 711,400 56% 259,200 111 48,800 31 145,000 67 Redhill 698,000 62% 267,200 77 52,100 15 74,500 36 Tonbridge 628,800 62% 195,200 90 120,100 20 132,000 50 Brentwood 598,900 67% 226,900 109 102,100 15 96,600 49

Source: King Sturge, Goad

4.17 The fact that Barking sits in the middle of the peer group on virtually all of the ‘headline’ variables endorses the selection of these centres as appropriate and realistic benchmarks. However, a number of interesting conclusions can already be drawn, even at this high level.

4.18 In terms of overall retail floorspace, Barking is in the middle of the group. However, it should be noted that the figures quoted will exclude all market stall space, a very significant element of Barking’s overall retail proposition. If the market were factored in, this would probably increase Barking’s total retail floorspace to over 1,000,000 ft2, possibly making it the largest of the peer group centres. However, the fact that it has a lower retail ranking than many of its peer group centres suggests that despite a relatively large supply of space, the quality of Barking’s offer is actually inferior.

4.19 The single most significant aspect of Barking’s existing retail proposition is its relative undersupply of multiple retailers (‘chains’). Multiples account for just 39% of all retail floorspace in Barking, the lowest ratio in the peer group apart from Woolwich. The dominance of independents is also manifest in the other ‘headline’ variables. In the breakdown figures (comparison goods/convenience goods/leisure), the trend in Barking is invariably towards average total space (relative to the benchmark centres), but higher than average number of outlets. This reflects the preponderance of independent traders, who tend to operate from smaller units than their multiple counterparts.

4.20 This trend is particularly apparent in convenience goods, where Barking has one of the highest number of units but lower than average total floorspace provision. If the Asda store were excluded, this skew would be dramatically more pronounced.

4.21 The issue of independents and multiples in the retail sector is a perennially contentious one, currently attracting significant (but not always informed) media attention. Those that embrace the notion of Clone Town Britain tend to decry the

Page 24


increasing influence of multiple retailers on the national retailing landscape and champion the cause of independent traders as purveyors of diversity on the high street. However, these theories tend not to carry huge weight in real world shopping behaviour. In economic terms, the inescapable fact is that those centres with the greatest proportion of multiple retailers are invariably the most successful.

4.22 Clearly, there is a balance to be struck. In this respect, the fact that Barking is currently dominated by independents is not necessarily a criticism. In our experience, independents can vary dramatically in the quality of their retail proposition, but those we visited in our site visit to Barking did ostensibly operate to very good retailing standards and disciplines. To suggest that large sections of the independent community be merely substituted by multiples would be wide of the mark.

4.23 However, we firmly believe that the development of a more diverse multiple retailer base would undoubtedly benefit Barking’s overall retail proposition. Indeed, we believe this is the necessary next stage in the town’s evolution, particularly if it is to remain competitive to other nearby centres (existing and pipeline). The challenge will be to integrate the new multiple players into the existing independent-dominated landscape without adverse displacement or fall-out. The optimum scenario is one of mutual support, whereby the independents can effectively trade off the higher footfall that multiples tend to generate, rather than simply be driven out of business.

Outlet and Floorspace Provision by Sector

4.24 This stage of analysis entails benchmarking Barking’s current retail provision by trading activity (e.g. clothing, department stores, books, music & video, footwear, electricals etc) against the peer group averages, both in terms of floorspace and count of outlets. The analysis provides a top-line overview of areas where Barking is currently under-supplied or over-shopped.

4.25 The process behind this involves aggregating the number of outlets and calculating the total gross floorspace in each product category for Barking and the benchmark centres. Barking is then compared against the average of the benchmark centres.

4.26 The comparisons are best expressed as indices:

� an index of 100 indicates that Barking is in line the benchmark average;

� an index of more than 100 indicates that Barking has more outlets or floorspace than the peer group average;

� an index of below 100 indicates that Barking is under-supplied in this category relative to its peers.

4.27 We have sub-divided the analysis into retail and leisure. Sectors that appear significantly under-supplied are highlighted in red (Table 3).

4.28 Although on the surface Barking is light on categories such as furniture and carpets and flooring, we would not consider this a major issue – the logical habitat for these product categories is out-of-centre and the fact that Barking’s town centre is underweight in its provision of these sectors is actually a positive factor, rather than a

Page 25


shortcoming. These product categories are adequately catered for on the Abbey Retail Park.

4.29 Of all the under-supplied sectors, department and variety stores is by far the most significant. Barking has nearly 75% less department and variety store floorspace than the average for the benchmark centres. Although the differential is slightly less in terms of count of outlets (45%), this still represents a tangible deficiency. We believe the arrival of one of the major department store operators (e.g. Marks & Spencer, Debenhams, TJ Hughes) would represent a positive catalyst for change within Barking’s wider retail proposition.

Table 8 - Retail Provision by Product Category

Category Outlets - Index Floorspace - Index

Booksellers 63 27 Carpets & Flooring 53 90 Catalogue Showrooms 92 42 Charity Shops 157 168 Chemist & Drugstores 109 62 Childrens & Infants Wear 178 134 Clothing General 98 94 Department & Variety Stores 55 26 Electrical & Other Durable Goods 107 99 Florists 100 54 Footwear 140 99 Furniture General 79 62 Greeting Cards 109 133 Hardware & Household Goods 123 153 Jewellery, Watches & Silver 133 92 Ladies & Mens Wear & Acc. 50 53 Ladies Wear & Accessories 111 97 Mens Wear & Accessories 144 100 Newsagents & Stationers 188 108 Sports, Camping & Leisure Goods 48 70 Telephones & Accessories 189 167 Textiles & Soft Furnishings 100 49 Toiletries, Cosmetics & Beauty Products 185 182 Toys, Games & Hobbies 82 83 Vehicle Accessories 80 129


4.30 Other sectors that may warrant further scrutiny are booksellers, toys/games/hobbies and sports goods. Outlets and floorspace are respectively 37% and 73% lower than the benchmark averages for booksellers. Although toys and sportswear are catered for within the market, there may still be scope to increase provision of these categories within the store-based arena.

4.31 At the other end of the spectrum, sectors that emerge as possibly over-supplied are childrenswear, newsagents/stationers, telephones, greetings cards and charity shops. Whilst not necessarily advocating a reduction in these product categories, we would suggest that the town could strike a more healthy balance between these and other categories going forward.

Page 26


Table 9 – Leisure Provision by Product Category

Category Outlets - Index Floorspace – Index

Pubs, Bars & Wine Bars 64 72 Bingo & Amusements 117 39 Cafes 114 130 Casinos & Betting Offices 146 129 Cinemas, Theatres & Concert Halls 63 51 Clubs 150 114 Fast Food & Take Away 162 184 Public Houses 119 146 Restaurants 101 84 Sports & Leisure Facilities 150 110


4.32 Undertaking similar analysis on the leisure side, an interesting picture emerges. Broadly speaking, evening entertainment such as pubs, bars, cinemas and restaurants appear to be undersupplied and may represent a development opportunity. Conversely, cafes, fast food restaurants, betting offices and clubs are ‘over-represented’.

4.33 On the one hand, this may again reflect the dominance of small, independent operators. However, it probably also underlines the need for Barking’s leisure market to evolve in parallel with its retail counterpart. This is particularly true in the context of the wider regeneration of the town, especially the redevelopment of the Town Square and large-scale provision of new residential stock. One of the key markets for this new residential supply will be young professionals, many commuting into the City/Central London. A more diversified leisure proposition is a pre-requisite for attracting this demographic to Barking.

Unit Size Analysis

4.34 Moving to a more micro level still, our audit also examines retailers that already trade in Barking and compares the floorspace they occupy against their sister stores in the peer group centres.

Table 10 – Underspaced Units in Barking

Fascia Category Frequency Avg Unit Size in

Benchmarks (ft2)

Barking Unit Size

(ft2) Difference

(ft2) Difference

(%)

Wilkinson Hardware & Household Goods 5 21,280 15,400 -5,880 72 Boots The Chemist Chemist & Drugstores 12 9,317 3,800 -5,517 41 Argos Catalogue Showrooms 9 8,444 3,100 -5,344 37 New Look Ladies Wear & Accessories 11 6,991 2,000 -4,991 29 BrightHouse Furniture General 3 3,233 1,400 -1,833 43 3 Store Telephones & Accessories 2 2,500 800 -1,700 32 Clinton Cards Greeting Cards 11 3,109 1,600 -1,509 51 Poundland Hardware & Household Goods 3 5,433 4,100 -1,333 75 Warren James Jewellery, Watches & Silver 1 2,100 900 -1,200 43 Woolworths Department & Variety Stores 9 10,756 9,600 -1,156 89 T Mobile Telephones & Accessories 6 1,467 400 -1,067 27

Page 27


Fascia Category Frequency Avg Unit Size in

Benchmarks (ft2)

Barking Unit Size

(ft2) Difference

(ft2) Difference

(%)

Vodafone Telephones & Accessories 8 1,300 400 -900 31 M K One Clothing General 7 4,371 3,600 -771 82 Adams Kids Childrens & Infants Wear 3 2,600 1,900 -700 73 Burton Mens Wear & Accessories 8 2,575 1,900 -675 74 P D S A Charity Shops 2 1,400 900 -500 64 Gamestation Toys, Games & Hobbies 4 1,775 1,300 -475 73 Ethel Austin Ladies Wear & Accessories 4 3,775 3,300 -475 87 Evans Ladies Wear & Accessories 6 2,350 1,900 -450 81 Scope Charity Shops 6 1,383 1,000 -383 72 Shoe Zone Footwear 6 2,033 1,700 -333 84 Claires Ladies Wear & Accessories 6 1,017 700 -317 69 Card Factory Greeting Cards 5 2,040 1,800 -240 88 Dorothy Perkins Ladies Wear & Accessories 10 2,110 1,900 -210 90 Stationery Box Newsagents & Stationers 1 1,600 1,400 -200 88 Game Toys, Games & Hobbies 8 1,800 1,600 -200 89 Orange Telephones & Accessories 6 1,283 1,100 -183 86 Barnados Store Charity Shops 1 1,100 1,100 0 100


4.35 Note that these outputs are based purely on Goad data and therefore refer to gross floorspace rather than net selling area. Another possible distorting factor could arise where units trade from multiple floors and this is not picked up in Goad floorspace numbers.

4.36 By way of clarification:

� ‘Frequency’ refers to the number of stores that retailer has across the benchmark centres, giving an indicator as to the size of the comparison sample;

� ‘Average unit size’ refers to the gross floorspace that retailer occupies in the benchmark centres where it trades;

� ‘Barking unit size’ gives the Goad gross floorspace of that retailer in Barking; � ‘Difference (ft²)’ provides the absolute differential between the Barking unit and

the benchmark average; � ‘Difference (%)’ provides the same differential in percentage terms.

4.37 A total of 28 outlets in Barking emerge as being ‘under-spaced’ relative to the benchmark centres. However, in many cases the differences are not significant (<1,000 ft²). There is unlikely to be significant re-location demand from any of these retailers on the basis of space.

4.38 The mobile phone operators may possibly be an exception to this. All four operators (3 Store – 1,700 ft², T-Mobile – 1,000 ft², Vodafone – 900 ft², Orange – 200 ft²) are under-spaced relative to their respective benchmark peers. A differential of over 1,000 ft² can be significant in the context of a small space occupier, much more so than a larger space occupier (e.g. Argos, Boots).

4.39 Re-location/’churn’ prospects also appear very limited amongst the 11 retailers where the differential is greater than 1,000 ft². For most, including Woolworths, the difference is fairly negligible. Boots can also be discounted, as although it emerges as

Page 28


significantly under-spaced from this exercise, this does not factor in the trading area in the store’s basement, which effectively has the same footprint as the ground floor.

4.40 On balance, the only two multiple retailers we believe to be tangibly under-spaced in Barking are Argos and New Look. We believe that both of these retailers could double their existing unit size. If new comparison goods floorspace were developed in the town centre, we would expect both retailers to emerge as prospective re-location candidates.

4.41 The fact that so few retailers emerge as being tangibly under-spaced is a positive rather than negative reflection of the existing retail proposition of Barking. It implies that the current configuration is a balanced one, close to a ‘blueprint’. But more than anything, it suggests that the multiple retailers are proactively managing their stores in Barking, a sentiment supported by the fact the stores in question are generally well-kept and evidently not starved of investment.

Gap Analysis

4.42 This is essentially an analysis of ‘missing’ retailers, highlighting operators that trade in the benchmark centres but are currently absent from Barking. For clarity, we have sub-divided the analysis into two – ‘comparison goods retailers’ and ‘other operators’ (which comprises convenience goods retailers, retail service and leisure operators).

Table 11 - Gap comparison goods retailers

Frequency Fascia Category Average Unit Size (ft²)

8 Clarks Footwear 2,200 7 The Body Shop Toiletries & Beauty Products 1,600 6 Currys Digital Electrical & Other Durable Goods 2,500 6 H Samuel Jewellery, Watches & Silver 1,700 6 Mothercare Childrens & Infants Wear 4,300 5 Cancer Research U K Charity Shops 1,300 5 Krisp Ladies Wear & Accessories 1,700 5 Marks & Spencer Department & Variety Stores 30,600 5 Millets Clothing General 2,300 5 Oxfam Charity Shops 1,200 5 Poundstretcher Hardware & Household Goods 6,300 5 Robert Dyas DIY & Home Improvement 3,800 4 F Hinds Jewellery, Watches & Silver 1,300 4 H M V Music & Video Recordings 5,400 4 Jessops Photographic & Optical 1,200 4 Next Clothing General 5,600 4 Rosebys Textiles & Soft Furnishings 3,100 4 Topshop Ladies Wear & Accessories 2,400 4 Waterstones Booksellers 3,900 3 Cardfair Greeting Cards 1,600 3 Cartridge World Electrical & Other Durable Goods 1,300 3 Early Learning Centre Toys, Games & Hobbies 1,800 3 F A R A Charity Shops 900 3 Foot Locker Footwear 2,200

Page 29


Frequency Fascia Category Average Unit Size (ft²)

3 M & Co Ladies Wear & Accessories 4,100 3 Monsoon Ladies Wear & Accessories 2,600 3 Partners Newsagents & Stationers 2,700 3 Party Land Toys, Games & Hobbies 900 3 Priceless Footwear 2,000 3 Ryman The Stationer Newsagents & Stationers 1,600 3 Save The Children Charity Shops 1,800 3 Tchibo General Merchandise 1,900 3 The Post Shop Greeting Cards 1,400 3 The Works Booksellers 2,500


4.43 In each case, the operators are ranked by the frequency they appear in the peer centres, giving an indicative sense of priority. We have also included the average unit size (gross ft²) that each retailer occupies across the benchmark centres.

4.44 Note that the Goad database is updated on a rolling basis and represents a point-intime view. For example, the data for Barking was last updated on 9 January 2007. As a result, gap analysis will not take into account any changes that have occurred in the interim. For example, some of the retailers identified as missing from Barking may have opened in the last 14 months. Likewise, the analysis will not take into account retailers that have previously traded in Barking but have withdrawn from the market. However, we have militated against these possible inaccuracies by undertaking our own site visits.

4.45 Some 35 ‘gap’ comparison goods retailers trade in at least three of the benchmark centres. Clarks is the most frequent ‘gap’ retailer, trading in eight of the 12 benchmark centres.

4.46 Although Barking already has an authoritative value offer, there are still a number of ‘gaps’ at this end of the market, including Poundstretcher, Krisp, Rosebys, Card Fair, M & Co and Priceless. These could complement the existing value proposition. The major name that does not emerge from the gap analysis, perhaps surprisingly, is Primark. We would suggest that the demographics of Barking are ideally suited for Primark and the opening of a Primark store would substantially boost the town’s retail standing.

4.47 As a generic whole, the retail ‘mid’ or ‘mass-market’ is currently under-supplied. Developing greater authority in this area is potentially the next stage necessary in Barking’s retail evolution. The gap analysis highlights a significant number of retailers (e.g. Clarks, Body Shop, H Samuel, Mothercare, Millets, Robert Dyas, HMV, Waterstones, Early Learning Centre, Footlocker, Rymans) which could be instrumental in engineering this change.

4.48 The standout name from the gap analysis is Marks & Spencer, which trades in five of the benchmark centres, occupying average floorspace of around 30,000 ft². M&S could potentially fulfil the role of non-food anchor that Barking is currently lacking. Next and TopShop are the other two ‘gap’ retailers that substantially elevate Barking’s

Page 30


credibility as a retail destination. Although they do not show up in the gap analysis, we would add Debenhams and Primark to this ‘Missing Key Attractor’ sub-category.

4.49 It should also be noted that the gap analysis has been conducted using the town centre plans for each of the 13 centres (12 benchmarks, plus Barking). It will therefore not take into account any out-of-centre retailing that may surround the town centre. Although not present in Barking Town Centre, this does not necessarily mean that these retailers do not trade within the wider catchment, this being particularly true of the bulky goods and supermarket operators.

4.50 Our non-comparison goods retailer gap analysis includes retailers such as Sainsbury’s and Somerfield. However, Sainsbury’s does have a store on the outskirts of Barking (outside the Goad plan area, which only covers the central area of retail centres), whilst Somerfield has obviously previously traded in Barking, in the store now occupied by Asda.

4.51 Although Asda and Tesco both have large stores in the Barking area, there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that the individual supermarkets are currently over-trading or have a compromised site. Either way, we would be surprised if either one or both did not require additional space, which could be achieved either through store extension (Asda) or re-location (Tesco). It is worth remembering that Barking represents a core market to both retailers, as much for their non-food offers as the core grocery proposition.

Table 12 – Gap non-comparison goods operators

Frequency Fascia Category Goad Sub Class Average Unit Size Ft²

10 Thomas Cook Travel Agents Retail Service 1,500 8 Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Convenience 49,500 8 Pizza Hut Restaurants Leisure Services 2,600

7 Burger King Fast Food & Take Away Leisure Services 2,100

7 William Hill Casinos & Betting Offices Leisure Services 1,800

7 Going Places Travel Agents Retail Service 1,500

7 Specsavers Opticians Opticians Retail Service 1,500

6 Thorntons Bakers & Confectioners Convenience 900 6 Caffe Nero Cafes Leisure Services 1,400 6 Pizza Express Restaurants Leisure Services 2,400 5 Costa Coffee Cafes Leisure Services 1,500 5 Quicksilver Bingo & Amusements Leisure Services 3,600 5 Boots Opticians Opticians Retail Service 1,700 4 Bakers Oven Bakers & Confectioners Convenience 2,200

4 Martins Confectionery, Tobacco & News Convenience 1,600

4 Somerfield Supermarkets Convenience 14,300 4 Starbucks Cafes Leisure Services 2,400

4 Dollond & Aitchison Opticians Retail Service 1,200

4 Snappy Snaps Photo Processing Retail Service 1,100 4 Specsavers Opticians Retail Service 1,800 3 Shoecare Shoe Repairs & Key Convenience 500

Page 31


Frequency Fascia Category Goad Sub Class Average Unit Size Ft²

Cutting

3 Agora Bingo & Amusements Leisure Services 2,000

3 B Bs Coffee & Muffins Cafes Leisure Services 1,100

3 Betfred The Bonus King

Casinos & Betting Offices Leisure Services 1,400

3 Gala Clubs Bingo & Amusements Leisure Services 16,900

3 The Slug & Lettuce Bars & Wine Bars Leisure Services 3,700

3 Tops Pizza Fast Food & Take Away Leisure Services 800

3 Yates Public Houses Leisure Services 5,000 3 Co-op Travelcare Travel Agents Retail Service 1,500 3 Flight Centre Travel Agents Retail Service 700 3 Johnsons Cafes Retail Service 1,000

3 Kwik-Fit Vehicle Repairs & Services Retail Service 5,600

3 Supercuts Hairdressers Retail Service 800 3 Vision Express Opticians Retail Service 1,800


4.52 The grocers notwithstanding, the additional gap retailers include four optician chains -Specsavers, Boots Opticians, Dollond and Aitchison and Vision Express. Another category that appears under represented in Barking is Travel Agents, with Thomas Cook, Going Places, Co-op Travelcare and Flight Centre appearing as gaps.

4.53 As we have already mentioned, Barking is lagging in its provision of branded leisure proposition. None of the major coffee house chains (Caffe Nero, Costa Coffee, Starbucks) are yet represented, nor the major restaurant brands e.g. Pizza Hut, Pizza Express. Although often dismissed by critics as the epitome of ‘Clone Town Britain’, the fact remains that they are a staple of most young, professional communities.

4.54 On a more sober note, retailer requirements for Barking (by definition, stated demand for space in the town from individual retailers) are currently limited. As at 23 April 2008, commercial data provider FOCUS listed just 17 requirements for Barking.

4.55 The 17 requirements include a number of retailers highlighted in the gap analysis, namely Body Shop (800–2,000 ft²), Priceless (1,500–2,000 ft²) and Caffe Nero (800– 2,000 ft²). There are also some requirements from retailers already present in Barking, indicating their desire to relocate to larger premises. As identified in our unit size analysis, these include Argos, who have a requirement for a 10,000–16,000 ft² outlet.

4.56 The standout name on the requirements list is Debenhams, albeit only for a smaller format Desire store (20,000–25,000 ft²). Although a larger full line department store would probably be more beneficial to Barking as a whole, this is nevertheless an encouraging requirement. The other large space user with a stated requirement for Barking is value department store operator TJ Hughes (25,000–150,000 ft²). Although less high profile than Marks & Spencer and Debenhams, TJ Hughes would nevertheless be a solid new addition to Barking’s retail proposition.

Page 32


4.57 Limited retail occupier demand for Barking does paint a realistic picture of how the town is probably viewed by retailers, in that it does not appear on many of their radar screens. With the exception of Debenhams, none of our identified ‘Missing Key Attractors’ (Marks & Spencer, Next, Primark and TopShop) currently have a requirement for Barking. Although this should not destabilise the town’s push to improve its retail offering, it does realistically highlight the challenge ahead.

Conclusion & SWOT Analysis

4.58 Our retail audit is perhaps best summarised in the form of a SWOT analysis (Fig 11).

Fig 11– SWOT analysis of Barking

Source: King Sturge

4.59 Although produced independently and objectively, the retail audit endorses the findings of the wider impact study, principally that Barking needs to improve its retail proposition if it is to prosper. Whereas the impact study quantifies this need from a capacity perspective, the retail audit bears this out from a more qualitative viewpoint.

4.60 Whilst Barking’s existing retail offer does have inherent strengths, these could be reinforced and enhanced through careful planning of any proposed new floorspace. We would suggest the following priorities and challenges:

� Attracting more multiple retailers to Barking town centre, offering local residents more choice and ensuring that their spend does not gravitate to other centres.

� Securing a high profile department/variety store operator, with Marks & Spencer and Debenhams the key candidates. In addition to the benefits that this would

Page 33


bring to local shoppers, it would also have a ‘multiplier’ effect in Barking’s ability to attract other key multiple retailers.

� Developing a much more authoritative mass-market and fashionable clothing offer (eg TopShop, Next, Footlocker, Millets).

� Not abandoning the existing value offer but cementing its credentials by attracting new players (eg Primark, TK Maxx, Poundstretcher, Priceless).

� Redressing the imbalances in supply in other retail sub-sectors e.g. books (Waterstones, The Works, Sussex Stationers) and toys/games (Early Learning Centre, Party Land).

� Updating the leisure proposition in response to changing geo-demographics of the town’s population – growing emphasis on ‘night time’ leisure provision e.g. pubs, coffee shops and restaurants (probably branded), rather than fast food.

4.61 Effectively and sensitively balancing the ‘new’ with the ‘old’.

Page 34


5 CONCLUSIONS

5.1 This Retail Study provides an evidential base to the Barking & Dagenham Area Action Plan for the provision of additional retail floorspace within the town centre for the period to 2016; to assist in the planning of the future growth and development of Barking Town Centre.

5.2 Section 2 of this Assessment confirms that Barking remains relatively healthy in terms of the vitality and viability indicated set out in PPS6, which in part reflects the limited amount of new retail floorspace that has been brought forward within the town centre in recent years.

5.3 There is scope for Barking to consolidate and improve its retail proposition. In terms of retail capacity, we consider that it would be appropriate to plan for a total of 5,674 m² net (8,106 m² gross) gross Class A floorspace by 2011 and 8,833 m² net (12,619 m² gross) of Class A floorspace by 2016.

5.4 The retail audit endorses the findings of the retail capacity exercise, supporting the conclusion that Barking needs to improve its retail proposition if it is to prosper in the future. This is all the more important, bearing in mind emerging proposals within Ilford Town Centre, Barking Riverside and the major regional shopping facilities proposed at Stratford City.

Page 35

APPENDIX 1

STUDY AREA PLAN

APPENDIX 2

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Documents

Barking Retail Study May 2009 - Residents - London … Brief updates the earlier Study prepared by CBRE, specifically addressing retail needs, as an evidential base to the Barking