COMMITTEE FOR SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT
(Hansard)
Town Centre Regeneration
7 May 2009
Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr David Hilditch (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mr Mickey Brady
Ms Anna Lo
Miss Michelle McIlveen
Witnesses:
Mr Kevin Armstrong ) Department of the Environment
Mr Peter Mullaney )
The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Hilditch):
Welcome, Peter and Kevin; you must be very special because we got a very special lunch today. If that is the case next week, you are welcome to come back. [Laughter.]
Mr Peter Mullaney (Department for Social Development):
Is this not your normal fare?
The Deputy Chairperson:
No, unfortunately. The meeting is being recorded, so please switch off all mobile phones. Even in silent mode they can cause serious interference to the recording equipment. I remind members not to question the officials on anything that relates directly to the judicial review. It is now over to you gentlemen for a brief presentation, which will be followed by questions and answers.
Mr Mullaney:
Thank you. I have a short presentation to make and then we are happy to take questions. Before I start, I will explain our roles and responsibilities.
Planning policy statements are produced in the Department by the planning and environmental policy group (PEPG). Kevin and I are representatives of the Planning Service, which is an executive agency in the Department. As draft PPS 5 will be operational policy, Planning Service has been doing some work on that. However, ultimately, it is PEPG’s responsibility to take the final document forward for approval. I head up the section that is leading that effort. Kevin’s role, together with his colleague Damien Mulligan, who had originally intended to appear before the Committee and sends his apologies, is to lead the strategic projects division. That division deals with the major retail applications, and hence, Kevin will have operational experience of the policy in practice. With that in mind, I will make a few comments on the policy. The current PPS 5 is entitled ‘Retailing and Town Centres’, and was initially published in June 1996. [Interruption.]
The Deputy Chairperson:
There is a mobile phone on. Sorry Peter, please continue.
Mr Mullaney:
It is the intention to replace the existing PPS 5, and draft PPS 5, which was published for public consultation in July 2006 and is entitled, ‘Retailing, Town Centres and Commercial Leisure Developments’. That was published by the Department for Regional Development.
The existing PPS 5 has stated policy objectives for town centres and retail developments. Briefly, those are:
“to sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of town centres; to focus development, especially retail development, in locations where the proximity of businesses facilitates competition from which all consumers are able to benefit and maximises the opportunity to use means of transport other than the car; to maintain an efficient, competitive and innovative retail sector; and to ensure the availability of a wide range of shops, employment services and facilities to which people have easy access by a choice of means of transport.”
The current PPS 5 advises that:
“town centres should normally be the first choice for major new retail developments.”
However, it notes that the availability of suitable sites within town centres will be a factor in how new retail proposals are determined.
The current PPS 5 has been criticised for lacking clarity. There is a perception that it has favoured developers and has led to too much retail development outside town centres. Thus, draft PPS 5, which is the subject of a judicial review, was published in July 2006 by DRD. There was a four-month consultation exercise on it, which elicited 77 responses, including responses from Government Departments and statutory agencies, district councils, non-governmental organisations, consultancies and individuals. At the end of that consultation period, work on finalising the draft PPS was carried on by DRD. However, in January 2008, a notice was issued stating that the DOE would be assuming responsibilities for a number of planning policy statements, of which draft PPS 5 was one. In April 2008, Central Craigavon Ltd sought, and was granted, leave for a judicial review, the outcome of which we still await.
The first issue to address is whether growth in out-of-town centres has an adverse impact on existing town centres. As I said, one of the key objectives of PPS 5 is to sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of town centres. PPS 5 makes it clear that town centres should normally be the first choice for new major retail developments. However, out-of-town retail proposals may be permitted where a suitable town centre site is not available. That can only happen where the site has been shown to satisfy a number of stringent tests within the PPS. IKEA at the Holywood Exchange is an example of that.
Further tests for assessing out-of-town shopping proposals include: the likely impact of a proposal on the vitality and viability of a centre; the potential for a significant loss of investment in a town centre and whether the proposal addresses existing deficiencies in the overall shopping provision.
Applications for town centres have been refused in the past two years, and Kevin will elaborate on more cases should the Committee wish him to do so. An application was refused for a food store in Ballycastle. A notice of opinion to refuse has also been issued in relation to the Bridgewater Park in Banbridge. The obverse of that is that applications for major developments, including Victoria Square in Belfast, the extension to Bow Street Mall in Lisburn and the Erneside shopping centre in Enniskillen, have been approved.
That was a brief overview of the policy objectives. The two documents clearly state that there is a commonality of purpose in those objectives. We are happy to take questions.
The Deputy Chairperson:
What will be the next step for draft PPS 5 following the judicial review?
Mr Mullaney:
That will depend on the outcome. It would be unwise to pre-empt the decision, because the Department will wish to read and assess carefully the content of the judgement before coming to any conclusion.
The Deputy Chairperson:
Will the Department outline its view on recent major retail developments and advise on how those may have turned out had the new PPS 5 been in place? Perhaps you would also elaborate on why some applications were refused.
Mr Kevin Armstrong (Department of the Environment):
It is difficult to answer that. Any applications received by the strategic projects team are assessed on the basis of their potential impact on town centres. If we assess the potential impact as negative, we recommend that planning be refused. The objectives of the new draft PPS 5 are similar; the focus is on the protection of town centres and in sustaining and enhancing their vitality and viability. The new PPS 5 would not, therefore, make a substantial difference to our conclusions on the applications that we refused. The same criteria would probably be applied.
The problem with the current PPS 5 is that it places a major emphasis on assessing the retail impact of proposals, and that can be difficult. I use various types of data, and there are differences in opinion about the potential impact of particular stores.
The Deputy Chairperson:
In the case of a major retail development, how does the draft PPS 5 compare with similar regulations in other jurisdictions?
Mr K Armstrong:
It is similar.
The Deputy Chairperson:
Is it more stringent?
Mr K Armstrong:
It is difficult to say how stringent other regulations are. On the mainland, the focus is on the protection of town centres. Similarly, the Republic of Ireland’s retail strategy is based on the protection of designated town centres. That does not preclude development outside town centres, but the thrust of the policy is the protection of established designated town centres.
The Deputy Chairperson:
Perhaps the Committee may wish to give that issue further consideration, because the new PPS 5 may lead to retailers locating to other jurisdictions that are more favourable to them.
Mr K Armstrong:
Do you mean that if a stringent policy were in place here, retailers may locate elsewhere?
The Deputy Chairperson:
Yes; that is why I am trying to compare draft PPS 5 with policies in other jurisdictions.
Mr K Armstrong:
The policies are not always the same, and different jurisdictions have different ways of protecting town centres. In the South, for example, for a while, the size of a store allowed on the outskirts of a town was capped. Although that policy did not exist here, it did not seem to affect the number of applications or proposals that we received.
The Deputy Chairperson:
The policy in the South made no difference to the number of expressions of interest here?
Mr K Armstrong:
That is correct.
The Deputy Chairperson:
Will you summarise the responses to the consultation on draft PPS 5 from July 2006?
Mr Mullaney:
Those responses are not publicly available.
The Deputy Chairperson:
Will the Department advise the Committee on the progress of development restrictions and pricing mechanisms to limit all-day parking in town centres?
Mr Mullaney:
You would need to address that question to the Department for Regional Development (DRD) because it is responsible for parking arrangements.
The Deputy Chairperson:
Draft PPS 5 refers to parking in town centres.
Mr Mullaney:
Parking is a factor, but the implementation of any arrangements is, as far as I am aware, a matter for DRD.
Mr K Armstrong:
As far as the existing and, as far as I know, the proposed PPS 5, are concerned, the policy is to promote the use of various means of transport and to avoid the unnecessary creation of more car trips. Parking is relevant to that, but we take advice from Roads Service.
The Deputy Chairperson:
Paragraph 34 states that the Department will consider:
“ — a more restrictive development control policy for sites to be used for non-operational all-day parking;
— widening the scope for using pricing mechanisms in appropriate circumstances to discourage long-stay parking; and
— the control of parking in residential areas.”
The Committee is aware that DRD is responsible on the ground, but draft PPS 5 is in your hands at the moment.
Mr K Armstrong:
PPS 5 was produced when DOE was responsible for roads and parking. Now, the departmental responsibilities are divided, and DRD has responsibility for roads.
The Deputy Chairperson:
Does the document, therefore, need to be reviewed and those parts for which you are not responsible removed or passed to the relevant Department?
Mr Mullaney:
That is a good point, because the document was produced in June 1996. Devolution disaggregated some of the former responsibilities of DOE to different Departments. However, any future revised document must recognise those changes in responsibilities.
Mr K Armstrong:
PPS 3 is the planning policy statement that deals with transport, parking and access.
Mr Mullaney:
As the planning authority, DOE clearly has the responsibility to assess applications and determine whether they should be approved. However, as Kevin said, on certain aspects of planning, such as roads and transportation, we take account of any additional input.
The Deputy Chairperson:
Planners definitely have views on parking in town centres. It used to be the case that people who used to build housing developments in town centres had to provide 1·5 parking spaces per unit. That requirement has been set aside in my constituency and public car parking has been taken into consideration. Although we may say that parking is an issue for DRD, planners also consider certain aspects of it.
Mr K Armstrong:
Ultimately, in a planning application, the decision on parking is made by planners. However, that decision is taken based on the advice of the Roads Service, which is part of DRD. However, PPS 3 sets out parking standards. The pricing mechanism for parking in town centres is outside Planning Service’s control. The policy on parking standards for particular types of development is contained in PPS 3 and is usually elaborated on in area development plans.
I am not sure about the BMAP, but certainly, the previous plan for Belfast, the BUAP, had a parking policy that designated different zones within the town centre and the levels of parking permitted.
Mr Mullaney:
It is not a question of absolving ourselves. PPS 3, which Kevin referred to, is, in conjunction with DRD, the Department’s policy. The point is that, ultimately, DOE’s Planning Service is the decision maker. Although decisions are normally made by Planning Service, they can, on occasion, be made by the Minister. However, it is wise and prudent to have regard to the expertise that can be provided by another agency; in this case, DRD.
The Deputy Chairperson:
Perhaps I am touching on the same subject; however, given the difficult experiences that some towns have had with pedestrianisation, why does draft PPS 5 indicate that DOE is continuing to promote further pedestrianisation?
Mr K Armstrong:
I know that parking is a factor when it comes to access to shops. However, pedestrianisation provides an attractive environment for shoppers. Therefore, there are pluses and minuses when it comes to parking provision and creating a more comfortable shopping environment.
The Deputy Chairperson:
Given the experiences in some provincial towns, and I refer to my own experiences in towns in East Antrim, it is important that the document gets it right at this stage. We cannot find out a couple of years down the road that we have got it wrong.
Mr Brady:
Thank you for your presentation. The main street in Newry, Hill Street, was pedestrianised, and one is more likely to get knocked down there than on any other street in the town. There is more traffic going down that street now than there was before it was pedestrianised. Pedestrianisation does not seem to work. Pedestrianisation and parking are, to use an oft-quoted phrase, inextricably linked; one cannot pedestrianise somewhere without people parking elsewhere. You may or may not be aware that quite recently, parking bays were introduced in Newry. However, talking to the shopkeepers and to people in general, that does not seem to have worked. People are parking in the middle of town and going off to work in Belfast. People can no longer get parked to go in and out of the shops. Pedestrianisation does not seem to have worked.
The Deputy Chairperson said that the DOE continues to promote pedestrianisation. How do you qualify or quantify the places that should be pedestrianised and those that should not? In Newry, for instance, there is now only one designated main street, Monaghan Street. That street, which was a main shopping centre, is no longer such, because of centres such as The Quays and Buttercrane, which are not out-of-town shopping centres. I am sure that you are aware of the huge problems.
Mr Mullaney:
I am quite conversant with Newry.
Mr Brady:
Come down the Dublin Road on a Saturday morning around 8.30, and I am sure you will become even more conversant with the problems.
Those centres are in-town major retail developments, and there is talk of other out-of-town developments. In Dundalk, for instance, there are loading and unloading bays. Lorries have to unload at certain times, before the shops open and after they close. That seems to be a sensible idea. In Newry, there are lorries that deliver to off-licenses, and which can close off three streets just by where they are parked. PPS 5 has abdicated your responsibility for the parking aspect of the problem. However, I presume that there is still networking between DSD and DRD to try to resolve the joint problems around those issues.
Mr Mullaney:
It works on a number of levels. As I have explained, the Planning Service is responsible for determining planning applications in conjunction with Roads Service. I am not sure about the actual legislative powers, but I would have thought that the operational implementation of the pedestrianisation of streets in town centres is a matter for DRD. I have not been involved in the process, so I cannot speak from first-hand experience, but I would have thought that some form of liaison takes place.
Mr Brady:
Planning Policy Statement 5 includes health checks for town centres, but areas of deprivation, for example under the Noble indices, do not seem to be included. Perhaps consideration should be given to including those areas in the context of PPS 5?
Mr Mullaney:
Kevin has experience of health checks from an operational point of view.
Mr K Armstrong:
The health checks assess the retail core of the town centre, including the number of vacant buildings and the state of the buildings.
Mr Brady:
Do they assess the structure of the town centres?
Mr K Armstrong:
They assess the structure of buildings as well as the level of vacant buildings. They assess the commercial life of the city rather than any other type of health in the city. They are more to do with the commercial vitality of the town centres.
Mr Brady:
A health check is more about the health of the buildings than about the health of the people.
Mr K Armstrong:
A health check is carried out to assess whether there are a lot of vacant buildings, whether the place is run down, whether there has been investment, lack of investment, or an outflow of investment.
The Deputy Chairperson:
I will return to the car parking issue. We are hearing today of the split in responsibilities, but any forward-looking document, which is looking to try to put life back into our town centres should have something that both Departments could contribute to. For instance, two hours of free parking could be provided before all-day parking kicks in, because car parks in out-of-town shopping centres are always free, and they drain business away from town centres. Therefore, it would have been good if options had been available in the document. I appreciate that it is not your responsibility, but it would have been useful if there had been some guidance, which would have been worth discussing in relation to PPS 5.
Mr B Armstrong:
We all seem to be thinking along the same lines about town-centre shopping. I concur with David about two hours of free parking, which would give people an opportunity to get their shopping done and would discourage other people from parking for the whole day. We want the centres of our towns and villages to be used more. We want to encourage family grocers and family-run shops. We need major retailers to come into our towns and make them viable for the shops that are already there. Without those major retailers, family-run shops sometimes cannot survive. Parking is of the essence to get the flow of people coming into towns and villages. That is where the whole emphasis should be, because people now want to park outside the doors of shops. What plans do you have to encourage free two-hour parking? I know that parking is in your remit.
Mr Mullaney:
Again, the operational implementation of parking is really an issue for Roads Service. I am not sure whether the Committee will be making a report —
Mr B Armstrong:
That is not 100% true. I have some dealings with the Planning Service in my area, and parking is one of the issues that I am looking at.
Mr Mullaney:
It is clearly the responsibility of the Department of the Environment to assess planning applications, and parking is normally a factor in those matters. However, the existing on-street parking regime and public car parks are a matter for DRD if there is no planning proposal. It is about being mindful of the relative roles and responsibilities. We certainly have a responsibility, and we have to exercise an ultimate judgement on a planning-application situation, but existing parking — whether it be loading bays or restricted parking in relation to time or charging — is not our responsibility.
The Deputy Chairperson:
That is something for the Committee to address with other agencies during the course of our inquiry.
Mr Brady:
I have a question about planning for large retail outlets. Some places have unique experiences, and Newry has one of them as regards cross-border trade. I live on the Armagh Road in Newry. People from that end of the town go to Tesco in Banbridge — they do not go to the Buttercrane centre or The Quays because they cannot get there. Even at 8.30 am at the weekends, car parks are full. Is that factored into planning applications? I know that the Newry Chamber of Commerce and Trade and the Newry Town Centre Management Partnership have their own views and agenda about all of that. Are the people who have to move from their own location to shop elsewhere factored in when planning is being considered?
Mr K Armstrong:
When we assess applications for major retail — whether it is inside or outside a town centre — the level of parking that is provided is an issue that we consider. We assess the turnover of the proposal and where it is likely to draw that from in a catchment. However, it is very difficult for us to plan for something related to a change in the exchange rate or taxes.
Mr Brady:
I understand that you cannot legislate for that.
Mr K Armstrong:
We would allow for it, but it could change the other way.
Mr Brady:
I accept that entirely. You cannot legislate for exchange rates. However, even before the current influx, it was still quite difficult for locals to park at The Quays in Newry. I accept that there is no way that you could factor in what will happen. You could not have factored in the economic downturn. There are all sorts of other things that are outside of your control.
In general terms, however, I just wonder whether local population spread is something that is taken into account. The core of Newry is relatively small, and there has been a huge movement outwards: the residential dwellings almost join up with Warrenpoint, and they also head out the Belfast Road. There has been a huge property boom.
Mr K Armstrong:
When we consider applications, we take cognisance of the population and the expenditure therein. We try to assess the traffic that the store will generate, and we try to ensure that there is adequate provision for that. We require most major applications to contain a traffic plan that includes access for buses and other means of transport. Apart from that, however, it is very difficult to allow for something that may perform better than what we have planned for.
The Deputy Chairperson:
To finish off, does the Department think that PPS 5 should be extended to include guidance on city centre housing and the impact of town centre development on the evening economy?
Mr Mullaney:
City centre housing is a different proposition. Initially, the document referred to retailing in town centres in the existing PPS. That was then changed to retailing in town centres and commercial leisure developments. Quite clearly, town centres are not just about retailing: they are about offices, institutional uses, educational uses, housing in some cases, and leisure developments. I am sure that I have overlooked a range of other things.
Therefore, there is a question about what the scope of the document should be. Without being specific about any element, the issue is that town centres are not just about retailing.
The Deputy Chairperson:
In closing, is it fair to say that draft PPS 5 will make no difference to retail planning decisions?
Mr K Armstrong:
I hope that it does and that it gives Planning Service a more precise tool for managing the development of retailing and commercial leisure applications, because, although useful, the current PPS 5 is dated.
The Deputy Chairperson:
I thank the witnesses for their attendance; if we can provide another lunch like that, the Committee will have you back next week.