Examination of Witnesses (Questions 73-79)
MR ANDREW
SANGSTER, MS
CHRISTINE HAIGH
AND MS
GAYNOR BROWN
11 MAY 2009
Q73 Chair: Can you just say who you are
and which organisation you are representing.
Ms Brown: Gaynor Brown. I am from
Tescopoly.
Ms Haigh: Christine Haigh, Women's
Environmental Network.
Mr Sangster: Andrew Sangster,
the Association of North Thames Amenity Societies.
Q74 Chair: You have all three been
listening to the other witnesses, I think.
Mr Sangster: Yes.
Q75 Chair: Can we focus on the core
of this, which is the need test versus the new impact assessment
and what concerns, if you have concerns, you have about the proposed
switch.
Mr Sangster: We would be in favour
of a much more rigorous impact test, and we recognise that in
the past the need test has taken priority, and in fact in some
cases we have seen that the impact test has almost been dismissed.
However, we still think there is a role for the need test. Bear
in mind that I represent 21 market towns in Hertfordshire and
Buckinghamshire which have their own range of problems, and in
many cases there is a scarcity of sites, either in the town centre
or edge of centre, and we think that the need test might provide
some indication of whether the best use is being made of those
sites. By that, I mean in fact if you allow an application, do
you finish up with surplus provision when the site could have
been put to better use for other purposes? That is one point.
We are also concerned about the timing of all of this. The LDF
process is going to be very protracted, and yet we may find that
this guidance comes in in the meantime and therefore we could
find ourselves without some of the tests that would help the process.
There is also the question of determining non-complying planning
applications. We believe that the need test may be of some benefit
in determining those applications.
Q76 Chair: There are a lot of points
there. Let us go along and pick them up afterwards.
Ms Haigh: Our main concern is
that the removal of the need test, we feel, is likely to lead
to more out-of-centre or out-of-town developments, and our concern
is particularly to do with grocery and other convenience goods
retailing. This is for two reasons, the first being that we feel
that healthy, vibrant and prosperous town and local centres generally
facilitate improved access to healthy, affordable food for most
disadvantaged groups in society, and women are disproportionately
represented within those groups, particularly lone parent households,
90% of which are headed by women, and also single pensioner households,
many of which are also women. The second reason is, coming from
the environmental perspective, that our understanding is that
generally out-of-town developments lead to increased car use.
We are seeing a quite considerable increase in greenhouse gas
emissions from shopping travel and we feel that is a cause for
concern.
Ms Brown: I am here representing
the communities that I go out and help support all over the country,
and I feel the need test is absolutely essential. We have several
applications at the moment where there is more than one fascia
vying for attention in a town centre so even though you have the
town centre first application, it needs a need test. It must be
grounded in need, in the catchment's ability to actually spend
that money. Ending up with a vast amount of square footage that
is not substantiated is a recipe for disaster and it is what we
are seeing. All the big boys, particularly the one I have to fight
most of the time, are putting in huge applications, and we are
getting to the point now where, particularly in the West Country,
catchment areas are being used over and over again to justify
the same store. Where is the logic in that? It must be relevant
to the ability and the need of the local population to actually
shop in that store and provide its turnover. It does not work
without the need test.
Q77 Chair: Can I just press the last
two: what is your evidence that the impact assessment is weaker,
given that two of the witnesses we heard earlier, one of whom,
the Co-op, which does not have big stores, actually think that
the impact test is stronger?
Ms Brown: The Co-op wanted to
retain the need test, if you remember.
Chair: No, that is not what they said
actually, I think.
Andrew George: That was the Association
of Convenience Stores.
Q78 Chair: The Association of Convenience
Stores. That is a different matter entirely. No, the Co-op is
not in favour of retaining the need test, is my understanding,
and they definitely said that the impact test would provide a
finer tool for decision-making and would allow other factors to
be brought in which could make it easier actually to resist an
out-of-centre store. I am just asking you what your evidence is
that the impact test would be weaker.
Ms Brown: I see the need test
figures being warped to get around it with the greatest of ease
so the need test does not prevent entry to anyone to any market.
It has not stopped over 200 new stores from Tesco's, for a start,
many in very inappropriate places. The need test has not stopped
anyone, so why is there the influence to take it away? It has
a real purpose in grounding the application so that it is responding
to need and to the ability of the population to actually shop
in it. We are getting ridiculous situations—
Q79 Chair: No, I understand that.
Ms Haigh, do you have any evidence that the impact test would
be weaker than the need test?
Ms Haigh: I do not think I can
say I have evidence because obviously that policy has not come
about yet but I think we heard from some of the previous witnesses
that it would increase the number of applications for out-of-town
developments and that it would increase the amount of subjectivity
in local authorities deciding whether or not those applications
were likely to go ahead. It seems very unlikely to me that all
of those applications would be refused if it is a more subjective
policy.
| 
