New Clause 28 - Development control
Planning and Compulsory Purchase (Re-committed) Bill
10:30 am
Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)
New clause 28 is about a matter that Friends of the Earth brought to my attention a few months ago. It concerns Asda, which is owned by Wal-Mart, and its use of a loophole in the planning system to increase dramatically the retail floor space of 40 of its stores by installing mezzanine floors. In many stores, that would double the floor space. It can do that without seeking planning permission because planning law excludes internal building works from the definition of development that requires planning permission. Such works can go ahead provided that they do not affect the external appearance of the building however significant their other impacts may be.
The addition of significant areas of retail floor space—equivalent to a new store in some cases—may have a significant negative impact on high street stores, and may lead to increased traffic, noise and
disturbance, yet local planning authorities will have no opportunity to assess those impacts, and local communities will not be given the chance to become involved.
Asda installed its first mezzanine floor in York, and its second such floor is under construction in Sheffield. That floor will add 33,000 sq ft of retail space with the specific, and declared, aim of expanding its range of non-food goods, which will change the nature of the store, and will pose a new threat to local non-food shops. An Asda spokesman is on record as saying that the non-food range in the York mezzanine is encouraging people to drive to the store from further afield. That is hardly a worthy environmental aim. It makes a mockery of the intention behind PPG6 on retailing, which seeks to maintain diversity of local shops, and sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of town centres by protecting them from the negative effects of large-scale out-of-town developments.
However, it is not just small shops that are risk. At the moment, Asda is installing mezzanine floors, but any one of a number of supermarket or DIY chains could follow suit. Doing so gives Asda a competitive advantage because, by chance, it built high in the past. There could be a lower store next door that does not have the opportunity to put in a mezzanine floor, so other big retailers could suffer just as much as smaller retailers. The issue is therefore not about the small fighting the big, but about fairness and where the planning system ought to come in.
The new clause deals with section 55 of the 1990 Act, which creates a broad definition of development and provides for various qualified exceptions. The new clause extends the qualification to the exceptions in subsection (2) to exclude the material increase of retail floor area. Such increases would constitute development and therefore be subject to planning control. The inclusion of a 10 per cent. margin allows for minor operational changes to premises that would not pose a significant risk to the local community. The Minister may say that the Bill is not the appropriate vehicle to pursue those aims, but if so, we would like him to reassure us that the Government plan to close the relevant loophole another way.
New clause 33, which the hon. Member for Isle of Wight has tabled, is similar and has a caveat that if more floor space is granted, some of it must used to sell local produce. On the face of it, that is a super idea, but it is difficult, when giving planning permission, to dictate exactly where something being sold was purchased from in the first place. Although I share the sentiments, the proposal is a difficult concept in planning terms.
It is only a matter of fairness that the loophole is closed, before we see a race to develop mezzanine floors. One group of stores is doing so now, but I am sure that others will follow.