You may have received a number of comments on the Portas Review this week, now that the dust has settled, here are the combined thoughts from the Planning Potential team.

Positives

• Particularly welcome that high streets/town centres need to start looking after themselves, adopting more of a private sector mentality, with less reliance or involvement of local Councils.
• We further support the view that the town centre is not just about retail and a wider diversity of uses, including D Use Classes, residential and other leisure uses can help boost town centres.
• Local Council's need to start making better use of the powers that they currently have to help the High Street more. e.g. the use of CPOs and reduced business rates across the board.  Too often retailers are blamed for problems on the high street and it is refreshing to see acknowledgement that LPAs need to start 'pulling their weight'.
• Council's often view parking as a revenue stream which discourages visits. Supermarkets can provide free parking in central locations.
• The document also highlights the contradictory nature of local Council's who are against out of town retail, yet fail to allocate retail sites in town centres and placing restrictions on town centres, such as discouraging retailers from finding sites, e.g. delivery hour restrictions.
• The 'Meanwhile Use' for empty retail units is a positive suggestion as it will help to retain a previous use (e.g. A3) during an interim period (such as during a downturn) when a temporary use is in a different Use Class.
• Extending opening hours is important in town centres to increase footfall and diversity in the evening to complement the existing night time economy.
• The restrictions placed on high street/town centre deliveries should be reviewed to encourage retailers from considering the town centre a viable proposition.

However from a planning perspective it doesn't introduce anything radically new (especially that hasn't already been mooted in Localism) or draw on any new evidence.

 Concerns

• The 'recommendations' do not appear to be based on any empirical evidence and can potentially be interpreted as anecdotal sound bites.
• Getting Secretary of State 'exceptional sign-off' for all large developments goes against the foundations of Localism (these powers of call-in are also in place, although not widely used currently).
• The Review makes a number of recommendations such as 'Town Teams' and National Market days etc., although does not clarify how these would be funded.
• However, it is recommended that developers should be required to make financial contributions to assist local communities in the planning system.  This is justified on the basis that developers have financial resources to promote a scheme (potentially at appeal) despite there being local objection.  It is unrealistic to assume that developers will contribute (either directly or indirectly) funding to help an opposition group fight against a planning application and if this is adopted would surely stop development from happening.
• Re-classifying betting shops outside of A Use Classes is unfounded.  This is without evidence and appears to be a 'moral' view and does not recognise the footfall such uses can generate.  Indeed, one of Mary Portas' latter recommendations to help boost town centre vitality and viability is to encourage more bingo halls!
• Despite acknowledging the threat e-tailing and other forms of online/mobile trading, Mary Portas does not offer any solutions.  We consider that given the acknowledgment of this 'threat', special forms of trading should not be deducted in retail impact assessments as this restricts potential capacity for new retail facilities and shops.

 Actions and Opportunities

• Affordable Retail units is a pragmatic approach that could be adopted as an 'easy win' in planning applications.  This would also help to boost arguments of enhancing vitality and viability and could also be off-set against potential S106.
• There is also an opportunity for managers of new stores and shops to become involved in the suggested 'Town Teams'.  This already happens with involvement in Chambers of Commerce and Town Centre Partnerships and is another 'easy win'.
• Mary Portas casts doubt on actual job creation from new supermarkets and suggests the reality is many 'new' jobs are actually displaced.  It would be useful if retailers could either produce evidence to the contrary, or alternatively pro-actively offer local labour agreements with new stores to counter this increasing criticism.
• Mary Portas recognises the threat of e-tailing to the Town Centre, but doesn't expand upon this point.  In doing so, we firmly believe special forms of trading should not automatically be accepted as deductions from capacity exercises, as this accepts a negative effect on the high street, and does not fight back for bricks and mortar over e-tailing.