It is clear that the overarching position of retail analysts and experts is that the need to diversify town centres is not a strategic choice, but an unavoidable reality. Such is the scale of change in retailing that it is argued that in the most extreme cases, some town centres may all but disappear as retail destinations (Bamfield, 2013). Accordingly, many commentators emphasise that if town centres are to survive, the focus of strategic responses cannot simply be about retail:
“If we are to put the heart back into our local centres, we cannot do it simply by making shops more competitive or adjusting the planning system in favour of town centres and independent retailers” (Urban Pollinators, 2011, p1)
Instead, the focus should be on diversifying the town centre offer, including an increased amount of residential, office and public services space (Retail Think Tank, 2009, 2014; Swinney and Silvaev, 2013; Urban Pollinators, 2011). In rationalising this approach, proponents point to the fact that consumers no longer have a vested desire to visit town centres when they go shopping, and if they do, they are increasingly drawn to the largest and most attractive centres. Accordingly, it is argued that in order for town centres to survive, revitalisation strategies need to focus on finding alternative ways of getting people into the town centre, including by increasing the residential or working populations:
“...if there is to be a future for the High Street, the principal focus of policy should be to encourage footfall during weekdays as well as weekends. As well as encouraging residential activity in city centres, this should be done through the concentration of employment within the centre of cities” (Swinney and Sivaev, 2013, p23)
The emphasis of much industry analysis, therefore, is that town centres have to try to move beyond their current synonymous relationship with retail. As the government have themselves admitted, retail has a role to play, however, the focus should not be about “[turning] back the clock to a time where the high street was the only place to go” (DCLG, 2013a, p3). As such, the government‟s support for town-centre-first is puzzling because, by definition, that is exactly what the policy is seeking to achieve.
Mark Davies - October 2019 41 Far from diversifying the town centre offer or adapting to changes in consumer demand, town-centre-first primarily acts to reinforce the status quo, impressing upon local authorities the view that retail remains the primary focus of the town centre and that, as such, it should continue to be given the highest priority.
It is worth nothing here that the apparent disconnect between policy and problem is not a position that is unique to the government. Many industry experts have also come out in support of town-centre-first (ATCM, 2011, 2014; BCSC, 2013; British Retail Consortium, 2012). However, as these groups tend to have stake in the success of retail in town centres, this is perhaps an unsurprising position. When considering the views of the sector more widely, there is a general indifference to the approach, perhaps reflective of the fact that many no longer see it as relevant, given today‟s challenges. There are also those who go further, suggesting that town-centre-first does not, nor has it ever really worked (Cheshire and Hilber, 2014; Cheshire, Hilber and Kaplanis, 2011, 2014; Morton and Dericks, 2013; Swinney and Sivaev, 2013). For these commentators, town-centre-first is flawed because it takes decision-making power away from consumers and retailers, and places it in the hands of local authorities, even though the latter may not have to requisite knowledge to make effective decisions:
“[Town-centre-first] is based on the idea that council planners, wiser and better-informed than individual property owners or consumers, can determine the optimal location and sizes of retail sites. Planners can predict the shops needed. Consequently, property rights should be controlled by council planners. These assumptions lead to unrealistic and prescriptive planning. They assume knowledge of the future, they assume that change should be guided by councils, not by consumers.” (Morton and Dericks, 2013, p47)
In this sense, town-centre-first forces retailers to operate in manner that is not conducive to either their own or the customers‟ best interests, meaning that both groups end up losing out. Evidence shows that out-of-centre stores are more profitable when compared with town centre operations (CBRE, 2012), while retailers hold that consumers prefer out-of-town shopping because it offers a “greater breadth
42 Mark Davies - October 2019
of choice in products and shopping formats that fit around customers‟ differing needs and busy lifestyles” (Marks and Spencer, 2008, p11). As such, by acting against the market and preventing retailers from selecting optimal sites, town-centre-first actually leads to higher costs, less convenience and poorer choice for consumers:
“There are a number of obvious adverse consequences of forcing retailing into small and often awkward sites in „town centres‟: these locations will be less convenient for suburban shoppers (an ever growing share of the population) and the smaller stores will, compared to large format out-of-town stores, be able to offer less variety, at higher prices (Cheshire and Hilber, 2014, para. 4)
One of the main criticisms of town-centre-first in this regard, is that it is not truly evidence-based. Many commentators have noted that there is a lack of reliable data on town centre performance and other associated metrics (Astbury and Thurstain- Goodwin, 2014; ATCM, 2011; Retail Think Tank, 2009; Swinney and Sivaev, 2013) and what data there is, tends to be expensive and therefore not readily available to planners (Wrigley and Lambiri, 2015). Accordingly, it has been suggested that one of the main obstacles in decision making today is “the lack of empirical evidence at an extent to which we can confidently implement policy and guidelines” (Astbury and Thurstain-Goodwin, 2014, para. 5.1). What this means in reality, is that decision making in regard of retail development is largely „hypothetical‟, often being based upon “an exaggerated fear of what might happen, rather than an informed view of what actually does happen when such schemes are developed” (Retail Think Tank, 2009, p30). This view certainly seems to chime with that of retailers, many of whom have themselves expressed frustration with the obstinate approach of some local authorities:
“In our dealing with local councils it is noticeable that some are much more pro-growth and pro-jobs than others. Many local councils are enthusiastic and efficient; but a few remain an unhealthy mix of Luddite intransigence and incompetence. Going forward, in areas where councils traditionally have got away with just saying “no”, we will be more active
Mark Davies - October 2019 43 in harnessing the law and the full weight of public opinion to campaign for growth” (Next, 2013, p7)
While many of these criticisms are dismissed by advocates, what is clear is that there are those who feel that town-centre-first has failed, often because the policy has been implemented poorly. Town-centre-first is supposed to apply to all main town centre uses, yet it has only ever really been enforced in relation to retail. As a result, many towns have experienced considerable „decentralisation‟ of jobs, which has not only reduced the size of the catchment market, but also “left their central economies more reliant on retail” (Swinney and Sivaev, 2013, p22). Given this, many have questioned why we continue to expect people to use town centres “when the rationale for people visiting them... has been removed” (Findlay and Sparks, 2014, p14). Whatever the case, the overriding view of most critics is that effective policy should not be about restricting development outside of the town centre, but rather about promoting growth within:
“Policy should not be about restricting choice. Instead of looking to create barriers to growth elsewhere in a city, which could reduce overall investment in a city, it should look to remove barriers to growth in city centres for the benefit of the city economy overall” (Swinney and Sivaev, 2013, p35)
Accordingly, many critics feel that town-centre-first should be scrapped or significantly amended, because, as it currently stands, it is not creating sustainable outcomes (Cheshire and Hilber, 2014; Morton and Dericks, 201; Swinney and Sivaev, 2013).