Untitled - Cork City Council

Cork Strategic Retail Study
Table 5.3 Changes In Market Shares For Non-RWH Comparison Goods, 1997-07
1997 2001 2007
Cork City Centre 70 64 55
Suburban Centres 11 11 11
Mahon Point - - 10
Ring towns 10 12 11
Metropolitan towns 2 1 5
Other 7 12 8
TOTAL 100
5.9 Given the margins of error in a comparison like this it is unwise to make much of small
changes. It is clear however that there has been a continuous decline in the market
share of the City Centre – from 70% in 1997 down to 64% in 2001 and 55% in 2007.
This decline is a result of the time taken to implement any substantial retail
development schemes in the City Centre and the decision to plan for Mahon Point in
order to meet demand arising at that time. Throughout the period, the share of the
suburban centres has remained broadly constant – they have managed to
accommodate the substantial increases in expenditure without major extensions to
their floorspace. And with no increase in the established suburban centres the slack
has been taken up by Mahon Point, built since 2001, whose present market share is
10%.
5.10 The Ring towns have more or less held their own, partly due to the strong showing by
Mallow in the 2007 survey. There has been a strengthening of the metropolitan towns,
following substantial retail developments in Ballincollig and Midleton. In the period
1997 to 2001 it looks like there was a temporary absorption of pressure by “other”
centres, including those outside the Study Area.
Turnover Tests
5.11 We have investigated the implications of the above results for the sales densities of
groups of centres. These are shown in the chart below.
Figure 5.1 Typical Existing Non-RWH Comparison Goods Sales Densities
Rest of county
Ring towns
Outer met centres
Cork suburbs
Cork city centre
- 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000
5.12 We have taken account of estimates for imports of spending from outside the Study
Area, based on the results of the shopper survey. Imports to the City Centre and
Mahon Point are 14% and 8% of the total turnover (not the residents’ contribution).
Based on location and relative attraction, we estimate comparable figures to be 5% for
Mallow and 4% for Douglas.
Roger Tym & Partners with Simon Clear & Associates
March 2008 33