Car parks to communities
XX July 2026
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) retains a ‘town centre first’ policy through the familiar sequential and impact tests for main town centre uses, in order to support the vitality and viability of designated town centres and protect against edge-of and out-of-centre competition.
In addition to setting restrictive policy tests for the expansion of retail parks (and other edge or out-of-centre retail floorspace), national policy does not seek to restrict against the loss or repurposing of retail uses in out-of-centre locations . Without such policy protection, out-of-centre retail parks have been identified as an untapped opportunity for higher priority land uses such as housing.
The current London Plan (2021) sets a clear policy steer towards design led intensification of out of centre retail parks and car parks for residential development:
The Mayor had published ‘Towards a New London Plan’, confirming that meeting London’s updated housing need will require new sources of land and delivery models, explicitly including low density retail parks and car parks. The consultation framed housing as the plan’s primary challenge and signals a continued brownfield first trajectory, with intensified, transport linked growth and delivery focused policy tools.
Lichfields’ analysis at the launch of the consultation characterised the uplift as a need to “more than double” annual output, reinforcing the importance of the Plan’s brownfield optimisation and design led methodology to unlock higher densities. Low-density retail parks are described as “under-used sites”, and the consultation specifically proposes “releasing out-of-town retail parks that are designated as industrial land”. This approach broadly aligns with the current Plan.
Read together, the London Plan and NPPF set a supportive policy context for the redeveloping retail parks (and associated infrastructure, including car parks) for new housing. The London Plan explicitly identifies retail parks and car parks as priority brownfield sources, while the NPPF sets the national tests and objectives for effective land use, specifically excluding the protection of out-of-centre facilities.
In practice, this underpins the need for such an approach to be undertaken by individual local authorities at the plan making stage, assessing out of centre retail parks as potential contributors to housing supply through allocations, design codes, and site frameworks.
London’s retail demand has changed markedly over the last decade with earlier Lichfields’ analysis projected a net reduction (c. 5%) in demand for comparison goods floorspace across London’s town centres by 2035, driven by hybrid working, online shopping, the cost‑of‑living crisis, inflation and energy prices resulting in a more spatially uneven retail landscape.
FIGURE 8 OF LONDON TOWN CENTRES INSIGHT (2022)
While retail parks have proved more resilient, they face similar structural headwinds. Even where footfall is stable, the format mix is often shifting towards repurposing to include smaller foodstores, leisure facilities and other uses to support the traditional bulky‑goods anchors. Operators are seeking more flexible leases and rationalising footprints by reoccupying ‘second-hand’ space vacated by retailers entering administration such as Homebase, Carpetright, and Poundland. These opportunities are seen as more attractive than developing new floorspace or relocating to town centres where sites can be constrained and operators may need to accept operational inefficiencies and compromises.
While retailer demand is generally focused on reoccupying key vacancies across the best‑located retail parks, the overall availability of retail park floorspace is falling without new development. From an asset management and investor perspective, this has resulted in higher yields with retail parks consistently identified as a high performing asset class.
Existing use values (EUV) therefore rise as a result of the attractiveness of retail park assets in the short‑to‑medium term. The value of these increasingly rare assets undercuts the viability of redevelopment, particularly on smaller sites or where costs (such as affordable housing provision and contributions, infrastructure, utilities and remediation) can be disproportionate and significantly impact viability. As retail parks typically sit within a wider consolidated ownership portfolio, the status quo prioritises stable short-term cash flow over the risks and potential future profit associated with complicated residential‑led redevelopment schemes.
In short, market demand has reached an uneasy equilibrium that does not generally support the development of new retail park floorspace, but maintains the value of existing assets. This complicates development opportunities by requiring complex phasing plans, retention/relocation of trading units, and hybrid mixed‑use formats to bridge feasibility to align with sometimes complex and time alternate leases.
This does, however, present a potential opportunity for a phased approach that can retain income where required in early stages, sequence enabling works, and deliver public realm early to build market confidence and support higher densities.
Lichfields’ undertook a baseline research and spatial mapping exercise over 2025/26, utilising Completely Retail data supplemented by targeted analysis of historic planning applications in order to analyse the scale of the opportunity.
This initial review identified 102 retail parks across 29 London boroughs, with a combined footprint of c. 9.1 million sq ft (850,000 sq m) and an average site size of c.70,000 sq ft (6,500 sq m).
This baseline shows a dispersed portfolio from large, single ownership parks with ‘traditional’ big box tenants and generous surface parking, through to hybrid formats already beginning to co-locate community, leisure or workspace at the edges. Accessibility is also highly variable across the stock with the majority of retail parks fall within public transport access levels (PTAL) 2-4. Nonetheless, a notable subset of existing retail parks are located in highly accessible urban locations within PTAL 6a-6b.
The current makeup of the existing parks is also notable, with 42% of parks featuring a discount convenience retailer and a roughly 40:60 split between convenience and comparison retailers. The most popular retailers by presence was Currys / PC World, closely followed by Pets at Home and Sports Direct, all of which were present on around 20% of existing parks.
Vacancies were around 15%, far higher than the average for retail parks at the time of the analysis (c. 6%, Trevor Woods Associates). This is particularly notable, as it highlights a trend where there is already momentum towards the redevelopment of some site, and tenancies have been allowed to lapse to facilitate redevelopment plans.
[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/support-for-housebuilding-in-london-package-of-support/support-for-housebuilding-in-london-package-of-support
[3] https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/planning/london-plan/towards-new-london-plan-consultation
[4] https://lichfields.uk/blog/2026/june/25/sound-prospects-from-abercrombie-to-opportunity-areas-to-the-next-london-plan
[5] https://lichfields.uk/blog/2026/march/26/london-s-emergency-housing-package-final-version-and-key-updates
[6] With the exception of redevelopment / reuse for hot food takeaway use
Disclaimer: This publication has been written in general terms and cannot be relied on to cover specific situations. We recommend that you obtain professional advice before acting or refraining from acting on any of the contents of this publication. Lichfields accepts no duty of care or liability for any loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from acting as a result of any material in this publication. Lichfields is the trading name of Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners Limited. Registered in England, no.2778116