view - Breckland Council

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3.9 Policy EC15 of PPS4 sets out the approach that local planning authorities should take in considering the sequential assessment. Specifically, it seeks to:- “a) Ensure that sites are assessed for their availability, suitability and viability. b) Ensure that all in-centre options have been thoroughly assessed before less central sites are considered. c) Ensure that where it has been demonstrated that there are no town centre sites to accommodate a proposed development, preference is given to edge of centre locations which are well connected to the centre by means of easy pedestrian access. d) Ensure that in considering sites in or on the edge of existing centres, developers and operators have demonstrated flexibility in terms of: i) Scale: Reducing the floorspace of their development; ii) Format: More innovative site layouts and store configurations such as multi-storey developments with smaller footprints; iii) Car Parking Provision: Reduced or reconfigured car parking areas; and iv) The scope for disaggregating specific parts of a retail or leisure development, including those which are part of a group of retail or leisure units, onto separate, sequentially preferable, sites. However, local planning authorities should not seek arbitrary sub division of proposals.” 3.10 Policy EC15.2 clarifies that, in considering the flexibility required above, local planning authorities should take into account any ‘genuine difficulties which the applicant can demonstrate are likely to occur in operating the proposed business model from a sequentially preferable site, for example where a retailer would be limited to selling a significantly reduced range of products’. 3.11 Where retail impact needs to be addressed, PPS4 (at Policy EC16.1), establishes a set of impacts, against which planning applications for main town centre uses which are not in a centre should be considered. These are as follows:- “a) The impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; b) The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and the range and quality of the comparison and convenience retail offer; c) The impact of the proposal on allocated sites outside town centres being developed in accordance with the development plan; d) In the context of a retail or leisure proposal, the impact of the proposal on in-centre trade/turnover and on trade in the wider Former Tulip Factory Site, London Road/Caxton Way, Thetford Page 8 Retail & Planning Statement, February 2012
area, taking account of current and future consumer expenditure capacity in the catchment area up to five years from the time the application is made, and, where applicable, on the rural economy; e) If located in or on the edge of a town centre, whether the proposal is of an appropriate scale (in terms of gross floorspace) in relation to the size of the centre and its role in the hierarchy of centres; f) Any locally important impacts on centres under Policy EC3.1.E.” Note: Policy EC3.1.(e) simply requires regional planning bodies and local planning authorities to, as part of their economic vision for an area, define any locally important impacts on centres which they would want tested under Policy EC16 3.12 Finally, Policy EC17 of PPS4 sets out the way in which – in the context of the policies outlined above – planning applications for development of town centre uses in out-of-centre locations should be considered. It states that such applications should be refused where:- 1. The applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the requirements of the sequential approach; or 2. There is clear evidence that the proposal is likely to lead to significant adverse impacts in terms of any one of the impacts set out in policies EC10.2 and 16.1 (the impact assessment) taking account of the likely cumulative effect of recent permissions, developments under construction and completed developments (our emphasis). 3.13 Where no significant adverse impacts have been identified, Policy EC17 goes on to require planning applications to be determined taking account of the positive and negative impacts of the proposal in terms of policies EC10.2 and 16.1 (i.e. those impacts that exist but are not considered to be significant), any other material planning considerations and the likely cumulative effect of recent permissions, developments under construction and completed developments. In terms of the extent and significance of any impacts, Policy EC17.3 states that such judgements should be informed by the development plan, where this is up to date. 3.14 In short, an applicant must demonstrate compliance with the sequential approach and provide evidence that there will be no significant adverse impact. Should both of these ‘gateway tests’ be satisfied, then local planning authorities should go on to take account of both positive and negative impacts of the proposal and any other material considerations – there is essentially a two stage approach to any assessment. c) Development Plan Policy 3.15 The Statutory Development Plan for Thetford comprises the East of England Plan (May 2008), those ‘saved’ policies of the <strong>Breckland</strong> District Local Plan (September 1999) and The <strong>Breckland</strong> Adopted Core Strategy and Development Control Polices Development Plan Document (December 2009). Only six Former Tulip Factory Site, London Road/Caxton Way, Thetford Page 9 Retail & Planning Statement, February 2012
Page 1 and 2: THE FORMER TULIP FACTORY SITE, LOND
Page 3 and 4: 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This Retail Stat
Page 5 and 6: 2 RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND a) Si
Page 7 and 8: petrol filling station, car parking
Page 9: excluded groups). iii. The historic
Page 13 and 14: . It will not undermine the functio
Page 15 and 16: The TAAP allocates some 40 hectares
Page 17 and 18: 4 EMPLOYMENT LAND 4.1 As outlined i
Page 19 and 20: Existing Vacant Employment Space at
Page 21 and 22: 4.14 The adopted Breckland Core Str
Page 23 and 24: 5 EXISTING SHOPPING PATTERNS 5.1 In
Page 25 and 26: 5.9 For the secondary catchment are
Page 27 and 28: 6 SEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT 6.1 As iden
Page 29 and 30: Viability - whether there is a reas
Page 31 and 32: 7 RETAIL IMPACT 7.1 In this section
Page 33 and 34: 7.14 The appearance of the foodstor
Page 35 and 36: ii. The Impact of the Proposal on T
Page 37 and 38: of 2016. This is consistent with on
Page 39 and 40: They are out-of-centre stores and t
Page 41 and 42: Neither of the supermarkets will ex
Page 43 and 44: 8 CONCLUSIONS 8.1 The proposed deve
Page 45 and 46: PLANNING HISTORY SCHEDULE Ref No. P
Page 48 and 49: SITE 1: COMMUNITY HALL, WELL STREET
Page 50 and 51: SITE 3: BRIDGE STREET CAR PARK AND
Page 52 and 53: SITE 5: TANNER STREET CAR PARK, THE
Page 54 and 55: Overview of Thetford Town Centre TH
Page 56 and 57: Services/Facilities The centre is w
Page 58 and 59: Photograph 5: Comparisons in pedest
Page 60 and 61:
through £millions of investment.
Page 62 and 63:
WILKINGSONS VACANT OTHER BUILDING V
Page 64 and 65:
THETFORD TOWN CENTRE RETAIL SCHEDUL
Page 66 and 67:
Retailer Address Description Use Cl
Page 68 and 69:
Retailer Address Description Use Cl
Page 70:
APPENDIX 3
Page 73 and 74:
Appeal Decision Inquiry held on 10-
Page 75 and 76:
Appeal Decision APP/ M1710/A/10/214
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
show all

view - Breckland Council

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?