unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or policy and to convert paragraph noise pollution or land instability; and 7.41 into a planning policy. i.e. remediating and mitigating despoiled, for non-householder ● “Proposals degraded, derelict, contaminated and development shall be unstable land, where appropriate.” accompanied…” GD4 The first part of the policy, which pertains to Any planning obligation associated with Met the Bell Street/Church Street carpark, the policy will need to meet the appears sufficiently clear and precise. requirements set out in paragraph 204 of This policy has been amended in However, the second part of the policy uses the NPPF, please see reference above order to address the concerns the term generally be which in respect of this section. previously raised by the LPA. The “will supported”, is considered insufficiently clear. In addition, policy now provides an appropriate the form of development being required is not level of clarity in order to guide any clearly defined. Accordingly, the second future development of the site. element of the policy appears unreasonable and would not meet the PPG test for policy writing. If the policy is to be retained then it is considered necessary to provide greater clarity and demonstrate that achieving the goals set out are realistic and justified. GD5 The policy makes reference to retail Please see section 2 in the NPPF. Met development, but includes a range of uses which goes beyond retail i.e. A1 A5, which This policy has been amended in – would include restaurants, pubs and order to address the concerns takeaways. Therefore, the intention and previously raised by the LPA. interpretation of the policy is uncertain, as is the role of the evening economy (i.e. uses A3 The policy has now been converted 5). into a more clearly structured and – coherent criteria based policy. The second paragraph in the policy is not sufficiently clear to form an effective and The policy is considered to provide workable policy. In addition, it is considered a positive approach to the that robust justification should be provided for development of the town centre in the strong stance being taken against A2 order to support its vitality and uses. The reference to an Article 4 direction is vibrancy.
unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; and ● remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate.” policy and to convert paragraph 7.41 into a planning policy. i.e. “Proposals for non-householder development shall be accompanied…” GD4 The first part of the policy, which pertains to the Bell Street/Church Street carpark, appears sufficiently clear and precise. However, the second part of the policy uses the term “will generally be supported”, which is considered insufficiently clear. In addition, the form of development being required is not clearly defined. Accordingly, the second element of the policy appears unreasonable and would not meet the PPG test for policy writing. If the policy is to be retained then it is considered necessary to provide greater clarity and demonstrate that achieving the goals set out are realistic and justified. Any planning obligation associated with the policy will need to meet the requirements set out in paragraph 204 of the NPPF, please see reference above in respect of this section. Met This policy has been amended in order to address the concerns previously raised by the LPA. The policy now provides an appropriate level of clarity in order to guide any future development of the site. GD5 The policy makes reference to retail development, but includes a range of uses which goes beyond retail i.e. A1 – A5, which would include restaurants, pubs and takeaways. Therefore, the intention and interpretation of the policy is uncertain, as is the role of the evening economy (i.e. uses A3 – 5). The second paragraph in the policy is not sufficiently clear to form an effective and workable policy. In addition, it is considered that robust justification should be provided for the strong stance being taken against A2 uses. The reference to an Article 4 direction is Please see section 2 in the NPPF. Met This policy has been amended in order to address the concerns previously raised by the LPA. The policy has now been converted into a more clearly structured and coherent criteria based policy. The policy is considered to provide a positive approach to the development of the town centre in order to support its vitality and vibrancy.