5.1 The Employment Chapter of the Structure Plan addresses the needs of land used for employment purposes. Its aim is to give a strategic locational steer for a variety of employment uses, and to distribute the proposed employment land requirement amongst the districts. The key issues considered at the EIP were: firstly, whether the Plan’s policies were consistent with the Draft RPG and the broader economic context set by the East Midlands Development Agency’s Regional Economic Strategy and the Leicestershire Economic Strategy; secondly, whether the employment land allocations were appropriate and consistent with the overall Strategy of the Plan; and thirdly, the Plan’s approach to development around Junctions 23A/24/24A of the M1.

Overall Employment Strategy

5.1 The East Midlands Development Agency (EMDA) and most other participants at the EIP agreed that the Structure Plan was broadly consistent with the aims and objectives of the Draft RPG, the Regional Economic Strategy and the Leicestershire Economic Strategy. Both of the economic strategies and the Draft RPG seek to provide the right conditions for sustainable economic growth in the Region and the Plan area. The Structure Plan provides a policy framework and employment land supply to support this aim.

5.2 Some participants, however, expressed concern over what they saw as the rather cautious approach of the Structure Plan, which to them appeared to be founded on a different perception of growth, prospects and aspirations than either the Regional Economic Strategy or the Leicestershire Economic Strategy. In particular, it was pointed out that the vision of the Regional Economic Strategy is to raise the position of the East Midlands Region to one of Europe’s top 20 regions in terms of GDP per head and that this would require a big increase in inward investment.

5.3 In this connection the quality and marketability of available employment sites was specifically called into question. Some saw the sequential approach set out in revised Strategy Policy 3A as affecting marketability. It was suggested that an over-emphasis on the use of previously developed land in urban areas might initially bring forward sites that did not meet the needs of business. In this regard, the Panel is conscious that there is no current planning guidance at a national level to relate the principles of the sequential approach expressly to all types of employment development, although a key objective of PPG13 is that jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services should be accessible by public transport, walking and cycling.

5.5 We accept that the quality of employment land and therefore its marketability is an important factor in meeting the needs of business. Nevertheless, these needs should be set within an appropriate land use planning framework. The sequential approach to the location of new development set out in Strategy Policy 3A clearly forms a major part of this framework. EMDA confirmed that they supported appropriate inward investment that is in line with sustainability criteria and that this needed to be balanced with indigenous economic growth.

5.6 The Draft RPG draws attention to the need to assess the quality and quantity of employment land allocations and commitments. We heard that a Quality of Employment Land Study (QUELS) is to be commissioned by a partnership of EMDA and the East Midlands Regional Local Government Association. This will be finalised in summer 2002, and will be available to inform reviews of both the Regional Economic Strategy and RPG. The study's findings will come too late to be incorporated into this Structure Plan, and some participants expressed concern at this mismatch in timing. The Panel agrees that the timing of QUELS is not ideal in relation to the Structure Plan process. However, we consider that it would be inappropriate to hold up the finalisation of the Structure Plan to wait for its findings. These should be capable of being fed into future reviews of the Structure Plan and local plans.

5.7 The Housebuilders Federation drew our attention to the fact that different sectoral interests compete for employment land, such as those requiring small start up units, and that this should be recognised in the Structure Plan. Whilst we understand the point being made, we see little justification for dividing the overall supply of land into component parts in this way. Such an approach would in our view be too detailed and prescriptive for a strategic development plan. In any event, Employment Policy 1 already indicates that provision should be made for a range of sites in terms of size, quality and location. Other policies in the Plan provide guidance for specific functions such as offices, science and technology parks and storage and distribution.

5.8 The Federation also contended that the strategic aim of using previously developed land for employment development might be prejudiced by the competing use of this resource for housing. The Panel recognises this potential difficulty, but we consider that the sequential approach in new Strategy Policy 3A does not prevent a systematic evaluation of any competing uses from being carried out at the local plan stage. Employment Policy 6 also aims to provide protection for key employment land and buildings.

5.9 We agree with the Structure Planning Authorities that an over-supply of greenfield land for employment uses might have a detrimental effect on the aims of urban regeneration, as the more difficult sites on previously developed land in urban areas might not be developed as early as the sequential approach suggested that they should be. Greenfield sites should not come forward prematurely at the expense of the aims of regeneration and, as indicated in Chapter 2, we have reviewed the wording of Strategy Policy 4 with this in mind.

Employment Land Requirement

5.10 Employment Policy 1 provides for 1,244 hectares of land for new employment development. This figure is disaggregated to give a district by district distribution, with a further split to show the proportion required within and outside the Central Leicestershire Policy Area.

5.11 With regard to the quantum of employment land to meet future needs, the Panel recognises that there are difficulties in arriving at a firm figure. The use of past take up rates in deriving future requirements was criticised at the EIP. Differing time periods were adduced as the most appropriate from which to derive an average annual take up rate, in order to assess the scale of need over the Plan period. For instance, the periods 1981-1997 and 1987-2000 gave annual requirements of 45 and 58 hectares respectively.

5.12 The Structure Planning Authorities also made reference to an internal exercise they had undertaken to assess the quality and quantity of employment provision. However, none of this detailed analysis has been made available and this has not helped the Panel in arriving at a conclusion about the employment land requirement. We consider that there is no ideal methodology to guide us to such a conclusion. Use of past take up rates can be somewhat unreliable, as they may be distorted by factors such as economic cycles or restrictive planning policies. Nevertheless, we note that Draft RPG (Policy 13) says that local authorities should review employment land allocations and commitments against trends in take up. The figure of 1,244 hectares represents around 62 hectares per annum. We consider that this total amount is likely to be sufficient to meet demand and also provide an adequate range of sites.

5.13 It was argued that, based on past take up, some authorities appear to have an over-supply of employment land, others an under-supply. The Structure Plan Authorities had sought to address the allocations to authorities with an under-supply, but a corresponding exercise to correct any over-supply had not taken place. We have found it difficult to reach a firm conclusion as to whether the Structure Plan is making over- or under-provision in particular areas. In some authorities the level of past take up of land may be distorted by the development of a particularly large site, such as the Magna Park storage and distribution site in Harborough. What the Structure Plan has to do is to aim to meet the development needs of industry and commerce by providing a reasonable range and choice of sites. In the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, we consider the choice potential provided by the size and distribution of the proposed total employment land requirement to be adequate.

5.14 We now examine in more detail the manner in which the employment land allocation is proposed to be distributed within the Structure Plan area, taking into account the locational strategy. It was pointed out that the distribution of employment land is biased to areas outside the CLPA, with only 30% of the allocations being proposed within the CLPA and 70% outside. This was contrasted with the Plan’s stated target that 55% of all development should be within the CLPA, and a proposed allocation of 48% of all new housing to the CLPA. The primary reason for any imbalance would appear to be because of the amount of employment land ‘committed’, that is having planning permission or allocated for employment purposes in local plans, outside the CLPA. We discuss the issue of committed land in paragraphs 5.21 to 5.28 below.

5.15 The Structure Plan Authorities consider that perceived imbalances between employment land and housing in the CLPA are a reflection of the fact that most of the existing employment opportunities and indigenous employment growth will be within the Leicester and Leicestershire Urban Area (LLUA). The Panel accepts that a crude comparison between employment land and housing provision may be misleading. Differences in employment density, for instance, will mean that one site may provide more jobs than another of the same size. At present there is a significant degree of long distance commuting to job opportunities within the LLUA, partly as a result of past imbalances in the distribution of jobs and housing. One of the stated aims of this Structure Plan is to achieve a better balance of housing and employment within the CLPA. For this reason we have proposed in Chapter 4 that the housing allocation within the CLPA should be increased to match the 55% target, but we do not consider that a similar approach is needed in respect of new employment land. Indeed in Chapter 2 we question whether the 55% target is appropriate in the case of employment.

5.16 Concern was similarly expressed about a perceived imbalance between housing and employment provision in Loughborough and the possible resulting effect on commuting, especially across the regional boundary from Nottinghamshire. In this instance, the shares of housing and employment provision for Charnwood District are 17.4% and 16.5% respectively, which does not suggest a significant imbalance. In any event, the same arguments apply here as in paragraph 5.15 above. We would not expect complete parity between employment land and housing provision and we have no firm basis for proposing a reduction in the allocations to Charnwood in Employment Policy 1.

5.17 It was noted that the high figure for employment land in North West Leicestershire is partly due to substantial existing local plan employment allocations near Junctions 23A/24/24A of the M1. It was put to us that this was contrary to the revised version of Strategy Policy 17, introduced in the pre-EIP changes following the publication of Draft RPG. This policy now rules out large concentrations of employment development in the vicinity of Junctions 23A/24/24A. A situation might, it was suggested, arise in which proposals for employment development in this part of North West Leicestershire could be promoted, despite their not being in accord with revised Strategy Policy 17, because they are at a level relied upon to satisfy a substantial part of the District's Structure Plan employment land requirement.

5.18 We deal with Strategy Policy 17 later in this chapter. However, our understanding is that the allocations in the emerging North West Leicestershire Local Plan are generally consistent with Draft RPG. The latter refers in paragraph 7.20 to substantial quantities (about 80 hectares) of employment land having already been allocated in the vicinity of the Airport and Junction 23A-24A, which will help meet the requirements of existing and new businesses for the foreseeable future. This is the same land as allocated in the emerging Local Plan and included as ‘committed’ in the Structure Plan. At the time of the EIP some of this land was the subject of planning applications ‘called in’ for decision by the Secretary of State.

5.19 Consequently, we have no basis for concluding that the employment land allocations in North West Leicestershire should be changed in order to bring them into line either with Draft RPG or Strategy Policy 17. However, if, following the publication of the final version of RPG, it appears that there is an inconsistency between the scale of employment land provision in the District and the policies in RPG, this should be taken into account in finalising the Structure Plan.

5.20 The Panel's attention was also drawn to the fact that there is little land left at Magna Park, Lutterworth for further major storage and distribution development. It was argued that further employment land provision should be made in Harborough to allow for this. The Structure Plan Authorities confirmed that Magna Park is nearing completion. The Panel does not consider that this fact is justification in itself for the Structure Plan to indicate that further land should be allocated in this location. Policy 15 of Draft RPG refers to the safeguarding of land committed for regional scale distribution sites and states that further releases of land should be considered against the sequential approach and criteria, allowing for the large scale land and freight requirements of such development. It also refers to the need for a review of policy following the completion of the Strategic Freight Distribution Network Study. We believe that any further releases of land for storage and distribution at Magna Park, or any other location, should follow that guidance, as reflected in the provisions of Strategy Policies 3A and 3B and Employment Policy 8 of the Structure Plan (see paragraph 5.49-5.53).

Employment Land Supply; Commitments

5.21 Our overall conclusion, therefore, is that the scale and distribution of employment land should remain as set out in Employment Policy 1.

5.22 Implicit in the discussion about the overall supply and distribution of employment land is the extent to which the Structure Plan regards allocated sites as commitments. Employment Policy 6 addresses this issue and specifically safeguards key existing and planned employment sites from other development proposals. These ‘key sites’ are defined in paragraph 7.36 of the explanatory memorandum as those that have been judged against, and have met, criteria relating to accessibility and local employment choice. Paragraph 7.37 further defines the term as comprising those sites qualifying under Employment Policies 2 (Strategic Employment Sites), 7 (High Quality Employment Sites) and 8 (Storage and Distribution).

5.23 There were many participants who supported the Structure Plan Authorities’ approach in carrying forward all existing local plan employment allocations as commitments, including those that had not yet been the subject of a relevant planning permission. It was maintained that not to do so would mean that development plans would not have the necessary degree of certainty in terms of employment land provision, thus compromising long term planning.

5.24 We would question whether allocations are strictly ‘committed’ if the sites they relate to do not have the benefit of planning permission. Although we are not recommending any changes to the allocations of employment land, it is also doubtful as to whether existing local plan employment allocations should be seen to lead the distribution set down by the emerging Structure Plan. As was pointed out, most of such allocations will have been made under the strategic direction of the adopted Structure Plan (1994). Changes in approach set in the emerging Structure Plan we have been examining should be based upon the up-to-date policy approach handed down from national and regional planning guidance, and should be reflected in subsequent local plans.

5.25 PPG3 clearly states at paragraph 42 that local planning authorities should review all their non-housing allocations when they review their development plans, to ascertain whether some of the allocated land might be better used for housing or mixed use developments. A similar approach is set out in Draft RPG, Policy 13 and paragraph 4.6, which calls for the suitability for development of sites not appropriately located or no longer required for employment use to be considered for other uses. The Structure Plan Authorities stated that an informal assessment of the existing employment allocations had taken place, but it does not appear that the findings have been explicitly carried forward into the Structure Plan. This is recognised in paragraph 7.5 of the explanatory memorandum, which states that some of the sites in the employment land supply are not necessarily in the right location or of a satisfactory quality to meet identified needs.

5.26 It was stated that Employment Policy 6 does not prevent local planning authorities from testing allocations against the new Strategy Policies 3A and 3B and from making a replacement allocation, if necessary. The Panel considers this insufficient justification for a general approach that enables all existing employment allocations to be regarded as commitments. Accordingly, we recommend that Employment Policy 6 and the supporting text should be amended to reflect the approach in PPG3 and Draft RPG, requiring a review of existing employment land allocations and where appropriate consideration for other land uses.

5.27 A revised form of wording to Employment Policy 6 is suggested in the Panel Recommendations below. Despite recommending this significant change, we nevertheless accept that the objectives of the policy are laudable, assuming that the process of identifying key employment sites is carried out. The outcome of such an exercise would lead to a balance of land that is allocated, without planning permission, which may be reconsidered in the light of the proposed sequential approach and against the requirements of other land uses such as housing.

5.28 We also recommend some further consequential changes to the supporting text of the Structure Plan. Firstly, Table 7.1 of the explanatory memorandum identifies the amount of land ‘committed’ in each authority at 1997, including allocations without planning permission. These figures were updated to a base date of 2000 in the Structure Plan Authorities Statement to the EIP on employment matters. In the light of our conclusion above, we consider that Table 7.1 should differentiate between land committed (with planning permission) and land allocated (without planning permission).

5.29 Secondly, we recommend that paragraph 7.37, dealing with the definition of key employment sites by reference to Employment Policies 2, 7 and 8, should be deleted. The criteria set out in paragraph 7.36 can be relied upon to assess the sites that are subject to the protection afforded by Employment Policy 6. Employment Policy 7 is proposed for deletion by the Structure Plan Authorities and we think it will be self-evident which of the sites under Employment Policies 2 (Strategic Employment Sites) and 8 (Storage and Distribution) need safeguarding.

Strategic Employment Sites

5.30 Employment Policy 2 deals with what are termed Strategic Employment Sites and specifies the amount of land and broad locations for seven such sites within the Plan area. The sites are intended to accommodate development within Use Classes B1, B2 and B8, but excluding B1(a) (office development). The policy prescribes how the release of these sites should be phased over the Plan period and includes criteria relating to their location, accessibility and design.

5.31 The requirement for employment land under the definition of Strategic Employment Sites is directly related to the identified 'balance' (total employment provision minus development starts and land committed) in Table 7.1 of the explanatory memorandum. It appears that the 'balance' in six local planning authority areas has been translated into a requirement for seven strategic employment sites. These sites are identified as to be located adjoining the urban areas of the Leicester conurbation, Loughborough and Hinckley. The total amount of land identified for this type of development is 160 hectares out of a total employment land requirement of 1,244 hectares.

5.32 This policy attracted a great deal of criticism during the EIP, especially from the district councils who questioned the basis on which the sites had been identified. They argued that the policy was too prescriptive and limited the scope for local planning authorities to provide in a more flexible way for the employment needs of their areas. It was also pointed out that the balance and relationship between the Structure Plan’s proposals for Strategic Employment Sites and Strategic Housing Sites had been undermined by the proposed pre-EIP changes to the housing figures.

5.33 The Panel questions the need for a separate policy to address the relatively small 'balance' of employment land provision. Like most participants, we are not convinced as to the process by which Strategic Employment Sites have been specified. They do not appear to be related to any requirement in RPG. Draft RPG (Policy 17) refers to the need for development plans to identify Strategic High Quality Employment Sites where supply is inadequate, particularly within the inner areas of Derby, Leicester and Nottingham. Such sites are intended for prestige development and multiple occupation in Use Classes B1 and B2, and could range in scale from 10 hectare inner city sites to larger business parks within or adjacent to urban areas. The Strategic Employment Sites in the Structure Plan are of a different scale, currently ranging in size from 15 to 30 hectares. They are for more general employment purposes, excluding B1(a) office uses but including B8, storage and distribution. None are identified in Leicester, although we heard that there are sites within the city which partially meet the Draft RPG criteria.

5.34 There is also a clear implication that the Strategic Employment Sites will need to be on greenfield land, as indicated by the requirement for sites to be ‘in locations which adjoin urban areas’. This seems to undermine the aims of the sequential approach, which is the proper method by which to assess development proposals. To presuppose that the sequential approach should commence some way down the search sequence for the identified balance of employment land provision is clearly inappropriate.

5.35 We do not question that it is proper for the Structure Plan to give a strategic steer on the broad location of major new employment development. This is of particular importance in the context of the CLPA, where a number of local planning authorities are involved. However, we do not think it is necessary for Employment Policy 2 to specify in detail the number, size and phasing of such sites, particularly by reference only to the ‘balance’ of employment provision after allowing for existing allocations. Since we have previously argued that existing employment allocations should be reviewed, it follows that the number and size of new sites required in local plans might need to differ from those set down in the policy.

5.36 Accordingly, in the Panel Recommendations below we suggest an alternative formulation for Employment Policy 2. This seeks to relate the identification of strategic sites explicitly to the sequential approach in Strategy Policies 3A and 3B and the need for greenfield sites to Strategy Policy 4. An indication of the broad locations for such sites is retained, with the addition of Leicester, but the details of numbers, size and phasing are omitted as being more appropriate to local plans. Other wording changes to the locational and other criteria for such sites are also included.

Office Development

5.37 Employment Policy 3 indicates that major office development should be located within Leicester City Centre or central areas that are well served by public transport. The supporting text defines major office development as that over 1,000 square metres floorspace. The Structure Planning Authorities agreed to a suggestion that a more appropriate threshold would be 2,500 square metres, as used in the context of parking standards for B1 uses in Annex D to PPG13. We support that course of action.

Science and Technology Parks

5.38 Employment Policy 4 makes provision for a ‘hierarchy’ of sites for high technology firms and technology transfer, including one substantial science park of up to 50 hectares in Loughborough. The explanatory memorandum (paragraph 7.27) indicates that provision for incubator facilities and well managed units for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) should be in Leicester and Loughborough, as close as possible to the three universities. Blaby District Council suggested that this part of the text was inconsistent with the thrust of the policy, which does not restrict provision to Leicester and Loughborough and that suitable sites might be found for incubator and SME provision in other locations where links with similar companies might be established.

5.39 The Structure Plan Authorities stated that there is a limited and specialised demand for science and technology facilities and that such development should go to priority locations such as the Loughborough Science Park and the Abbey Meadows site, next to the National Space Centre in Leicester, where links with the three higher educational establishments in the Plan area can be created and sustained.

5.40 We are satisfied that this is in line with Policy 18 of the Draft RPG, which requires such facilities to be in sustainable locations, preferably close to higher education establishments. The provisions of Employment Policy 4 do not explicitly rule out meeting any specific demand which may arise for other high technology linkages with existing firms on sites elsewhere within the Plan area and we think this degree of flexibility should meet the concerns expressed by Blaby District Council.

5.41 However, there does seem to be an inconsistency between the wording of the policy, which refers only to incubator facilities being located ‘as close as possible to related research institutions’, and paragraph 7.27 of the explanatory memorandum which says that both incubator facilities and SME provision should be close to the three universities. We think this may lead to uncertainty and should be clarified by a suitable amendment either to the policy or the explanatory memorandum.

5.42 We also think that the Structure Plan Authorities need to be clear about the restrictions they wish to apply to the occupation of science and technology sites. The last sentence of Employment Policy 4 says that restrictions should be ‘imposed or negotiated’ limiting the use of such sites primarily to B1(b) uses, but paragraph 7.30 envisages situations in which some widening of the scope of development might be appropriate.

5.43 The Use Classes Order has been created partly in order to provide flexibility for changes of use within broad industrial and business use categories. Circular 11/95, dealing with the use of conditions in planning permissions, makes it clear that conditions should not be imposed which restrict future changes of use which the Use Classes Order would otherwise allow, save in exceptional circumstances. If it is envisaged that some flexibility might be needed in respect of the occupation of science and technology sites then it would be preferable, in our view, for this to be negotiable, depending upon the particular circumstances. This intent would be better conveyed by removing the reference in the policy to restrictions being ‘imposed’.

Existing Employment Uses

5.44 Employment Policy 5 sets down criteria for the expansion and relocation of existing firms. Our attention was drawn to an apparent conflict with the approach to office development in Employment Policy 3. The latter sets out a sequential approach to new office development, but Policy 5 rules out expansion of office uses in out of centre locations if such works exceed the threshold for major office development. The Structure Planning Authorities conceded that the expansion of existing office development and new development should be subject to a consistent policy approach.

5.45 The Panel concurs with this, but a more fundamental question arises in relation to the policy as a whole. Whilst we understand the wish to signal the Plan’s support for the expansion of existing firms, we question the need for Employment Policy 5 at all. Firstly, it appears to us that the issue in criterion (a) as to whether or not the proposed expansion of an employment use would cause unacceptable environmental conditions is primarily a development control matter that we would expect to be covered by appropriate local plan policies.

5.46 Secondly, if under criterion (b) the proposed expansion would result in a major office development as defined under Employment Policy 3, then the provisions of that policy would automatically apply.

5.47 Thirdly, if a firm were unable to expand in situ and therefore had to seek a new site, the last sentence of Employment Policy 5 as drafted would not give that firm any preferential treatment in terms of compliance with the sequential approach and other criteria in new Strategy Policies 3A and 3B; nor do we consider that it should.

5.48 In short, we do not think that Employment Policy 5 adds anything to the provisions of policies elsewhere within the Plan and accordingly we recommend that it should be deleted. Reference to the role of existing firms in meeting employment requirements and the need for local plans to make provision for the relocation of firms from constrained or inappropriate sites could be included in the introduction to Chapter 7 or in the explanatory memorandum to Employment Policy 1.

Storage and Distribution

5.49 Employment Policy 8 provides for the use of land for storage and employment uses. Concern was raised by a number of participants about the statement in this policy that ‘there is no further requirement for additional regional storage and distribution facilities in the Plan area’. The Panel is also doubtful about the categoric way in which this part of the policy is expressed. There is no provenance for such a statement in Draft RPG, Policy 15 of which simply states that land already committed for regional scale distribution sites should be safeguarded and that any additional sites should be considered against the sequential approach. Nor does the explanatory memorandum to the policy itself provide any clear justification. Paragraph 7.44 of the latter draws attention to two previously allocated sites, the existing one at Magna Park and a new one near M1 Junctions 23A/24/24A. This does not, in our view, constitute a valid reason for barring any further regional scale development within the Plan area.

5.50 Developers drew attention to the success of Magna Park in attracting inward investment and the considerable locational advantages of Leicestershire for further storage and distribution development. It was suggested that the explanatory memorandum should include a reference to the application of the policy being subject to the outcome of the Strategic Freight Distribution Study. We agree with this, but also consider that it would be prudent simply to delete the reference to regional storage and distribution facilities in the last sentence of the policy, pending clearer evidence from this study and the Quality of Employment Land Study. Any proposals, of whatever scale, for storage and distribution uses would then be subject to the criteria in the rest of the policy as well as the provisions in Employment Policy 2.

5.51 Turning to the rest of Employment Policy 8, we were informed by the Structure Plan Authorities that the penultimate sentence, relating to the safeguarding of committed land for storage and distribution purposes, is proposed to be deleted because it is covered by Employment Policy 6. Our proposed amendments to Employment Policy 6 do not affect this position and we agree that this sentence is unnecessary.

5.52 Of the two remaining criteria, we consider that criterion (a), which requires development not to cause unacceptable environmental problems, should be retained, notwithstanding our conclusion in respect of a similar clause in Employment Policy 5. The presence of criterion (a) in Employment Policy 8 would be in line with the view we express in Chapter 2 that the general application of the sequential approach in Strategy Policy 3A may sometimes not be appropriate for large scale storage and distribution uses. The interpretation of what constitutes unacceptable environmental problems is quite properly left to local plans, though this should be made clear in the explanatory memorandum.

5.53 We also consider that criterion (b), relating to rail access, should be retained. It was suggested to us that it was unrealistic to require that all distribution sites should be served by rail, not least because rail was only viable for longer freight journeys of over 150 miles. The implication of this criterion in relation to further development at Magna Park was also questioned. The wording of the policy states that access to rail sidings should be maximised, but does not appear to us to impose a requirement for rail access in all circumstances. On the other hand, it remains as a material consideration to be taken into account should any future proposals for large-scale storage and distribution development be put forward for consideration in planning applications or be proposed in local plans.

The Rural Economy

5.54 As part of their pre-EIP changes the Structure Planning Authorities put forward a revised Employment Policy 9, which aims to balance the need for rural employment opportunities with the continuing need to protect the countryside for its own sake. There was a broad measure of support for this new policy, which now meets many of the representations made on the Deposit Draft Structure Plan version.

5.55 However, a particular concern was expressed by the Institute of Directors about the relationship between the policy and the sustainability of medium sized rural communities. It was pointed out that such communities require a degree of economic development to secure their future viability.

5.56 In the Panel’s view the new policy does appear to allow for the type of economic support for rural communities sought by the Institute, in that reference is made to employment development both in ‘rural centres’ and ‘other rural settlements’. We consider that these terms would be likely to include the medium sized communities referred to by the Institute. The Structure Plan Authorities suggested that a cross-reference in the explanatory memorandum to Strategy Policy 3A, which refers to the role of rural centres in the locational strategy, might also help address the Institute’s point. We agree with this and consider that mention should also be included of the Panel’s proposed new policy (see Chapter 2) setting out the criteria for identifying rural centres. Subject to some minor re-wording of the opening sentence, we therefore support the retention of new Employment Policy 9.

Exhibition and Conference Centre

5.57 Employment Policy 10 supports the provision of a sub-regional exhibition and conference centre. The Structure Plan Authorities and a number of participants regard such a facility as important for the local economy. Although it did not seem to us that there was any firm proposal in prospect for an exhibition centre some saw the policy as a signal that might help a scheme to come forward. It was also suggested that the reference in the policy to the need for any locations to offer a realistic choice of transport was an important factor meriting its retention.

5.58 Notwithstanding these observations, the Panel considers this policy to be little more than a statement of aspiration. We heard nothing to suggest that a sub-regional exhibition and conference centre was economically viable, let alone likely to reach fruition within the lifetime of the Plan. We therefore consider that the policy should be deleted from the Structure Plan. This would not prevent such a development from being promoted, in which case it is appropriate that any scheme should be considered against the sequential approach and criteria in new Strategy Policies 3A and 3B. Should a firmer proposal emerge, any necessary Structure Plan provision for it could be considered at the next review of the Plan.

Area Surrounding Junctions 23A/24/24A of the M1

5.59 As part of their proposed pre-EIP changes the Structure Plan Authorities put forward a radically revised version of Strategy Policy 17 which now states that: ‘Beyond the boundaries of the airport in the vicinity of Junctions 23A/24/24A of the M1 further large concentrations of employment development or other travel intensive uses will not be acceptable.’ Due to the complexity of this issue it is helpful briefly to set out the background as we understand it to the keenly debated question as to whether there should be further substantial employment development in this area.

5.60 The earlier Deposit Draft version of Strategy Policy 17 can be seen as an enabling policy for the development of B1 and B2 prestige employment sites around Junctions 23A/24/24A. This reflected the approach then being taken in the Public Examination Draft of RPG which recognised the strategic importance of this locality, with its major airport and motorway and trunk road network. This was, however, subject to the resolution of a number of important issues, including the function of major road interchanges in the area, the improved accessibility of the area by public transport, other sustainability issues and community impact.

5.61 The Secretary of State’s subsequent published changes to Draft RPG supported the recommendation of the Panel who conducted the Public Examination into the RPG not to advocate further substantial non-operational development in the vicinity of the Airport/Junction 24. The Panel advised against the provision of a prestige business park in the area of Junction 24 and advocated a polycentric approach to the attraction of inward investment in the Three Cities Sub-area of the Region, drawing upon the potential of an integrated approach to realising the accessibility benefits of Junction 24 and the Airport.

5.62 The Structure Plan Authorities’ change to Strategy Policy 17 is therefore their response to the Secretary of State's Draft RPG. It effectively rules out further major development near Junctions 23A/24/24A. Concern was expressed at the EIP about the mismatch between the timing of the finalisation of RPG, the production of this Panel’s report and the adoption of the Structure Plan. Some participants contended that the Panel should examine this particular issue in more depth, not least because the RPG had not yet been finalised and was subject to representations which might throw a different light on the factors which had led the Secretary of State to his conclusion. We do not feel that this is appropriate, as this issue has a clear regional dimension that it is not within our remit to determine. Our task is to report on the EIP into the Structure Plan and not to anticipate matters that are the concern of the Secretary of State in finalising RPG. The Structure Plan Authorities will have the opportunity of taking into account the final version of RPG before adopting the Structure Plan. Our main concern at the EIP, therefore, was to explore how far the revised version of Strategy Policy 17 fairly reflects the Secretary of State's published changes to RPG.

5.63 It was put to us that the wording of the policy, taken at face value, would impede the operational expansion of East Midlands Airport for freight transport and business travel and was therefore in conflict with Policy 93 and paragraph 7.19 of Draft RPG which provide strong support for this role. From what we heard at the EIP, however, further operational expansion may be accommodated, for the foreseeable future, within the boundaries of the airport identified in the emerging North West Leicestershire District Local Plan. It does not therefore appear to us that revised Strategy Policy 17, which relates to land beyond the operational boundaries of the Airport, would have any harmful effect on the ability of the Airport to provide for its operational requirements.

5.64 Turning to non-operational development, we note the concern of those who questioned whether the absolute restriction implicit in the revised policy is entirely in line with what the Draft RPG says. The latter does not contain a policy explicitly ruling out further development around the airport. It states (in paragraph 7.20) that provision other than for the operational development of East Midlands Airport can be accommodated on employment sites already allocated, including the 80 hectares we referred to earlier in this chapter. It does say (in paragraph 7.24) that further releases of land for regional scale storage and distribution uses in this location are not appropriate. It is also clear from paragraph 7.26 (and from the letter to the East Midlands Regional Local Government Forum from the Minister, Nick Raynsford, which accompanied the Draft RPG) that the development of a new high quality business park is not considered appropriate.

5.65 On the other hand, Draft RPG does acknowledge, in paragraph 7.23, that EMDA’s economic strategy recognises that the area surrounding East Midlands Airport is an important economic asset, though growth will need to be carefully managed, and that EMDA and other regional partners will be seeking to establish a consensus on acceptable types of development that could not be accommodated elsewhere in the region. In this connection, we heard that the Junction 24 Steering Group, which has been set up to take this matter forward, had agreed to reassess any potential for employment development at Junction 24 in the light of the findings of the Quality of Employment Land Study (QUELS) and the recommendations of the M1 and A453 Multi-modal Studies. This will then inform a future review of EMDA’s Economic Strategy and of RPG.

5.66 For these reasons, it was suggested to us by some participants that the revised Strategy Policy 17 ought not to impose a moratorium on development around Junctions 23A/24/24A but should state that the need for any further development is subject to the outcome of these studies. This would help overcome any difficulties in timing in relation to the availability of the studies, the review of the Regional Economic Strategy and RPG and the next review of the Structure Plan.

5.67 The Panel is satisfied that the wording of Strategy Policy 17 is at present broadly in line with the Draft RPG. The purpose and wording of the policy should, however, be reviewed at the modifications stage of the Structure Plan, to take account of the final version of RPG. We are not attracted to the idea of some form of ‘contingent’ wording in the policy, pending the outcome of the QUELS and other studies. The Structure Plan policies need to offer a degree of certainty, although we agree that a reference in the explanatory memorandum to such studies, and their possible implications for an early review or alteration to the Structure Plan, would be appropriate.

5.68 It does seem to us, however, that an alternative option to address the perceived negativity in the policy and any uncertainty about the future need for development around Junction 24, would be simply to delete Policy 17 from the Structure Plan. Any proposals for development which may come forward in this location would then be considered against the other policies in the Plan, notably the sequential approach in Strategy Policies 3A and 3B, together with any other material considerations. This was a course of action which attracted a good deal of support at the EIP, though not, it has to be said, from the Structure Plan Authorities. To delete the policy would avoid any requirement for a formal amendment to the Structure Plan if regional policy towards development at Junction 23A, 24 and 24A were to change before the Structure Plan was due for its next review, for this reason it is the option we prefer.

5.69 However, if it is decided to retain Strategy Policy 17 in largely its present form we think that the explanatory memorandum should be expanded to clarify both the background to the policy and some of the terms in it which participants thought were vague, such as ‘large concentrations of employment development’ and ‘other travel intensive uses’. Some indication of the geographical extent to which the policy applies would also be helpful, in order to allay any uncertainty about the interpretation of ‘in the vicinity of Junction 23A/24/24A’.

Panel Recommendations

5.70 That no changes are made to Employment Policy 1: Quantity of Employment Land for New Development, but that Table 7.1 in the explanatory memorandum be amended to distinguish between land with planning permission and local plan allocations.

5.71 That Employment Policy 2 should be amended to read as follows:

EMPLOYMENT POLICY 2: STRATEGIC EMPLOYMENT SITES

In meeting the employment land allocations in Employment Policy 1 provision will be made in local plans for Strategic Employment Sites forB1, B2 and B8 uses. They will be within Leicester City, Blaby District (close to Leicester), Charnwood District (one close to Loughborough and one close to Leicester), Harborough District (close to Leicester and Oadby and Wigston), Hinckley and Bosworth District (close to Hinckley) and Oadby and Wigston District.

The identification of these sites will be in accordance with the sequential approach and criteria set out in Strategy Policies 3A and 3B. Any greenfield sites should also have regard to the criteria in Strategy Policy 4.

Strategic Employment Sites should be:

a) in locations within or adjoining the urban areas with good access to

the road network;

b) in locations which are capable of being made accessible by walking, cycling and public transport;

c) of a good standard of design, layout and landscaping.

'' Stand alone'' B1(a) major office development should accord with Employment Policy 3.

Local plans may provide for the phasing of development on Strategic Employment Sites, having regard to the sequential approach underlying Strategy Policy 3A.

Other sites may also be brought forward which meet the needs of the Plan Area from the general supply of employment land.

5.72 That the first sentence of paragraph 7.20 of the explanatory memorandum be amended to read as follows:

Major office development comprises over 2,500 square metres of floorspace.

5.73 That inconsistencies between the wording of Employment Policy 4: Science and Technology Sites and the explanatory memorandum (paragraphs 7.27 and 7.30) should be addressed, either by amending the policy or the text.

5.74 That Employment Policy 5: Expansion and Relocation of Existing Employment Uses be deleted and the supporting text be transferred either to the introduction to Chapter 7 or the explanatory memorandum supporting Employment Policy 1.

5.75 That Employment Policy 6 be amended to read as follows:

EMPLOYMENT POLICY 6: REVIEW AND PROTECTION OF EMPLOYMENT LAND AND BUILDINGS

Existing employment site allocations will be reviewed as part of the local plan process. An assessment will be made of the quality and quantity of land allocated, in the light of the Structure Plan employment land requirement for that area, trends in take-up, and the sequential approach and criteria in Strategy Policies 3A and 3B. Key existing and proposed employment sites will be identified and safeguarded in local plans from other development proposals.

Development of other existing and proposed employment sites or the re-use of employment buildings for other uses or for mixed development will be permitted if:

a) the change would not result in a shortage of employment land or buildings in the area; or

b) the land or buildings are no longer suitable for employment purposes; or

c) the site would make an important contribution towards improving the environment; or

d) the proposed use is ancillary to an existing or proposed employment use.

5.76 That paragraph 7.37 in the explanatory memorandum to Employment Policy 6 be deleted and the rest of the text amended to reflect the above changes to the policy.

5.77 That Employment Policy 8 be amended to read as follows:

EMPLOYMENT POLICY 8: STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION

The use of employment land for storage and distribution purposes (Use Class B8) will be permitted provided that:

a) development would not cause unacceptable environmental consequences; and

b) any potential of sites to be served by railway sidings is maximised.

5.78 That the explanatory memorandum to Employment Policy 8 be amended to indicate that any further requirement for additional regional storage and distribution facilities is subject to the outcome of the Strategic Freight Distribution Study. The explanatory memorandum should also state that the interpretation of clause (a) above is a matter to be determined in a local plan context.

5.79 That Employment Policy 9 be amended to read as follows:

EMPLOYMENT POLICY 9: THE RURAL ECONOMY

Provision for employment development will be made within and adjoining rural centres, and will be permitted in other rural settlements, either in the form of new development or from the conversion of existing buildings, subject to the development individually or cumulatively with other development:

a) being of a scale and type that is appropriate to the form, character and setting of the settlement; and

b) not having an unacceptable impact in terms of traffic generated, access or parking arrangements.

5.80 That the explanatory memorandum to Employment Policy 9 should contain a cross-reference to Strategy Policy 3A concerning the role of rural centres in the locational strategy and to the Panel’s proposed new policy relating to the criteria for defining rural centres.

5.81 That Employment Policy 10 and its supporting text in the explanatory memorandum be deleted.

5.82 That Strategy Policy 17 and its supporting text be reviewed when modifications to the Structure Plan are being considered. Subject to the final outcome of the Regional Planning Guidance, consideration should be given to deleting the policy from the Plan. If it is retained in its present form the explanatory memorandum should be revised to explain the background to and justification for the policy and to clarify the terms used.

[ Chapter 4 | Panel Report Contents | Chapter 6 ]

Page Last Updated: 20 September 2001