Skip to content Accessibility What's New Complain or Comment Website Feedback Form
Lcc weebsite fox logo for printing
You are here: Home > Council & Democracy > Plans and Policies > Structure Plan > Proposed Pre-Examination-in-Public Changes > Further Proposed Pre-EIP Changes

Navigation

Proposed Pre-Examination-in-Public Changes
Further Proposed Pre-EIP Changes
Proposed Pre-EIP Changes
Prelimary List of EIP Matters & Participants

Further Information

Contact: The Policy Team
Telephone: 0116 305 7027
E-mail: policy@leics.gov.uk

SCHEDULE OF PROPOSED PRE-EIP CHANGES STRATEGY POLICIES

PROTECTING AND ENHANCING THE HISTORIC AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

Policy No.
Environment Policy 3: Ecology
Summary of Issues
  1. The policy goes beyond the requirements of PPG9 by embracing all sites with any ecological value. Sites which are designated at a local level should be protected through local plans rather than the Structure Plan.
     
  2. The policy does not meet the requirements of PPG9 in that it does not establish a strategic framework and exemplify the particular characteristics of international nature conservation interests in the Plan Area or reflect the relative significance of international and national sites.
     
  3. Further distinctions should be made between the degree of protection for sites and species of different levels of importance.
     
  4. There should be greater links to the Biodiversity Action Plan for the area.
     
  5. The final paragraph referring to conditions is unenforceable.
Reasoned Response
  1. Not accepted. Para. 22 of PPG9 states that structure plans should take account of appropriate regional and national policy guidance. The most current guidance is found in the Panel Report of the emerging Regional Planning Guidance for the East Midlands. The Report acknowledges the value of locally designated sites in a Region which has suffered the greatest losses in terms of biodiversity over the last century than any other English Region. The Panel propose a policy that requires development plans to "give priority to the protection and enhancement of specific species and habitats of international, national and sub-regional importance as identified in Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs).....".(para. 7.10). It is therefore considered appropriate for the Structure Plan to provide a strategic framework for the protection of wildlife sites which have been designated at a more local level and in Biodiversity Action Plans.
     
  2. Not accepted. It is considered that the policy provides an adequate strategic framework for local plans. There is one site of recognised international importance within the Plan Area (Rutland Water) which is referred to in the Plan and shown on the Key Diagram due to its considerable importance.
     
  3. Accepted in part. The current policy offers different levels of protection for sites designated for their international or national importance and sites designated for their more local importance. It is accepted that a further distinction in the degree of protection should also be made between sites of international importance and sites of national importance.
     
  4. Accepted. The importance of linking Biodiversity Action Plans with Development Plans is made clear in the Panel Report for the emerging RPG. The Report suggests this can be achieved not only through the protection of existing wildlife habitats but also by:
  • identifying land for nature conservation through development proposals particularly where a connected series of sites can be achieved; and,
     
  • identifying locations for habitat management restoration and creation schemes,especially linking corridors and buffer zones. It is therefore accepted that the policy should link more closely with the Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland BAP and reflect the proposed policy of the Panel Report.
     5. Accepted in part. The final paragraph of the policy is enforceable through conditions and/or the use of planning obligations (para. B11 (iii) of DETR circular 1/97). It is agreed that the policy should clarify that planning obligations may also provide a means of achieving the aims of this part of the policy.
Proposed Policy Action
Pre-EIP Change
Deposit Draft Policy
Environment Policy 3: Ecology Measures will be taken to:
  • promote natural biodiversity;
  • protect, conserve and manage sites of ecological importance and protected species and their habitats; and
  • enhance the wider ecological value of the environment.
Development will only be acceptable where it would not adversely affect any:
  • protected species or its habitat; or
  • proposed or designated National Nature Reserve, Special Protection Area, Special Area of Conservation, Ramsar Site or Site of Special Scientific Interest designated because of its ecological interest,
unless an overriding national need for the development can be shown to outweigh the site's ecological interest and there is no other less ecologically important site available for that development.
Development will only be acceptable where it would not adversely affect any:
  • Site of Importance for Nature Conservation;
  • Local Nature Reserve; or,
  • landscape feature of importance to wild flora and fauna by reason of its continuous nature or function as a stepping stone between habitats,
unless an overriding national or local need can be shown to outweigh the ecological interest. In exceptional circumstances where development is allowed which could adversely affect a site of ecological importance, conditions will be imposed to:
a) minimise disturbance;
b) conserve and manage its ecological interest as far as possible; and
c) where damage is unavoidable, provide new or replacement habitats so that the total ecological resource remains at least at its current level.
Environment Policy 3: Biodiversity Enhancement
Measures will be taken through development opportunities to:
  • maintain and enhance natural biodiversity;
  • protect, conserve and manage sites of ecological importance and protected species and their habitats;
  • identify locations for habitat restoration and creation schemes, especially where they would link corridors, link isolated habitats or create buffer zones;
  • achieve the objectives of the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Biodiversity Action Plan; and,
  • enhance the wider ecological value of the environment.
New Policy (Environment Policy 3A): Protection of Important Species and Habitats
i) Species and Habitats of International Importance:
Development will only be acceptable where it would not adversely affect:
  • protected species of international importance or their habitats; or,
  • proposed or designated Special Protection Areas, Special Areas of Conservation or Ramsar Sites,
unless there are no alternative solutions and the development is needed for imperative reasons of overriding public interest.
ii) Species and Habitats of National Importance:
Development will only be acceptable where it would not adversely affect:
  • protected species of national importance or their habitats; or,
  • proposed or designated National Nature Reserves or Sites of Special Scientific Interest designated because of their ecological interest,
unless an overriding national need for the development can be shown to outweigh the sites' ecological interest and there are no other less ecologically important sites available for that development.
iii) Species and Habitats of Local Importance:
Development will only be acceptable where it would not adversely affect:
  • Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation;
  • Local Nature Reserves;
  • Priority habitats or species identified in the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Biodiversity Action Plan that do not benefit from statutory protection; or,
  • Landscape features of importance to wild flora and fauna by reason of their continuous nature or function as a stepping stone between habitats,
Unless an overriding national or local need can be shown to outweigh the ecological interest.
iv): Mitigation
In exceptional circumstances where development is allowed which could adversely affect a site of ecological importance conditions will be imposed and/or planning obligations sought to:
a) minimise disturbance;
b) conserve and manage its ecological interest as far as possible;
c) where appropriate, contribute towards the objectives of the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Biodiversity Action Plan; and,
d) where damage is unavoidable, provide new or replacement habitats so that the total ecological resource remains at least at its current level.
List of Respondents:
British Waterways, Burbage Parish Council, Carlton Parish Council, CPRE Charnwood, David Wilson Estates Ltd and Wilson Bowden Developments, English Nature, Environment Agency, Hallam Land Management, Hanson Aggregates, Harborough District Council, House Builders Federation, Ibstock Property and Minerals Services, JGK Environmental Consultancy, King’s Lynn Agricultural Services Ltd., Lafarge Aggregates Ltd., Leicester Civic Society, Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society, Melton Borough Council, Melton Mowbray and District Civic Society, Oadby and Wigston Borough Council, Quarry Products Association, RJB Mining Ltd., RSPB, Stop the Enderby Power Station Campaign, The Woodland Trust, Viridor Waste Management Ltd.
[ Summary of Proposed Pre-EIP Changes ]
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Policy No.
Resource Management Policy 3: Renewable Energy
Summary of Issues
  1. The policy is a promotional statement /is not a land-use policy. It fails to provide criteria (relating for example, to amenity) that renewable energy proposals can be assessed against.
     
  2. The promotion of passive solar design is welcomed. The policy unduly encourages one form of renewable energy (passive solar design) - a more holistic approach is needed.
     
  3. The guidance in the National Waste Strategy should be incorporated.
Reasoned Response
  1. Accepted. The policy is a promotional statement and fails to provide criteria which can be used to assess proposals for renewable energy development.
     
  2. Accepted. A more holistic approach is needed consideration will be given to an amendment to the Explanatory Memorandum (EM) paragraph 4.22.
     
  3. Accepted. Consideration will be given to referring to the National Waste Strategy in the EM.
Proposed Policy Action
Pre-EIP Change.
Deposit Draft Policy
Resource Management Policy 3: Renewable Energy
The production and use of renewable energy, and in particular, passive solar design will be promoted.
Proposals for development necessary to utilise energy from renewable sources will be permitted provided that:
  • their impact on the locality is acceptable;
  • they do not harm designated environmental assets or designated landscape features; and,
  • any adverse impact is minimised and outweighed by the wider benefits that the proposal may bring;
Where appropriate, areas suitable for renewable energy development may be identified in Local Plans. Renewable power generating installations should be well placed in relation to the existing electricity transmission network and wherever possible offer scope for heat recovery (Combined Heat and Power - CHP).
List of Respondents
Birch Homes, Carlton Parish Council, Cawrey Ltd, CRPE Charnwood, CPRE NW Leics, Derbyshire County Council, Environment Agency, ETSU for the DTI, Forestry Commission, Harborough District Council, House Builders' Federation, National Farmers' Union, Rothley Parish Council, Six Hills Farm and Leisure Centre.
[ Summary of Proposed Pre-EIP Changes ]
Policy No.
Resource Management Policy 4: The Water Environment
Summary of Issues
  1. Additional criteria should be included relating to the incorporation of sustainable drainage systems.
     
  2. A separate policy should be included concerning flood risk outlining how development should contribute positively towards flood risk reduction.
     
  3. The phrase "or where acceptable mitigation measures can be provided" should be included in criteria c).
     
  4. The policy should state that provision for major development will only be made in areas where adequate water services are available or under construction or to which such services can be efficiently extended without significant damage.
     
  5. The policy and text fail to refer to the supply of water for navigation.
     
  6. Measures to maximise efficient use of water are about lifestyle which are not a matter for land-use policies.
     
  7. The word "unacceptably"should be inserted before "adversely";
     
  8. Paragraph 4.27 should say that there should be no development in the flood plain at all.
Reasoned Response
  1. Accepted. The revised policy includes a new criterion relating to sustainable drainage systems.
     
  2. Accepted in part. A separate policy specifically on flood risk is not considered necessary but the revised policy includes a separate paragraph on flood risk reduction.
     
  3. Accepted. The revised policy includes reference to measures to mitigate the effects on the flooding regime.
     
  4. Accepted in part. The revised policy includes the words "in a sustainable manner" to address concerns about the availability and provision of water services.
     
  5. Accepted. The revised policy refers to the supply of water for navigation. A similar change will be considered to the text of the Explanatory Memorandum.
     
  6. Not accepted. The efficient use of water is a land use matter. The Panel Report on Regional Planning Guidance for the East Midlands recommends that development plans include policies to promote the most efficient use of water.
     
  7. Accepted in part. The revised policy includes the word "unacceptable"in criterion b).
     
  8. Not accepted. Development in the flood plain may be acceptable if adequate mitigation measures are provided. This is reflected in the revised policy.
Proposed Policy Action
Pre-EIP Change.
Resource Management Policy 4: The Water Environment
Development will only be acceptable:
a) if measures to maximise efficient use of water, including grey water, have been taken into account;
b) where it will not adversely affect either have an unacceptable impact on the source of the water supply, the supply of water for navigation, or the role of the natural watercourse system for providing essential drainage of land, valuable wildlife environments and amenity areas;
c) in areas not at direct risk from flooding or in areas which would not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere; and c) in locations where adequate water resources exist, or where resources can be provided in a sustainable manner;
d) if surface water run-off is minimised by incorporating and maintaining sustainable drainage systems, where appropriate.
Development will not be acceptable if alone, or together with existing and committed development, it would be at unacceptable risk from flooding or it would increase the risk of flooding elsewhere, unless provision is made for adequate measures to mitigate the effects on the flooding regime.
List of Respondents
Birch Homes, British Waterways, Carlton Parish Council, CPRE Charnwood, Defence Estates, Environment Agency, Environment Agency, Hanson Aggregates, Harborough District Council, House Builders Federation, Leicester Civic Society, National Farmers Union, Northamptonshire County Council, RJB Mining Ltd, Severn Trent Water, Stop the Enderby Power Station Campaign (STEPS), Viridor Waste Management Ltd.
[ Summary of Proposed Pre-EIP Changes ]
Policy No.
Resource Management Policy 5: Agricultural Land
Summary of Issues
  1. The policy infers a preference for lower grade agricultural land in less sustainable locations. Suggest redrafting to ensure that sustainability issues override the need to protect agricultural land quality;
     
  2. The term "overriding need"and Grade 3a should not be included;
     
  3. Policy and paragraph 4.30 should be amended to reflect advice in Mineral Planning Guidance Note (MPG) 7 that mineral extraction can be achieved without the loss of land quality after reclamation.
Reasoned Response
  1. Accepted. The revised policy requires that no alternative site of lower overall value is available. This reflects government policy in the Rural White Paper that the overall value of land should be considered in deciding what countryside should have the greater protection and that agricultural quality should be treated only as one factor.
     
  2. Not accepted. The term "overriding need" and inclusion of Grade 3a land is consistent with guidance in PPG7 paragraph 2.18 that "land in grades 1, 2 or 3a should only be developed exceptionally if there is overriding need for the development".
     
  3. Not accepted. The restoration of land following minerals working is a matter dealt with under Resource Management Policy 13.
Proposed Policy Action
Pre-EIP change.
Resource Management Policy 5: Agricultural Land
Development which is irreversible will only be acceptable where it would not adversely affect the best and most versatile agricultural land, i.e. Grades 1, 2 and 3a, unless there is an overriding need for the development and there is no alternative site of lower grade overall value available.
List of Respondents
Andrew Granger & Co Ltd, Birch Homes, Bitteswell Parish Council, Charnwood Borough Council, Government Office for the East Midlands, Hallam Land Management, Harborough District Council, Lafarge Redland Aggregates Ltd, RJB Mining Ltd, Stop the Enderby Power Station Campaign (STEPS), Williamson & Cliff and Newlandglebe Ltd, Wymeswold Parish Council.
[ Summary of Proposed Pre-EIP Changes ]
ACCESSIBILITY AND TRANSPORT
Policy No.
Accessibility and Transport Policy 6: Freight
Summary of Issues
  1. The policy and Explanatory Memorandum (EM) should be strengthened in line with the Transport White Paper to recognise the potential of inland waterways for moving freight.
     
  2. The protection of rail connected sites is required, as promoted through the White Paper and Draft Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) for the East Midlands. These sites need to be operationally, physically and commercially viable.
     
  3. Rail freight terminals should be strategically identified in the text and Key Diagram.
     
  4. Some respondents consider that the policy has little point until a viable and cost effective rail freight network is available and should be deleted.
     
  5. The policy refers to the ‘strategic road network’, but it is not defined. There is also no definition of the scale of development that generates "significant" freight movements.
     
  6. Criteria a) & b) are too onerous, as it could exclude certain types of development that could not take place in urban areas.
     
  7. Criterion b) in the policy does not provide a clear framework for the provision of rail freight in the Countryside, in particular in relation to Green Wedges and Areas of Separation; and that the open countryside reference is inconsistent with Strategy Policy 9. The policy should also allow HGV movements in the rural areas, where there is no alternative to moving freight other than by road.
     
  8. The final paragraph of the policy should be deleted as it sets out an exception to the policy itself. There is also no definition of the ‘exceptional circumstances’ where rail based proposal would be permitted.
Reasoned Response
  1. Accepted. The policy and EM will be strengthened in line with the Transport Act to promote greater choice and sustainable distribution of freight, by recognising the potential of inland waterways, as well as rail, in providing a real alternative to moving freight by road. The policy will be cross-referenced to Resource Management Policy 12 to acknowledge potential for the transportation of minerals and waste, where suitable rail or waterway connections are available
     
  2. Accepted. The policy and EM will be strengthened in line with the Draft RPG to protect rail connected sites; and cross-referenced to Accessibility and Transport Policy 11 to safeguard disused railways and associated land from development with potential as rail freight links and also Employment Policy 6, paragraph 7.36.
     
  3. Not accepted. It is not appropriate to identify individual sites. This is a detailed land use issue and so is a matter for local plans and local transport plans.
     
  4. Not accepted. It is consistent with national and regional guidance to promote the sustainable distribution of goods via the rail freight network.
     
  5. Accepted. It is considered appropriate to delete reference to the ‘strategic road network’ in the policy, as the current wording is unclear, and define "significant " freight movements in the EM, to clarify the scale of development to which the policy will apply.
     
  6. Accepted. The revised policy provides clearer guidance, as amenity and environmental factors are vital considerations in determining where such developments will be permitted.
     
  7. Accepted. The revised policy provides a strategic framework and sufficient flexibly to allow for detailed land use issues to be dealt with through the local plans and for HGV movements in rural areas, where there is no real alternative other than moving freight by road. All policies in Plan should be read together, including those relating to Green Wedges and Areas of Separation.
     
  8. Not accepted. The final paragraph of policy should not be deleted because major freight generators, such as mineral workings, which could move freight by rail or waterway, may be located outside the areas to which development is generally being guided. However, consideration will be given to deleting paragraph 5.33 in the EM and replacing it with an example, to illustrate the ‘exceptional circumstances’ where rail or waterway based proposals will be permitted.
Proposed Policy Action
Pre-EIP Change.
Accessibility and Transport Policy 6: Freight
The possibility of rail or waterway connections will be fully explored for any development which generates significant freight movements. If rail or waterway movements is are not possible, provision for this development should be made in locations well served by the strategic where access to the principal road network is via roads suitable to take the predicted heavy goods vehicle traffic.
Land with potential for rail or waterway freight connections should be identified and protected from other developments. Development will not only be permitted where either if the development itself or its associated activities do not have an unacceptable impact
a.   residential amenity; or
b.   the character of the open countryside and rural areas.
on residential and visual amenity and the general appearance and character of the countryside.
Rail or waterway based proposals not in accordance with the above may, under exceptional circumstances, if there is an overriding sustainability benefit, be permitted provided that the development is driven by the need for rail or waterway access for the movement of goods.
List of Respondents
Ashby de la Zouch Town Council, Blaby District Council, British Waterways, British Waterways (Southern Region), Cawrey Ltd, Charnwood Borough Council, Corby District Council, The Countryside Agency, CPRE NW Leics, CPRE Charnwood, Harborough District Council, Leicester Civic Society, National Farmers Union, North West Leicestershire District Council, Pedigree Masterfoods, Railtrack PLC, RJB Mining Ltd, Transport 2000, Viridor Waste Management Ltd.
[ Summary of Proposed Pre-EIP Changes ]
EMPLOYMENT
Policy No.
Employment Policy 7: Safeguarding High Quality Employment Sites
Summary of Issues
  1. GOEM considers that there is no need for three policies to safeguard "key" employment sites. Paragraph 7.37 makes it clear that High Quality Employment Sites (HQES) and regional storage and distribution sites are "key" employment sites and are therefore subject to the safeguards of Employment Policy 6.
     
  2. GOEM also argues that in light of new Structure Plan policies, local planning authorities should review all local plan allocations, including HQES which have not received planning permission.
     
  3. Should make provision for additional HQES sites around East Midlands Airport and in the vicinity of Leicester.
Reasoned Response
  1. Accepted. The Structure Plan does not need three polices to safeguard "key" employment sites, including HQES for their intended purpose. Employment Policy 6 will safeguard such sites.
     
  2. Not accepted. All HQES allocated by local plans have gained planning permission and some development has taken place on such sites and therefore, the objection to this policy is inappropriate.
     
  3. Not accepted. There is insufficient evidence for the provision of additional HQES. The establishment of such sites is not precluded on existing employment land commitments.
Proposed Policy Action
Pre- EIP change
Delete Employment Policy 7
Employment Policy 7: Safeguarding High Quality Employment Sites
Employment land committed as High Quality Employment Sites should be safeguarded for this purpose.
List of Respondents
Arlington Securities PLC, Blaby District Council, David Wilson Estates Ltd & Wilson Bowden Developments, Government Office for the East Midlands, Harborough District Council, Long Whatton & Diseworth Parish Council, North West Leicestershire District Council
[ Summary of Proposed Pre-EIP Changes ]
Policy No.
Employment Policy 9: The Rural Economy
Summary of Issues
  1. It is unclear whether the rural employment development allowed for by this policy is included in or is additional to the employment land provisions proposed in Employment Policy 1.
     
  2. Concern is expressed that small scale employment developments in rural areas, may either individually or cumulatively result in the following:
  • adverse effects on the character of the area /village
  • increases in traffic on rural roads
  • adverse effects on the amenity of residents
  • damage to the environment.
    3. It is argued that the rural economy is wider than the economy of rural settlements. However, the policy takes no account of the scope to provide employment in the countryside in locations outside or adjoining rural centres or to recognise the needs of existing employers in rural areas who make an important contribution to the economy.
Reasoned Response
  1. Not accepted. Employment Policy 1 relates to the total quantity of employment land for B1, B2 and B8 uses (as defined by the Use Classes Order) to be provided for the Plan period, and its distribution. This total, therefore, also includes small scale Use Class B employment development. The proposed new Strategy Policy 3 indicates that land allocations will be made in rural centres and other rural settlements to meet local needs. Employment development taking place in and adjoining rural settlements either through local plan allocations or as a result of planning applications will contribute to the overall total indicated in Employment Policy 1.
     
    Paragraph 7.11 states that all land developed for employment purposes (Use Classes B1 to B8) including changes of use and the redevelopment of land and premises from other uses will be monitored against the totals proposed in the Plan.   
     
  2. Accepted in part. The policy provides environmental safeguards which it is considered largely meet the concerns expressed. More detailed guidance relating to the protection of the environment will be provided by local plans. However it is considered that the policy is inconsistent with regard to the provision of environmental safeguards in relation to rural centres and other rural settlements and the policy will be amended to overcome this.
     
    The need to protect residential amenity from the possible effects of employment development is recognised and acknowledged in the text (para 7.50). While this is a proper planning concern it is considered to be of a detailed nature that would more appropriately be addressed in a local plan.
     
    The policy does not address the possible cumulative effects of employment development on rural settlements and it is considered that in order to safeguard the local environment such reference should be made in the policy.
     
  3. Accepted. It is accepted that the ’rural economy’ also extends to businesses located in the Countryside and as such the title ‘Rural Economy ‘ for Employment Policy 9 is misleading. A more appropriate policy title should overcome these concerns.

     Employment Policy 9 relates to development in and adjoining rural centres and other rural settlements within the planned limits of the settlement. It is not, therefore, applicable or intended to apply to employment development in the Countryside, as defined in the Plan, which is addressed by Strategy Policy 9. In order to clarify the position reference should be made in the Explanatory Memorandum to the fact that this policy applies to the areas within the planned limits of settlements.
     
    The expansion of existing employment uses including those located in the Countryside is allowed for by Employment Policy 5, but where the use is located in the Countryside it will be in accordance with Strategy Policy 9.
Proposed Policy Action
Pre- EIP Change
Employment Policy 9: The Rural Economy Employment in Rural Settlements
Provision will be made within and adjoining rural centres and permitted in other rural settlements for employment development either in the form of new development or from the conversion of existing buildings subject to the proposal individually or cumulatively with other new development:
  • it being of a scale, character and type that is appropriate to the form, character and setting of the settlement rural centre; and
  • not having an unacceptable impact in terms of traffic generated, access or parking arrangements.
b) it does not lead to a dispersal of employment activities which would undermine the vitality of the rural centre.
Within and adjoining other settlements, small scale employment development will be permitted either in the form of new development or from the conversion of existing buildings, provided that it is in keeping with the form, character and setting of the village and will not have an unacceptable adverse impact in terms of traffic generated, access or parking arrangements.
In both rural centres and other settlements, priority will be given to the re-use of existing buildings, vacant, derelict and underused land.
List of Respondents
Appleby Heritage and Environment Movement, Bitteswell Parish Council, Blaby District Council, The Countryside Agency, Farming and Rural Conservation Agency, Government Office for the East Midlands, Harborough District Council, Leicestershire Institute of Directors, National Farmers Union, Newtown Linford Parish Council, Walker Morris, Wheatcroft and Son Ltd
1 individual respondent
[ Summary of Proposed Pre-EIP Changes ]
CENTRAL AREAS AND SHOPPING
Policy No.
Central Areas and Shopping Policy 2: Belgrave Road
Summary of Issues
  • This policy is not a Structure Plan matter and should be deleted. The desired enhancement of Belgrave Road could be mentioned in the supporting text of Central Areas and Shopping Policy 1.
Reasoned Response
  • Accepted. Policy should be deleted and the Explanatory Memorandum reworded to indicate the desire to enhance Belgrave Road.
Proposed Policy Action
Pre-EIP Change:
Delete Central Areas and Shopping Policy 2: Belgrave Road.
Central Areas and Shopping Policy 2: Belgrave Road New and replacement retail shops, services and other facilities will be encouraged and appropriate environmental improvements will be made to maintain and enhance the role of Belgrave Road as a shopping centre of international, national and regional renown.
List of Respondents
Carlton Parish Council, Government Office for the East Midlands, Harborough District Council.
[ Summary of Proposed Pre-EIP Changes ]
Policy No.
Central Areas and Shopping Policy 4: Out-of-Centre Retailing
Summary of Issues
  1. Retail needs up to 2016 have not been assessed. The policy should allow for the extension of out-of-centre facilities where it does not undermine facilities elsewhere; and to consider inclusion of other uses in the Motorway Retail Area.
     
  2. No evidence that town centres have the capacity to accommodate the majority of retail development.
     
  3. The policy is unduly negative and presumes against out-of-centre retailing. The maintenance and enhancement of vitality and viability should be applicable to both existing town centres and out-of-town retailing.
Reasoned Response
  1. Accepted. The need for further development should be addressed through regional level work on this although a sequential approach to site selection should be followed in line with PPG6 if such a need is identified.
     
  2. Not accepted. See Central Areas and Shopping Policy 1 response with regard to capacity of towns and the application of the sequential approach will achieve this.
     
  3. Not accepted. Out-of-centre retail developments will be subject to the key tests in Section 4 of PPG6 as clarified by Ministerial statement in February 1999. The redrafted Strategy Policy 2 stresses the importance of strategic considerations.
Proposed Policy Action
Pre-EIP Change:
Central Areas and Shopping Policy 4: Out-of-Centre Retailing
New out-of-centre retail and/or leisure and entertainment developments, or the significant incremental expansion of existing out-of-centre retail and/or leisure and entertainment developments will not be permitted unless there is a clearly defined and agreed need for the development, and:
a) no suitable sites are available within the central areas listed in Central Areas and Shopping Policy 1;
b) no suitable sites are available in edge-of-centre locations or in other local centres;
c) the proposal would not prejudice the development of allocated sites;
d) the proposal individually or cumulatively with other development proposals and or outstanding planning permissions, is not of a scale or kind which would seriously affect the vitality and viability of nearby town, district, local and village centres as a whole;
e) the proposal does not detrimentally affect the flow of future investment to existing centres, such investment being needed to sustain their vitality and viability, physical quality and attractiveness, the range of services which they offer and their role in the economic, cultural and social life of the community;
f) the proposal provides shopping and/or leisure and entertainment facilities in a location which meets the needs of most people in its catchment area by allowing easy, convenient and safe access by a realistic choice of transport;
g) the proposal’s impact upon car use and car parking provision is acceptable;
h) the proposal does not adversely affect the historic and/or natural environment; and
i) appropriate conditions on type of goods sold can be applied.
There is no requirement for a new regional or sub-regional shopping centre to serve the Plan Area.
New, or significant incremental expansion of retail or leisure and entertainment development should not be permitted in out of centre locations unless:
a.   there is a clearly defined and agreed need for the proposed development;
b.   no suitable sites are available in the sequentially preferred locations set out in Strategy Policy 3A or in district or local centres and the development is consistent with the scale and function of that centre;
c.  the proposal would not prejudice the development of other sites allocated for retail or leisure and entertainment development or the development of the proposal site for other purposes;
d.  the flow of investment to established centres can be shown to be of a level that will enable their vitality and viability to be maintained and enhanced taking into account the cumulative effect of the impact of other development proposals and outstanding planning permissions;
e.  easy, convenient and safe access for the population of the catchment area on foot or by a realistic choice of transport can be secured;
f.  impact on car use and car parking provision is acceptable;
g.  historic and natural environments are not adversely affected; and
h.  appropriate conditions on the type of goods sold can be applied.
There is no requirement for a new regional or sub regional shopping centre within the Plan Area.
List of Respondents
Ashby de la Zouch Town Council, Blaby District Council, Costco Wholesale UK Ltd, David Wilson Estates Ltd and Wilson Bowden Developments, Government Office for the East Midlands, Harborough District Council, Littman and Robeson, Wm Morrisons Supermarkets, Newton Linford Parish Council, North West Leicestershire District Council, Nottinghamshire County Council, Penwise Properties Limited, The Retail Park Unit Trust, Tesco Stores Ltd, Transport 2000.
1 individual respondent
[ Summary of Proposed Pre-EIP Changes | Pre-EIP Changes - Contents ]
Page Last Updated: 1 May 2003