Our Ref.: C/5887

Local Plan Pre Submission

Thank you for your email of 16 May consulting The Theatres Trust on the pre submission draft of the New Local Plan. Please find the Response Form attached - unfortunately when expanding item 7, I was then unable to access item 8, so include my full response below in the hope that someone can rescue my representation.

The Theatres Trust is The National Advisory Public Body for Theatres, and was established by The Theatres Trust Act 1976 to 'promote the better protection of theatres'. The Trust delivers statutory planning advice on theatre buildings and theatre use in England through The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (DMPO) requires the Trust to be consulted on planning applications which include 'development involving any land on which there is a theatre.'

7.
The document is unsound because it does not reflect item 70 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which states that to deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services that the community needs, planning policies and decisions should plan for the use of shared space and guard against unnecessary loss of valued facilities.

There are no policies to protect your social and cultural facilities to reflect the NPPF. Policy CT3 protects existing visitor accommodation, and Policy CT4 will extend cultural and leisure facilities in rural areas. However, the aspirations in the text of the section on Culture, Leisure and Tourism do not complement the policies that are supposed to support this text.

* para.3.112 states that as cultural assets such as theatres, cinemas, libraries etc enrich people's quality of life, it is appropriate to consider how planning can assist (presumably in their protection and enhancement).
* para.3.116 states that culture, leisure and tourism are important for centres to be vibrant and prosperous (i.e. 'valued facilities').
* para.3.128 says that 'meeting places, cultural facilities and public art are important features in sustainable communities (i.e. 'valued facilities').'
* para.3.129 says that 'new development will inevitably place demands on existing public meeting places such as community halls and public cultural facilities such as theatres, concert halls and libraries (i.e. 'valued facilities').'
* para.3.9 repeats para.3.112 regarding the importance of cultural assets with reference to policy PC0 which supports 'the important role of culture and leisure assets'.

Policy HS8 does protect community facilities, but is wholly inadequate in providing a comprehensive description for the term 'community facilities'. Paragraph 5.90 gives some D1 examples and says that other facilities (presumably cultural, leisure and tourism) may be protected, but only in exceptional circumstances. Theatres are sui generis, and all other entertainment facilities are D2 so are not included in this policy.

There is no policy in this document to protect your cultural, leisure and tourism facilities.

8.
There needs to be a clear definition for the term 'community facilities'. It is not adequate for Policy HS8 to only protect some community facilities, it should protect all to reflect item 70 of the NPPF. A comprehensive description for all community facilities should be included in the Glossary which would obviate the need to provide examples: community facilities provide for the health and wellbeing, social, educational, spiritual, recreational, leisure and cultural needs of the community.

If the council wishes to support its cultural, leisure and tourism offer, there must be clearer and more practical guidance in Policies PC0 and CT1.

For PC0 we suggest h) is amended to read to support existing culture and leisure assets for the important role they play in our communities and economy, .....

CT1 only deals with new developments and there is no mention of assessing existing venues and whether there is any requirement for new. We suggest there is an additional policy to protect and enhance existing cultural infrastructure if there is no amendment to Policy HS8 because, as stated previously, the document contains no policy to protect its existing successful and important cultural and leisure infrastructure.


Rose Freeman
Planning Policy Officer

I am responding to the current Draft Plan consultation on behalf of clients in whose interest it is for the plan to be found sound. I therefore do not wish to raise any formal objection to the Plan. However, I do have a number of concerns with the development management policies which I thought it might be helpful to point out at this stage, to enable you to address the issues prior to submission, if you consider it appropriate.

In essence, we consider many of the development management policies to be non-NPPF compliant and consequently at risk of being found unsound. This is on the basis that they are predominantly negatively worded; they set out a restrictive set of circumstances where development will be permitted, thereby implying that development will not be permitted in any other circumstances. This appears to be contrary to the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development which requires plans to "positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area" and a positive approach to policy making which should permit development unless "any adverse effects of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits."

The Colman High Court decision (Colman v SSCLG [2013] EWHC 1138 (Admin.)), has determined that any restrictive development management policy (except in the Green Belt) is likely to conflict with the NPPF "cost benefit approach".

I have picked out a few specific policies below which I am particularly concerned about:

EC1 Directing New Employment Development

This policy is not in accordance with the NPPF and is in conflict with the previous Draft Local Plan policy, PC0 Prosperous Communities.

Policy PC0 promotes sustainable economic development to support a vibrant and thriving economy to deliver the jobs the District needs which is in accordance with the NPPF. However, policy EC1 which sets out how this economic development will be delivered is overly restrictive and not positively worded. For example, this lists only certain circumstances where new employment development will be permitted in both urban and rural areas. This is in conflict with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 and Chapter 1, Building a strong, competitive economy, Chapter 2, Ensuring the vitality of town centres and Chapter 3, Supporting a prosperous rural economy. Being inconsistent with national policy, this policy is unsound virtue of NPPF paragraph 182.

Specifically in relation to rural areas, this policy places additional burdens on applicants, such as the requirement to demonstrate that traffic movements will not be significantly increased and impact on the landscape. The supporting text states that "It is important that this Plan allows appropriate rural enterprise to grow and expand whilst protecting the countryside from development and uses which should be directed to urban areas." Whereas the NPPF supports growth and expansion of "all types of business and enterprise in rural areas" (paragraph 28).

It is also poorly drafted and unclear as it refers to criteria A-C but lists criteria 1-3.

EC2 Farm Diversification

This policy is not in accordance with the NPPF and in conflict with the previous policy, PC0 Prosperous Communities, in the draft Local Plan.

NPPF paragraph 28 supports both conversion of existing buildings and well-designed new buildings and promotes "the development and diversification of agriculture and other land-based rural businesses". Conversely, policy EC2 introduces additional burdens which will restrict development, for example that existing buildings are used in preference to new buildings. Being inconsistent with national policy, this policy is unsound virtue of NPPF paragraph 182.

TC1-18; these policies all add additional burdens and requirements which are not contained in the NPPF. These are in conflict with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 and Chapter 1, Building a strong, competitive economy and Chapter 2, Ensuring the vitality of town centres.

CT1-CT7; these policies all add additional burdens and requirements which are not contained in the NPPF. These are in conflict with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 and Chapter 1, Building a strong, competitive economy, Chapter 2, Ensuring the vitality of town centres and Chapter 3, Supporting a prosperous rural economy.

BE4 Converting Rural Buildings.

This policy is not in accordance with the NPPF which supports development which would "re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting". This policy places a raft of additional burdens on applicants which appear to have been lifted from the cancelled PPS7 and would restrict development.

TR1-5; these policies all add additional burdens and requirements which are not contained in the NPPF. These are in conflict with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 and Chapter 1, Building a strong, competitive economy and Chapter 4 promoting sustainable transport.

In particular, TR1 Access and Choice, is negatively worded. Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that "development should only be refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe". In direct conflict, this policy specifies that development will only be permitted if it satisfies a list of requirements.

NE4 Landscape

This policy proposes that development will only be permitted where it positively contributes to landscape character; the NPPF contains no such requirement. The NPPF is clear that great weight should be placed on conserving landscape and scenic beauty is designated areas (such as National Parks and areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and that development should be located in areas of lesser environmental value. Blanket protection on all landscape via the Local Plan would frustrate the delivery of sustainable development to meet the District's needs.

On behalf of Canal & River Trust we have now had an opportunity to review the document and have the following comments to make:-

Policy DS17 Supporting Canalside Regeneration and Enhancement

We welcome a policy which sets out the requirements of a specific development plan document relating to canalside development. We would be happy to liaise with the Council on production of such a document. The canals can be used as tools in place making and place shaping supporting regeneration.

Culture, Leisure and Tourism

We welcome the references to the canal network as a historic asset and visitor attraction. We also consider the canals are built heritage assets representing a unique working heritage of industrial architecture, archaeology and engineering structures. We welcome the inclusion of policies within the plan relating to ensuring that development protects, enhances and promotes the special qualities of the historic assets within the District. We consider the canals are important tourism visitor destinations and attractions in attracting day-trippers, overnight stays, domestic and foreign visitors, and weekend and short breaks, as well as providing links to other visitor destinations and attractions.

Policy CT4 Extensions to Tourism, Cultural or Leisure Facilities in Rural Areas

We note the requirements of Policy CT4 Extensions to Tourism, Cultural or Leisure Facilities in Rural Areas. However, the canals are non-footloose assets therefore certain types of development and uses are dependent on the location of waterway infrastructure. This should be recognised to ensure that tourism opportunities relating to the canals can be viewed flexibly for their long term sustainability of the canals.

Policy NE7: Use of Waterways

We welcome the inclusion of a policy relating to the canals within the District and the policy requirements reflect many of our principles.

Any references within the document to us should read Canal & River Trust (with an ampersand "&" not the word "and").

We note that the explanation requires the submission of information relating to discharges to the canal with a planning application. We would suggest that ideally a developer should agree with us if a discharge would be acceptable prior to submission of a formal planning application. Our discharge process is separate to our function as a statutory consultee and has timescales which do not necessarily align with the planning process. Planning permission should not be granted for a form of drainage which may not be implementable.

We would suggest the following changes to the wording:-
Detailed information will need to be submitted to the Canal and & River Trust including calculations showing the relevant catchment areas, run off quantities, outfall size(s) and location(s) and the sizing of oil and silt traps that will be required for their assessment. This must be done prior to submitting when a planning application is submitted for development. Advice of the Environment Agency may also be required.

Local Plan Policies Maps

Our review of the Local Plan Policies Maps has identifies a number of housing commitments (Map 2 H11, H16 and H13; Map 3 H16 and H13; and Map 29 H29 and H30) immediately adjacent to the canal and an employment protection site (Map 3 TC12).

We would require any development at these allocations to not adversely affect the integrity of the waterway structure, quality of the water, result in unauthorised discharges and run off or encroachment; detrimentally affect the landscape, heritage, ecological quality and character of the waterways; prevent the waterways potential for being fully unlocked or discourage the use of the waterway network. We would seek for any development to relate appropriately to the waterway and optimise the benefits such a location can generate for all parts of the community.

Please let me know if you need any further information in regard to the comments above.

see attached