Preferred Options

We write on behalf of our client Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd and are instructed to submit comments on their behalf in respect of the above document.
Sainsbury's has a longstanding interest in the Borough and operates the Leamington food superstore, as well as stores in Warwick and Kenilworth.
Nature of Comments
Our comments relate to:
 Policy PO9: Retailing & Town Centres
 Policy PO12: Climate Change
Policy PO9: Retailing & Town Centres
Policy PO9 of the New Local Plan Preferred Options document sets out a series of strategic policy objectives as the Council's preferred option for retail and town centre policy.
As currently drafted, Policy PO9 does not go far enough in setting the requirements for retail provision and town centres, which should be founded on a clear evidence base. The draft policy states the need to set out a clearly defined local retail hierarchy, strategies for the district's centres, and to define the extent of town centres and primary shopping areas and set policies that make clear which uses will be permitted in such locations.
However, the draft policy does not include any detail as to what the Council's Preferred Option is for the retail hierarchy and strategies for the district centres, or the extent of the town centres and primary shopping areas. Therefore, at this stage the Council's preferred policy option for retail and town
centres is unclear. The 'strategy' should not be reserved for Site Allocations documents as it does not provide sufficient direction or clarity.
Notwithstanding the concerns with the policy set out above, the fifth 'strategic objective' of draft Policy PO9 does not reflect the positive approach to economic growth advocated in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). As currently worded, the objective is to:
"Strongly resist out-of-centre retail development unless it can be proven that there will be no adverse impacts on other town/ local centres in the catchment area".
There is no justification based on the strategy set out, that such an approach is appropriate. Paragraph 19 of the NPPF states that "planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth", while paragraph 23 states that "planning policies should be positive". As worded, the starting point for the policy is to 'resist' development, which runs contrary to the positive approach as set out in the NPPF.
Whilst retail development should be encouraged in existing centres, it should be clear within Policy PO9 that any retail developments outside of the identified centres will be assessed in accordance with the sequential approach as well as a consideration of impact on other centres in the catchment area. This approach accords with national policy.
Therefore the Policy PO9 should be worded to reflect a positive approach to determining applications for main town centre uses outside of existing centres, providing that they are in accordance with the sequential approach and consideration of impact.
Policy PO12: Climate Change
Policy PO12 of the New Local Plan Preferred Options document sets out the Council's preferred option for a framework to support the reduction of carbon emissions within the District and ensure that buildings are resilient to the potential impacts of Climate Change.
While we welcome the Council's commitment to sustainable development, a requirement in Policy PO12 to seek a 20% reduction in carbon emissions from developments of 100sqm or more, may not be the appropriate mechanism for achieving sustainability and energy efficiency within new developments.
Paragraph 95 of the NPPF states that "when setting any local requirement for a buildings sustainability, do so in a way consistent with the Government's zero carbon buildings policy and adopt nationally described standards".
The Government's Zero Carbon Buildings Policy is being implemented through the Building Regulations. Therefore in the absence of robust viability evidence to support a target for reduction in carbon emissions, adopting Building Regulations standards would be more appropriate as the local energy standard for carbon reductions. On this basis, the requirement in PO12 to seek a 20% reduction in carbon emissions should be removed.
Paragraph 158 of the NPPF clearly states that "each local planning authority should ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence" and strategies should "take full account of relevant market and economic signals."
It is unclear as to how the 20% target for reduction in carbon emissions in Policy PO12 has been derived from the three separate evidence base studies. We would also highlight that these studies have been completed in advance of the NPPF and therefore does not consider the policies as stated in paragraphs 95, 158 and 173, nor do they consider the impact of significant changes to Building Regulations.
Paragraph 173 of the NPPF states that "sites should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened." We feel that in its current form, the policy could be overly onerous and could therefore threaten the viability of a development.
Notwithstanding the above, there is no indication within Policy PO12 as to what the baseline is for assessing a 20% reduction in carbon emissions. Whilst it is assumed that the baseline would be the existing 2010 Building Regulations, the council should be aware that they have no evidence to demonstrate the impact of a 20% reduction above this standard.
Furthermore, whilst Policy PO12 states that non residential developments will be required to meet BREEAM standards, no indication is provided as to what level of BREEAM standard would be sought. As with the target for reduction in carbon emissions, no assessment of viability within the supporting evidence base to qualify a requirement to meet BREEAM standards.

We write on behalf of our client Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd and are instructed to submit comments on their behalf in respect of the above document.
Sainsbury's has a longstanding interest in the Borough and operates the Leamington food superstore, as well as stores in Warwick and Kenilworth.
Nature of Comments
Our comments relate to:
 Policy PO9: Retailing & Town Centres
 Policy PO12: Climate Change
Policy PO9: Retailing & Town Centres
Policy PO9 of the New Local Plan Preferred Options document sets out a series of strategic policy objectives as the Council's preferred option for retail and town centre policy.
As currently drafted, Policy PO9 does not go far enough in setting the requirements for retail provision and town centres, which should be founded on a clear evidence base. The draft policy states the need to set out a clearly defined local retail hierarchy, strategies for the district's centres, and to define the extent of town centres and primary shopping areas and set policies that make clear which uses will be permitted in such locations.
However, the draft policy does not include any detail as to what the Council's Preferred Option is for the retail hierarchy and strategies for the district centres, or the extent of the town centres and primary shopping areas. Therefore, at this stage the Council's preferred policy option for retail and town
centres is unclear. The 'strategy' should not be reserved for Site Allocations documents as it does not provide sufficient direction or clarity.
Notwithstanding the concerns with the policy set out above, the fifth 'strategic objective' of draft Policy PO9 does not reflect the positive approach to economic growth advocated in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). As currently worded, the objective is to:
"Strongly resist out-of-centre retail development unless it can be proven that there will be no adverse impacts on other town/ local centres in the catchment area".
There is no justification based on the strategy set out, that such an approach is appropriate. Paragraph 19 of the NPPF states that "planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth", while paragraph 23 states that "planning policies should be positive". As worded, the starting point for the policy is to 'resist' development, which runs contrary to the positive approach as set out in the NPPF.
Whilst retail development should be encouraged in existing centres, it should be clear within Policy PO9 that any retail developments outside of the identified centres will be assessed in accordance with the sequential approach as well as a consideration of impact on other centres in the catchment area. This approach accords with national policy.
Therefore the Policy PO9 should be worded to reflect a positive approach to determining applications for main town centre uses outside of existing centres, providing that they are in accordance with the sequential approach and consideration of impact.
Policy PO12: Climate Change
Policy PO12 of the New Local Plan Preferred Options document sets out the Council's preferred option for a framework to support the reduction of carbon emissions within the District and ensure that buildings are resilient to the potential impacts of Climate Change.
While we welcome the Council's commitment to sustainable development, a requirement in Policy PO12 to seek a 20% reduction in carbon emissions from developments of 100sqm or more, may not be the appropriate mechanism for achieving sustainability and energy efficiency within new developments.
Paragraph 95 of the NPPF states that "when setting any local requirement for a buildings sustainability, do so in a way consistent with the Government's zero carbon buildings policy and adopt nationally described standards".
The Government's Zero Carbon Buildings Policy is being implemented through the Building Regulations. Therefore in the absence of robust viability evidence to support a target for reduction in carbon emissions, adopting Building Regulations standards would be more appropriate as the local energy standard for carbon reductions. On this basis, the requirement in PO12 to seek a 20% reduction in carbon emissions should be removed.
Paragraph 158 of the NPPF clearly states that "each local planning authority should ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence" and strategies should "take full account of relevant market and economic signals."
It is unclear as to how the 20% target for reduction in carbon emissions in Policy PO12 has been derived from the three separate evidence base studies. We would also highlight that these studies have been completed in advance of the NPPF and therefore does not consider the policies as stated in paragraphs 95, 158 and 173, nor do they consider the impact of significant changes to Building Regulations.
Paragraph 173 of the NPPF states that "sites should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened." We feel that in its current form, the policy could be overly onerous and could therefore threaten the viability of a development.
Notwithstanding the above, there is no indication within Policy PO12 as to what the baseline is for assessing a 20% reduction in carbon emissions. Whilst it is assumed that the baseline would be the existing 2010 Building Regulations, the council should be aware that they have no evidence to demonstrate the impact of a 20% reduction above this standard.
Furthermore, whilst Policy PO12 states that non residential developments will be required to meet BREEAM standards, no indication is provided as to what level of BREEAM standard would be sought. As with the target for reduction in carbon emissions, no assessment of viability within the supporting evidence base to qualify a requirement to meet BREEAM standards.

Policy PO12 of the New Local Plan Preferred Options document sets out the Council's preferred option for a framework to support the reduction of carbon emissions within the District and ensure that buildings are resilient to the potential impacts of Climate Change.
While we welcome the Council's commitment to sustainable development, a requirement in Policy PO12 to seek a 20% reduction in carbon emissions from developments of 100sqm or more, may not be the appropriate mechanism for achieving sustainability and energy efficiency within new developments.
Paragraph 95 of the NPPF states that "when setting any local requirement for a buildings sustainability, do so in a way consistent with the Government's zero carbon buildings policy and adopt nationally described standards".
The Government's Zero Carbon Buildings Policy is being implemented through the Building Regulations. Therefore in the absence of robust viability evidence to support a target for reduction in carbon emissions, adopting Building Regulations standards would be more appropriate as the local energy standard for carbon reductions. On this basis, the requirement in PO12 to seek a 20% reduction in carbon emissions should be removed.
Paragraph 158 of the NPPF clearly states that "each local planning authority should ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence" and strategies should "take full account of relevant market and economic signals."
It is unclear as to how the 20% target for reduction in carbon emissions in Policy PO12 has been derived from the three separate evidence base studies. We would also highlight that these studies have been completed in advance of the NPPF and therefore does not consider the policies as stated in paragraphs 95, 158 and 173, nor do they consider the impact of significant changes to Building Regulations.
Paragraph 173 of the NPPF states that "sites should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened." We feel that in its current form, the policy could be overly onerous and could therefore threaten the viability of a development.
Notwithstanding the above, there is no indication within Policy PO12 as to what the baseline is for assessing a 20% reduction in carbon emissions. Whilst it is assumed that the baseline would be the existing 2010 Building Regulations, the council should be aware that they have no evidence to demonstrate the impact of a 20% reduction above this standard.
Furthermore, whilst Policy PO12 states that non residential developments will be required to meet BREEAM standards, no indication is provided as to what level of BREEAM standard would be sought. As with the target for reduction in carbon emissions, no assessment of viability within the supporting evidence base to qualify a requirement to meet BREEAM standards.