HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
PLANNING AND EXTERNAL RELATIONS PANEL
TUESDAY 16 SEPTEMBER 2008 AT 10.00 AM
PROPOSED CHANGES TO PLANNING POLICY STATEMENT 6: PLANNING FORTOWN CENTRES JULY 2008
Report of the Director of Environment
Author: Russell Monck
Tel: 01992 555234
Executive Member:Derrick Ashley (Planning, Partnerships and Waste)
1.Purpose of Report
1.1To inform the Panelof the above consultation and request their views on the proposed response to be sent to the Department of Communities and Local Government before 3rd October deadline.
2.Summary
2.1The Government have recently (10 July 2008) published a consultation on revisions to Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centres. This follows the commitment made in the Planning White Paper ‘Planning for a Sustainable Future’ to review the current approach to PPS6 for assessing the impact of proposals outside of town centres, with a view to maintaining a strong focus on the ’town centre’ first policy.
2.2The suggested revision to PPS6 retains the ‘sequential approach’ to development but removes the ‘needs test’ and replaces it with a more broadly defined ‘impact test’ covering a range of factors from retail diversity to job creation and regeneration.
2.3This report highlights the main proposed changes as to how the government wish to strengthen policy on positive planning for town centres and change the way in which some applications for development outside town centres are considered and tested.
3 Recommendation
3.1That a response in line with that proposed in the Appendix to this report be sent to the Department of Communities and Local Government by the Director of the Environment as agreed by the Executive Member.
4.Background
4.1The intention to review PPS6 was trailed in the Planning White Paper and followed on from the conclusions of the 2006 Barker Review of Land Use Planning. It was considered that the requirement for applicants to demonstrate the need for any retail or leisure proposals outside of town centres was having an unintended effect of restricting competition and limiting consumer choice.
4.2The government believe that successful town centres need a good mix of shops and services. Differentbut complementary uses during the day and the evening can reinforce eachother, making town centres more attractive to local residents, shoppers andvisitors. For example, a broad range of retailer representation is likely to increasethe attractiveness of a town centre and will promote competition and consumerchoice. Larger retail stores can strengthen a centre’s retail offer and perform animportant anchor role, increase linked trips and pedestrian activity.
4.3The White Paper argued that the proposed revisions to town centre policy have two clear objectives. First, they must support current and prospective town centre investment, which contributes to economic prosperity, and to our social and environmental goals. The White Paper said that simply to remove the ‘needs test’ could put this at risk. Second, that it is important to ensure that planning promotes competition and consumer choice and does not unduly or disproportionately constrain the market.
4.4Since publishing the White Paper the Government has engaged with stakeholders on its proposals. The consultation paper takes into account the feedback from this engagement. It also takes into account the recommendations of the Competition Commission inquiry. The government now seeks views on policy changes which take forward the Planning White Paper proposals, the proposed approach to the preparation of supporting practice guidance, as well as the accompanying Partial Impact Assessment of the proposals.
5.Proposed Changes to PPS6 Consultation’ – Key Changes
5.1The consultation document outlines proposed changes to a number of the paragraphs in the current PPS6 however the main changes relate to how some planning applications should be considered and tested. The proposals remove the requirement for an applicant to demonstrate ‘need’ for a proposal which is in an edge of centre or out of centre location and which is not in accordance with an up to date development plan strategy. However this is replaced by a wider “impact assessment” framework - see 4.4 below.
5.2Other changes are as follows:-
Widening the Objectives: Whilst the Government’s overarching objective to promote the vitality and viability of town centres remains the same, new objectives are introduced around promoting competition between retailers and secondly ‘raising the productivity growth rate of the UK economy – through tackling market failures around investment, innovation, competition, skills and enterprise – and maximising job opportunities for all’. There are also two additions to the list of the Government’s wider policy objectives that are of relevance - tackling climate change and building prosperous communities - by improving the economic performance of sub regions.
Refining the Plan-Led Approach: As before regional and local planning authorities are directed to ‘actively promote growth and manage change in town centres; define a network and a hierarchy of centres; and adopt a proactive, plan-led approach to planning for town centres through regional and local planning’. In the revisions greater emphasis is placed on the plan-led approach having regard to the strategic objectives set out in the Regional Economic Strategy, the need for up-to-date plans and ones that use a robust evidence base. Various new references are made to local authorities now using relevant market information and economic data including price signals to inform tools such as area action plans and when assessing the need for additional development.
Growth Management: There appears to be a shift in emphasis with respect to growth management. The proposed PPS6 directs regional planning bodies to develop a strategic framework for the development of network of centres in their region ‘which supports the broad pattern of growth’, replacing the previous consideration to take into account the need to avoid over-concentration of growth in higher level centres. Local Authorities are encouraged to ‘take opportunities to expand their town centres and to identify development opportunities for a wide range of shopping, leisure and local services that enhance consumer choice and promote competition’.
Assessing Need: Under the revised PPS6 local authorities will continue to assess the need and capacity for additional retail and leisure development in their areas. However, the new guidance places qualitative considerations, such as considering the needs of those living in deprived areas, on a more equal footing with quantitative considerations when assessing the need for development.
Development Control Changes: Changes to the way in which applications are considered and tested are the most significant of all the changes in the consultation document. Applicants will no longer be required to demonstrate the need for their development as the Government considers this existing requirement to be thwarting competition.
5.3As before the sequential approach to site selection (which prioritises existing centres over edge-of-centre locations and edge-of-centre locations over out-of-centre sites) should still be applied to all development proposals for sites that are not in an existing town centre nor allocated in an up-to-date development plan document.
5.4The Government is proposing an enhanced impact assessment for any application for a main town centre use over 2500 square metres of gross floorspace which would be in an edge of-town-centre or out of town-centre location and which is not in accordance with an up-to-date development plan (note the threshold for preparing impact assessments remains unchanged).
5.5An assessment of impact may also be necessary for a development of less than this threshold if it is likely to have a significant impact on smaller town centres. The assessment should cover both positive and negative impacts. The impact considerations that local authorities need to take account of are supplemented by three new elements:
the design of development,
its integration with surrounding areas; and
the extent to which the proposal contributes to or fails to deliver sustainability objectives such as tackling climate change.
5.6It is indicated that proposals that ‘fail’ against these criteria are likely to be unacceptable, irrespective of any wider benefits of a proposal. Various considerations such as accessibility and travel, regeneration and employment generation are now also included within the overall umbrella of the impact test.
5.7Importantly the government advises that in selecting suitable sites for development, local planning authorities will need to ensure that the scale of opportunities identified are directly related to the role and function of the centre and its catchment and take account of relevant market information and economic data, including land values. Uses which attract a large number of people should therefore be located within centres that reflect the scale and catchment of the development proposed. The scale of development should relate to the role and function of the centre within the wider hierarchy and the catchment served.
5.8The consultation will run for twelve weeks and end on 3 October 2008. A final revised planning policy statement is expected to be published in early 2009, together with supporting practice guidance
6.Conclusions
6.1In launching the consultation the Secretary of State Hazel Blears said "I want to see our town centres and independent shops busy and thriving and I'm absolutely committed to help defend their future...We need a policy which provides the right degree of protection for smaller retailers." The launch statement goes on to say that the "blunt and simplistic" and "dysfunctional" need test is, in part, being replaced by a "tougher" impact test.
6.2Despite the Secretary of State’s assertions the thrust of the changes suggest a greatly enhanced role for the issue of competition and economic performance in planning decisions. Nearly all of the supporting analysis and justification for the revisions concentrates on the perceived constraints of current policy on the large store sector. Clearly, the changes are intended to ease development of such new stores. Given the launch statement, remarkably there is nothing of substance in the document on the Government's intended policy for small and independent retailers.
6.3As with the previous version of PPS6 additionalpractice guidance is promised for the practical application of these tests, and how they are intended to work in detail. Given the now considerably enlarged scope and importance of impact testing such guidance will be crucial for the effective, and consistent application of the policy. The failure to produce good practice guides for the 2005 version of PPS6 often resulted in inconsistent decision making.
6.4The message from the Government is clear; planning authorities must give considerable weight to the promotion and furtherance of economic objectives. What is not quite so clear at this stage is the weight that will be given to such factors in the development control process. The clue is in the proposed abolition of the need test for applicants promoting development on edge or out of centre sites not in accordance with the plan. If planning authorities don't identify sufficient sites, they may find consenting schemes harder to resist on unallocated sites.
7.Financial Implications
7.1There are no financial implications arising directly from this report.
Background papers:
Proposed Changes to Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centres Consultation
Appendix 1:
Consultation Questions
A number of questions have been raised in the PPS6 consultation document,these are listed below: (draft officer response in bold/italics)
1 Will the proposed changes support current and prospective town centre investment?
The new test is likely to help contribute to the growth in deliverable proposals however, the policies need to be flexible in order to respond to economic changes and commercial/business needs. It is important that new retail and leisure developments continue to be focused within town centre locations, however, in the smaller centres it is equally important that new development does not diminish the attractiveness of the often smaller existing retailers many of whom are independents or niche operators as opposed to those owned by national multiplies.
2. Does the scope of the new impact test achieve the right balance and is it robustenough to thoroughly test the positive and negative impacts of development outsidetown centres?
Whilst the inclusion of ‘assessing need’ is welcomed national and regional strategies should identify that each town can have different and sometimes unique requirements. Adding value to towns can be best progressed by policy that recognises their role in the economy and lives of the catchment population. The practice guidance will have an important role to play in the assessment of regional hierarchies and the establishment of need see 7 below.
3. Is there scope to simplify and streamline the various impact considerations further?
It is important that smaller towns and centres that historically do not possess such good accessibility as the larger centres do not miss out on appropriate levels of investment and thus depriving choice to local residents. It would seem logical to identify further the scale of developments that could be acceptable in these smaller centres. It is important to consider whether any adverse impacts of any retail or leisure proposals are outweighed by wider economic and social benefits.
4. Is the consideration of consumer choice and retail diversity as part of assessingthe impact of a proposal appropriate and will it be sufficient to help promotecompetition?
A successful town is about competition; having the right ingredients to attract visitors, being accessible and promoting a feeling of being a safe place to visit,however, consumer choice changes rapidly so policy should be flexible enough to deal with changing preferences.
5. It has been suggested by some stakeholders that we should consider limiting impactassessments to larger development proposals and that it should be confined to retaildevelopments. PPS6 and our proposed revisions maintain a flexible approach to thepreparation of impact assessments for all main town centre uses and do not limitassessments to larger developments or retail proposals. Do you think our flexibleapproach should be retained?
A flexible approach that provides opportunities for local interpretation should be promoted albeit within a town centre first policy, any out-of town developments would be fully tested to ensure they do not impact greatly on the health of existing centres. Town centres are not just about retailing there are other functions such as housing, social, culture leisure that provide a focus for the community.
6. Are the existing health check indicators in Chapter 4 sufficient to enable informedjudgments to be made about the various impact considerations which have beenidentified?
Yes - they help to define the robustness of a shopping area and whether market changes are affecting vitality. This in turn assists with decision making in light of existing polices and also helps define future strategies for building on success or achievable action for improvements as well as measurable and achievable performance targets.
7. Do you agree with the proposed approach to the practice guidance which willsupport PPS6?
The practice guidance should clearly outline the technical work required to be commissioned by the Regional Planning Bodyto establish the nature of, and possible change to the regional hierarchies to inform reviews of RSSs.
It is important that the practice guidance is produced in line with the publication of the finalised PPS.
8. Do you have other comments on the scope of the proposed changes?
The difficulty withgrowth management aims by expecting town centre boundaries to expand when considering suburban centres is not fully recognised. Such centres have residential properties up to the boundary of the town centreand the impact of having extended town centre boundaries needs to be carefully considered. Development proposals should first seek to expand within the existing confines of the town as defined by the sequential test.
1