I have considered the broad principles of the NPPF in my BLOG at:
Although the Framework should be read as a whole, I now consider the
document in a more specific manner related to various subject areas. I look here
at issues related to tourism and leisure development.
The full
NPPF document can be found at the link below. The numbers in brackets refer to
the relevant paragraph in the NPPF.
The biggest single benefit that the NPPF delivers is
that (to date) it has NOT revoked the “Good Practice Guide on Planning for
Tourism” published in 2006. This does not appear in the schedule of now defunct
policy guidance documents in Annex 3 to the Framework. As such it remains
active as material planning guidance for all kinds of tourism and leisure development.
TOURISM
Often
referred to in the same breath in planning policy text tourism and leisure are
distinct elements, even though there can be substantial cross-cut in
development terms. The NPPF refers to tourism only three times in the document;
once in relation to town centres, once in relation to the rural economy and
lastly within the definition of main town centre uses.
Starting with
the latter a main town centre use includes:
Main town centre
uses:
Retail development (including warehouse clubs and factory outlet centres);
leisure, entertainment facilities the more intensive sport and recreation uses
(including cinemas, restaurants, drive-through restaurants, bars and pubs,
night-clubs, casinos, health and fitness centres, indoor bowling centres, and bingo
halls); offices; and arts, culture and tourism
development (including theatres, museums, galleries and concert halls,
hotels and conference facilities).
The importance of this is that the focus in the NPPF is upon a ‘town centre first’ approach, with sequential testing of main town centre uses. Paragraph 24 states:
Local planning authorities should apply a sequential
test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an
existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. They
should require applications for main town centre uses to be located in town
centres, then in edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not
available should out of centre sites be considered. When considering edge of
centre and out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible
sites that are well connected to the town centre. Applicants and local planning
authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale.
So, a proposal
for a new hotel for example will clearly need to fulfill this sequential
requirement. But what of a proposal for an extension to an existing hotel that
is not in the town centre? Depending upon the scale of the proposal perhaps, there
may be an argument to suggest that the applicant will need to provide a
sequential test to demonstrate that the additional bedspaces/facilities could
not be provided closer in to the centre. The phrase “…only if suitable sites are not available…” gives credence to this
proposition.
Paragraph 25
goes on:
This sequential approach should not be applied to
applications for small scale rural offices or other small scale rural
development. (25)
Helpful perhaps
for those schemes in rural areas (but unhelpful as there is no reference to any
thresholds defining what ‘small scale’ might be). Paragraph 26 does refer to a
default threshold of 2,500 sq m (some 27,000 sq ft) but this depends upon
whether local thresholds have already been set in existing Local Plans.
This is something
to watch out for in forthcoming Local Plans because authorities may set
ludicrously low thresholds as a means of excluding development potential.
Much of our
tourism industry is located beyond the confines of settlements in the
countryside and the NPPF deals with tourism development in its rural policy
paragraph 28 which notes:
To promote a strong rural economy, local and
neighbourhood plans should: (inter alia)
- support sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit businesses in rural areas, communities and visitors, and which respect the character of the countryside. This should include supporting the provision and expansion of tourist and visitor facilities in appropriate locations where identified needs are not met by existing facilities in rural service centres; (28)
Here again
sustainable rural tourism goes undefined but is assumed to coincide with the
wider aspirations of the NPPF in paragraph 14 that establish the presumption in
favour of sustainable development. Essentially development that accords with
the development plan (Local Plan etc) should be approved. It is essential
therefore that one engages with the plan making process at an early stage to
ensure your particular tourism business and any future proposals are taken account
of in the adopted plan.
LEISURE
The provision
of leisure facilities is to be treated as a strategic priority for which
authorities are required to establish specific policies (156).
Here again
leisure development is absorbed within the definition of a main town centre uses
and there are relaxations for development in rural areas in the same way as for
tourism proposals.
As far as
ensuring the vitality of town centres is concerned the NPPF requires that:
In drawing up Local Plans, local planning authorities
should: (inter alia)
- allocate a range of suitable sites to meet the scale and type of retail, leisure, commercial, office, tourism, cultural, community and residential development needed in town centres. It is important that needs for retail, leisure, office and other main town centre uses are met in full and are not compromised by limited site availability. Local planning authorities should therefore undertake an assessment of the need to expand town centres to ensure a sufficient supply of suitable sites; (23)
This requirement
of the NPPF places the burden upon the authority to assess need and make
suitable provision through a supply of suitable
sites allocated in the Local Plan. The word ‘suitable’ is important as not
just any old land allocation will suffice. You should therefore ensure that the
authority is acquainted with your leisure sector and its development needs so
that it can take proper account of future requirements in the Plan.
As noted
above, in the absence of any particular local thresholds, a default position of
2,500 sq m is set as a trigger for requiring impact assessments. (26)
The overall
aim of the Framework is to encourage sustainable development and this includes
reducing the need to travel.
Planning policies should aim for a balance of land uses within their area so that people can be encouraged to minimise journey lengths for employment, shopping, leisure, education and other activities. (37)
This
reinforces the ‘town centres first’ approach where transport links and
accessibility are assumed to be at their greatest.
SUMMARY
Even reduced to 49 pages the Framework contains a
network of inter-related policy statements, all of which have some bearing upon
any particular proposal and I can do no more than highlight some of the key
issues.
The bigger issue will be ensuring engagement at the
local level. You have to be active in the Plan-Making process, or risk finding
that once the Plan is formalized and adopted there may be no room for maneuver,
however pro-active the Framework might like to appear.
I've been here before however during the 1990’s; appearing at over 40
Local Plan Inquiries and making written representations for many more.
My most recent appearance was in relation to the Isle of Wight Core
Strategy, where the Inspector accepted my submissions and made significant
beneficial alterations to the finally adopted Plan. This has ensured that significant
sectors of the tourism and leisure industry now have scope to achieve future
planning approvals, from a potential position of stagnation and limitation.
If you require further information in relation to the NPPF and its
implications for your business then please contact me at:
The full NPPF document can be found at:
No comments:
Post a Comment