MM10

Remove references within Policy SG6 that require proposals within centres or edge of centre to be of an appropriate scale and type or adding to its viability and vitality.

Modification MM10 amends Policy SG6 ‘Town centre uses’. The Modification to criteria (i) and (ii) does not however go far enough to secure consistency with National Policy. In terms of (i) it should not be necessary for proposals to demonstrate that they are of a “type, proportion and scale appropriate to the role and function of the centre”. Similarly the NPPF does not require proposals to “maintain or add” to the viability and vitality of a centre or enhance its diversity. The proposed Modifications do not therefore in this instance ensure that the plan is consistent with National Policy. In terms of National Policy, scale and type are only relevant considerations to planning policies in the context of allocating suitable sites within town centres and edge of centre sites for main town centre uses, in accordance with paragraphs 86 (d) and (e) of the NPPF. If the situation in Colchester had been one in which there had been no suitable town centre sites to meet needs and appropriate edge of centre sites could not be allocated, then there could be a policy that explained “how identified needs can be met in other accessible locations that are well connected to the town centre” by reference to scale and type (see the language in 86 (d) and (e). But that is not the situation here and it is completely at odds with National Policy for the Council to have a local policy that requires applications for development to be subject to scale and type considerations whether they are located in town centre, edge of centre or indeed elsewhere. The content of paragraph 86 (e) is not one that has application to development management in the context of a policy that is not seeking to allocate suitable sites. Its content should not be “appropriated” for other purposes
In terms of decision taking, Paragraph 87 of the NPPF requires a sequential test to be applied for proposals not within a centre, whilst paragraph 90 requires that proposals outside town centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date plan (and in excess of the relevant threshold), provide a retail impact assessment. This is to include an assessment of the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment and the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability. Policies that are cast to intrude beyond these considerations, in a situation where there are no extenuating local circumstances, cannot be justified. In considering consistency with National Policy it is relevant to note that PPS6 (2005) ‘Planning for Town Centres’ previously required applicants for proposals not within a centre to demonstrate: a) The need for development b) That the development is of an appropriate scale c) That there are no more central sites for the development d) That there are no unacceptable impacts on existing centres e) That locations are accessible PPS4 (2009) ‘Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth’ then removed the requirement for applicants to demonstrate need, requiring only sequential assessments and impact assessments for main town centre uses that are not in a centre and not in accordance with an up to date development plan. It is acknowledged that PPS4 did still require proposals, if located in or on the edge of a town centre, to be of an appropriate scale (in terms of gross floorspace) in relation to the size of the centre and its role in the hierarchy of centres. However, this did not relate to proposals in centre. With the publication of the NPPF in 2012, the requirement to demonstrate that a proposal was of an appropriate scale and type was however removed and instead the only tests remaining were that of the sequential assessment and the retail impact assessment (considering both impact on existing, committed and planned public and private investment and also impact on town centre vitality and viability). This purposefully deregulatory approach has been carried forward and reflects the only retail tests in the current NPPF (2021). It is therefore necessary for Policy SG6 to be further modified to remove criteria (i) and (ii) requiring proposals to demonstrate that they are of a “type, proportion and scale appropriate to the role and function of the centre” and that they “maintain or add” to the viability and vitality of a centre or enhance its diversity as these requirements are not consistent with National Policy

Please see attachment for full representation

Please see attachment for full representation