Policy TC8

Object

Representation ID: 3842

Received: 26/08/2021

Respondent: Roxton Parish Council

RPC suggests the policy is amended to include a 4th criteria where ‘change of use of public houses’ should be allowed e.g. iv The property is registered as an Asset of Community Value. Furthermore, RPC suggests the ACV initiative should remain as an adopted policy with the Local Plan 2040.

Support

Representation ID: 4664

Received: 01/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Denis Ivins

agree with this

Support

Representation ID: 4787

Received: 01/09/2021

Respondent: Great Denham Parish Council

The Council would like further clarity in how this policy will apply to other buildings governed by change of use planning permissions, for example sports/leisure buildings.

Support

Representation ID: 5305

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Alan Dickinson

I support all the TC policies, particularly TC8

Object

Representation ID: 5354

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Clare Buddle

“There is an alternative facility…” should be changed to “There is an alternative facility , readily accessible on foot or bicycle, within 1000 metres providing a similar service; and”

Object

Representation ID: 5666

Received: 07/09/2021

Respondent: Hallam Land Management

Agent: David Lock Associates

Hallam Land Management objects to the proposed Policy for Essential local shops and public houses and their change of use.

The approach is not consistent with national policy and no specific justification for it, that is consistent with national policy, is provided. Equally, what constitutes an essential service or facility is also not explained nor easily done – which types of shops – foodstore, nailbar etc.

If the policy is to preclude a congregation of hot food or similar retail elements, then it should say that.
In the absence of the justifications set out above, Hallam suggest that the policy is deleted and not pursued.
Were the policy to be retained, Hallam considers that the requirements of ii) should only apply to be consistent with paragraph 5.28 if there are no alternative facilities, with regard to i), within 1,000 metres or that a broad range of facilities is available. We believe the requirements for ii) should only applying when i) cannot be met. Otherwise, Hallam considers the requirements of ii) would be too onerous if alternative essential services are available within the 1,000 metres distance threshold. That definition should also be widened to address the breath of services in communities rather than simply distance which is arbitrary.

Hallam also considers criterion iii) to be vague in terms of ‘similar uses’ and would welcome clarity on this term. Without such clarification the objective of iii), appears to overlap with the objectives of Policy TC9 which seeks to guard against the impacts of concentrating similar, albeit “Town centre uses”. Hallam in this context questions whether iii) is necessary. Should it be so, then Hallam would also request the criterion to clarify that test it to be applied to the proposed use.

Equally even if uses are viable, there are planning and other justifications, that would permit alternative uses or purposes and the loss of such a facility as a result of wider benefits achieved. This should be recognised in any policy.

In context of the above concerns, Hallam therefore request a change in the wording of the policy, if contrary to Hallam’s view it is to be retained, which as such should be read as:

Policy TC8 – Essential local shops and public houses – changes of use
The Council will only grant planning permission for the change of use of essential local shops within Class F2 or public houses to other uses when:
i. There is an alternative facility within 1000 metres providing a similar service or a range of facilities available within a relevant definition of community; [and] or
ii. The applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Council that the current (or last) use is no longer economically viable (including in appropriate circumstances financial information); this can best be demonstrated by providing evidence that the property has been actively and appropriately marketed; or
iii. that the change of use of the facility is acceptable in planning terms and/or meets wider community of planning objectives.

The proposed use must [would] not lead to the concentration of similar uses whose cumulative impact would be to the detriment of environmental quality, amenity or parking, or would increase the risk of anti-social behaviour.

Note: Remove the words in [Square Brackets].

Support

Representation ID: 7938

Received: 20/09/2021

Respondent: Pavenham Parish council

That said, however, the Parish Council fully supports Policy TC8 – “Essential local shops and public houses”. Pavenham at present has no local shop – although the draft Neighbourhood Plan does contain a policy supporting the provision of an appropriately scaled local shop.
In addition, the village’s only public house is presently closed and its owner has placed it on the market for sale at a price which the Parish is unable to match. The Parish Council would oppose any attempt to demolish the public house or change its use.