Publication

Search representations

Results for JR Cozens Wiley Ltd search

New search New search

Object

Publication

Policy 7.4 Village Clusters

Representation ID: 24340

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: JR Cozens Wiley Ltd

Number of people: 2

Agent: La Ronde Wright

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Policy 7.4 is considered to be unjustified, ineffective, inconsistent with national policy and not positively prepared due to the restrictive nature of the policy and its ultimate undermining of the vitality of village clusters.

Policy 7.4 states that small scale employment uses will be acceptable in principle within development boundaries. This is permitted through the reuse of rural buildings or through the potential expansion of existing employment sites. However, policy 7.4 does not mention development that is adjacent to, or relates well to development boundaries. As such, the policy is considered to be overly restrictive, not allowing for the realistic or growth and expansion of employment uses. As such the policy is considered to be detrimental to rural economies which rely upon local jobs for local people and localised footfall to sustain existing service provision. As such, the policy is inconsistent with national policy, namely paragraphs 83 and 84 of the NPPF and ultimately, paragraph 35.

Looking at the impact that COVID-19 has had upon the working environment, there are new pressures upon employers to provide sites that can adhere to principles such as social distancing. Additionally, employers are looking for more flexible arrangements for employees, such as utilising smaller office spaces and capitalising upon the ability to work from home. As such the proliferation of small office spaces across the district would help aid rural economies, and by being small in nature, would not undermine the larger allocations within the plan. Additionally, given the rise in new home-based businesses, smaller workspaces and offices are seeing an increased demand at the expense of larger more industrial units and sites. Policy 7.4 does not acknowledge or address this trend, and instead is considered to be unjustified and ineffective.

As such, it is considered that the current plan is not positively prepared as it does not adequately address the radical change in employment practices of the previous year. Coupling this with the overly restrictive policy, it is considered that the proposed plan will have a detrimental impact upon rural economies whilst protecting antiquated employment strategies. It is therefore considered that the GNLP is not compliant with national policies and the aspiration to support and facilitate rural economies and therefore is considered in conflict with paragraph 35 of the NPPF.

Object

Publication

Settlement Map

Representation ID: 24341

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: JR Cozens Wiley Ltd

Number of people: 2

Agent: La Ronde Wright

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Policy 7.4 is considered to be unjustified, ineffective, inconsistent with national policy and not positively prepared due to the restrictive nature of the policy and its ultimate undermining of the vitality of village clusters.

Policy 7.4 states that small scale employment uses will be acceptable in principle within development boundaries. This is permitted through the reuse of rural buildings or through the potential expansion of existing employment sites. However, policy 7.4 does not mention development that is adjacent to, or relates well to development boundaries. As such, the policy is considered to be overly restrictive, not allowing for the realistic or growth and expansion of employment uses. As such the policy is considered to be detrimental to rural economies which rely upon local jobs for local people and localised footfall to sustain existing service provision. As such, the policy is inconsistent with national policy, namely paragraphs 83 and 84 of the NPPF and ultimately, paragraph 35.

Looking at the impact that COVID-19 has had upon the working environment, there are new pressures upon employers to provide sites that can adhere to principles such as social distancing. Additionally, employers are looking for more flexible arrangements for employees, such as utilising smaller office spaces and capitalising upon the ability to work from home. As such the proliferation of small office spaces across the district would help aid rural economies, and by being small in nature, would not undermine the larger allocations within the plan. Additionally, given the rise in new home-based businesses, smaller workspaces and offices are seeing an increased demand at the expense of larger more industrial units and sites. Policy 7.4 does not acknowledge or address this trend, and instead is considered to be unjustified and ineffective.

As such, it is considered that the current plan is not positively prepared as it does not adequately address the radical change in employment practices of the previous year. Coupling this with the overly restrictive policy, it is considered that the proposed plan will have a detrimental impact upon rural economies whilst protecting antiquated employment strategies. It is therefore considered that the GNLP is not compliant with national policies and the aspiration to support and facilitate rural economies and therefore is considered in conflict with paragraph 35 of the NPPF.

For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our help guide.