Publication

It is considered necessary that a more flexible approach to this policy with regard to facilitating employment generating development in more rural locations be adopted. Furthermore, it is also considered prudent that further assessment of need and trends in relation to employment and business practices is carried out. The policy should also cater to the rise in need of small business and office spaces as well as the need for more sites in better locations where amenities such as public open space is available for employees, mirroring the current trend and protecting and enhancing employee welfare.

If this is route is not pursued, an alternative could be to allocate small sites in rural locations. For example, looking at Little Plumstead, we can see that there are local facilities, and sustainable transport options available to local people. As such, it is considered that an allocation for a small extension to the existing Octagon business park would cater to the needs of local residents within close proximity and future employers. Allocation GNLP2107 is considered to be an ideal village allocation which would accord with paragraph 83 and would supplement the sustainable growth and expansion of Little Plumstead whist providing a localised benefits.

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.

It is considered necessary that a more flexible approach to this policy with regard to facilitating employment generating development in more rural locations be adopted. Furthermore, it is also considered prudent that further assessment of need and trends in relation to employment and business practices is carried out. The policy should also cater to the rise in need of small business and office spaces as well as the need for more sites in better locations where amenities such as public open space is available for employees, mirroring the current trend and protecting and enhancing employee welfare.

If this is route is not pursued, an alternative could be to allocate small sites in rural locations. For example, looking at Little Plumstead, we can see that there are local facilities, and sustainable transport options available to local people. As such, it is considered that an allocation for a small extension to the existing Octagon business park would cater to the needs of local residents within close proximity and future employers. Allocation GNLP2107 is considered to be an ideal village allocation which would accord with paragraph 83 and would supplement the sustainable growth and expansion of Little Plumstead whist providing a localised benefits.

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.