Proposed Submission Core Strategy

This section of the Core Strategy rightly identifies the need to secure sustainable economic growth as an essential function of the Strategy, and this is translated into policy via policies EC1, 2 and 3. Policy EC3 in particular focuses on existing employment sites and seeks to retain and enhance them, allowing intensification and redevelopment of such sites where appropriate.

This section of the Core Strategy rightly identifies the need to secure sustainable economic growth as an essential function of the Strategy, and this is translated into policy via policies EC1, 2 and 3. Policy EC3 in particular focuses on existing employment sites and seeks to retain and enhance them, allowing intensification and redevelopment of such sites where appropriate.

This section of the Core Strategy rightly identifies the need to secure sustainable economic growth as an essential function of the Strategy, and this is translated into policy via policies EC1, 2 and 3. Policy EC3 in particular focuses on existing employment sites and seeks to retain and enhance them, allowing intensification and redevelopment of such sites where appropriate.

This section of the Core Strategy rightly identifies the need to secure sustainable economic growth as an essential function of the Strategy, and this is translated into policy via policies EC1, 2 and 3. Policy EC3 in particular focuses on existing employment sites and seeks to retain and enhance them, allowing intensification and redevelopment of such sites where appropriate.

This section of the Core Strategy rightly identifies the need to secure sustainable economic growth as an essential function of the Strategy, and this is translated into policy via policies EC1, 2 and 3. Policy EC3 in particular focuses on existing employment sites and seeks to retain and enhance them, allowing intensification and redevelopment of such sites where appropriate.

This section of the Core Strategy rightly identifies the need to secure sustainable economic growth as an essential function of the Strategy, and this is translated into policy via policies EC1, 2 and 3. Policy EC3 in particular focuses on existing employment sites and seeks to retain and enhance them, allowing intensification and redevelopment of such sites where appropriate.

The Core Strategy identifies a weakness in the local economy arising from high seasonal unemployment (10.4). This means that employers offering year-round employment have particular importance and while this is implied via the text, it is not acknowledged via the policy objectives or policy RY1.

Policy RY1 relies upon existing commitments, including allocations, within the built up area for the provision of 250-350 new dwellings. The largest of the allocations is Rock Channel, which includes the operating centre of John Jempson & Sons Ltd, a transport business and one of the town's major employers. Discussions held with the LPA during the period 2007-9 indicated the company's willingness to relocate at that time should a suitable site closer to the national motorway network be made available. No such site was available then, and no such location is identified via policy EC2, which refers only to small-medium size sites and units at towns and villages in the A21 corridor (EC2(iii)). Since the discussions were concluded, economic circumstances have led to the company taking the view that relocation at the present time would not be a viable option.

Policy RY1 is inconsistent with policy EC3, which seeks to protect existing employment sites. It does not offer support for existing businesses, but instead undermines them by implicitly reaffirming the reallocation of major employment sites within the urban area for other uses, while making no provision for the satisfactory accommodation of businesses that would be displaced. It is clear that the evidence upon which the policy is based, most notably the SHLAA, does not take sufficient account of the likelihood of all or part of the Rock Channel allocation not coming forward during the plan period.

The policy is unsound because it relies upon the loss of major employment uses to achieve the housing requirement for the town, thereby being in conflict with Policy EC3, which offers long term protection to such sites. Furthermore, Policy RY1 does not make any provision for supporting existing employment uses, which are particularly important to the local economy because of the high seasonal unemployment that arises from the reliance of the local economy upon tourism-based employment.

The policy does not lend sufficient support to existing business uses, as required by the NPPF Draft dated July 2011.

The Core Strategy identifies a weakness in the local economy arising from high seasonal unemployment (10.4). This means that employers offering year-round employment have particular importance and while this is implied via the text, it is not acknowledged via the policy objectives or policy RY1.

Policy RY1 relies upon existing commitments, including allocations, within the built up area for the provision of 250-350 new dwellings. The largest of the allocations is Rock Channel, which includes the operating centre of John Jempson & Sons Ltd, a transport business and one of the town's major employers. Discussions held with the LPA during the period 2007-9 indicated the company's willingness to relocate at that time should a suitable site closer to the national motorway network be made available. No such site was available then, and no such location is identified via policy EC2, which refers only to small-medium size sites and units at towns and villages in the A21 corridor (EC2(iii)). Since the discussions were concluded, economic circumstances have led to the company taking the view that relocation at the present time would not be a viable option.

Policy RY1 is inconsistent with policy EC3, which seeks to protect existing employment sites. It does not offer support for existing businesses, but instead undermines them by implicitly reaffirming the reallocation of major employment sites within the urban area for other uses, while making no provision for the satisfactory accommodation of businesses that would be displaced. It is clear that the evidence upon which the policy is based, most notably the SHLAA, does not take sufficient account of the likelihood of all or part of the Rock Channel allocation not coming forward during the plan period.

The policy is unsound because it relies upon the loss of major employment uses to achieve the housing requirement for the town, thereby being in conflict with Policy EC3, which offers long term protection to such sites. Furthermore, Policy RY1 does not make any provision for supporting existing employment uses, which are particularly important to the local economy because of the high seasonal unemployment that arises from the reliance of the local economy upon tourism-based employment.

The policy does not lend sufficient support to existing business uses, as required by the NPPF Draft dated July 2011.

The Core Strategy identifies a weakness in the local economy arising from high seasonal unemployment (10.4). This means that employers offering year-round employment have particular importance and while this is implied via the text, it is not acknowledged via the policy objectives or policy RY1.

Policy RY1 relies upon existing commitments, including allocations, within the built up area for the provision of 250-350 new dwellings. The largest of the allocations is Rock Channel, which includes the operating centre of John Jempson & Sons Ltd, a transport business and one of the town's major employers. Discussions held with the LPA during the period 2007-9 indicated the company's willingness to relocate at that time should a suitable site closer to the national motorway network be made available. No such site was available then, and no such location is identified via policy EC2, which refers only to small-medium size sites and units at towns and villages in the A21 corridor (EC2(iii)). Since the discussions were concluded, economic circumstances have led to the company taking the view that relocation at the present time would not be a viable option.

Policy RY1 is inconsistent with policy EC3, which seeks to protect existing employment sites. It does not offer support for existing businesses, but instead undermines them by implicitly reaffirming the reallocation of major employment sites within the urban area for other uses, while making no provision for the satisfactory accommodation of businesses that would be displaced. It is clear that the evidence upon which the policy is based, most notably the SHLAA, does not take sufficient account of the likelihood of all or part of the Rock Channel allocation not coming forward during the plan period.

The policy is unsound because it relies upon the loss of major employment uses to achieve the housing requirement for the town, thereby being in conflict with Policy EC3, which offers long term protection to such sites. Furthermore, Policy RY1 does not make any provision for supporting existing employment uses, which are particularly important to the local economy because of the high seasonal unemployment that arises from the reliance of the local economy upon tourism-based employment.

The policy does not lend sufficient support to existing business uses, as required by the NPPF Draft dated July 2011.

The Core Strategy identifies a weakness in the local economy arising from high seasonal unemployment (10.4). This means that employers offering year-round employment have particular importance and while this is implied via the text, it is not acknowledged via the policy objectives or policy RY1.

Policy RY1 relies upon existing commitments, including allocations, within the built up area for the provision of 250-350 new dwellings. The largest of the allocations is Rock Channel, which includes the operating centre of John Jempson & Sons Ltd, a transport business and one of the town's major employers. Discussions held with the LPA during the period 2007-9 indicated the company's willingness to relocate at that time should a suitable site closer to the national motorway network be made available. No such site was available then, and no such location is identified via policy EC2, which refers only to small-medium size sites and units at towns and villages in the A21 corridor (EC2(iii)). Since the discussions were concluded, economic circumstances have led to the company taking the view that relocation at the present time would not be a viable option.

Policy RY1 is inconsistent with policy EC3, which seeks to protect existing employment sites. It does not offer support for existing businesses, but instead undermines them by implicitly reaffirming the reallocation of major employment sites within the urban area for other uses, while making no provision for the satisfactory accommodation of businesses that would be displaced. It is clear that the evidence upon which the policy is based, most notably the SHLAA, does not take sufficient account of the likelihood of all or part of the Rock Channel allocation not coming forward during the plan period.

The policy is unsound because it relies upon the loss of major employment uses to achieve the housing requirement for the town, thereby being in conflict with Policy EC3, which offers long term protection to such sites. Furthermore, Policy RY1 does not make any provision for supporting existing employment uses, which are particularly important to the local economy because of the high seasonal unemployment that arises from the reliance of the local economy upon tourism-based employment.

The policy does not lend sufficient support to existing business uses, as required by the NPPF Draft dated July 2011.