SOUTH WORCESTERSHIRE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - PREFERRED OPTIONS 2011: SCHEDULE OF ISSUES AND RECOMMENDED RESPONSES Row No.

Transcription

1 1. Inadequate justification Existing retail floor space is underused so no point in extending retail floor space. Instead, would prefer to have sympathetic housing development in the City Centre to attract people to living in a city centre environment - targeted -e.g. pensioners, single people, & students. 634 Disagree: The 2010 DPDS South Worcestershire Retail Study Update recognised the influence of the recession by stating that at the time, there was little evidence to support retail expansion. However, there was still a need to identify areas for a major town centre expansion so that the city centre is in a position to benefit from economic recovery, and to ensure that any such development is best located to foster the vitality and viability of the city centre. 2. Not consistent with SCI Wording used in policy SWDP 7 in relation to CIL lacks clarity and consistency. Suggested amendment: All new City Centre Opportunity Zones cater for a variety of mixed uses, including residential, in accordance with paragraph 23 of the NPPF. Appropriate residential development in the City Centre above shops is allowed for by Policy SWDP 29 (which also discourages ground floor residential development in the defined shopping centres). Furthermore an analysis of potential city centre housing sites has been carried out as part of the SWDP process and a range of appropriate city centre sites allocated for housing under SWDP Disagree: A new policy on Infrastructure Delivery and the IDP will address these issues in detail. However it would be appropriate to cross reference to this in the written justification. Recommendation: Minor Change amend text to include cross reference to new Infrastructure Policy and the IDP. 1 Council meetings 3 rd July 2012

2 development will be expected to contribute towards the provision and/or enhancement of infrastructure, Travel Plans, public realm, streets and open spaces. New development, where liable, will also be expected to make Community Infrastructure Levy contributions in respect of strategic infrastructure. 3. Not positively prepared Policy only refers to listed buildings and fails to consider local list and other non designated heritage assets. Policy should clearly address potential impacts on archaeology and refer to the city centre urban archaeological strategy given the archaeological sensitivities of the city centre. 4. Inadequate justification Not positively prepared Generally supports directing major retail to city centre however these are unlikely to be sufficient for quantitative amount of retail in Worcester Consider further retail allocations of an appropriate scale and size outside of Worcester city centre in sustainable locations on main public transport routes, particularly on adjoining land at the city's principal retail park at 2712 Agree in part. A new policy on the Historic Environment will address these issues Disagree. NPPF (23) supports town centre led development and states that local authorities should allocate appropriate edge of centre sites for main town centre uses that are well connected to the town centre where suitable and where viable town centre sites are not available. However Worcester City Council considers that sites currently allocated meet the current need. Any future consideration of sites would be carried out in accordance with the sequential approach outlined in the No Consultation Needed. 2 Council meetings 3 rd July 2012

3 Blackpole. 5. Inadequate justification CITY CENTRE: There are already many empty/under-used shops. Has account been taken of decrease of high street shopping & increase in internet shopping? Re-consider justification for extension of retail shopping centre 6. Inadequate justification RIVERSIDE: No plans to use the river itself as an asset. Seek to maximise use of river as an asset - cruises, floating restaurant, educational facilities. 7. Not positively planned Housing growth needs to be matched by planned growth in appropriate city centre retail provision. The city's assets heritage and environmental cannot be matched by other centres. The plan should seek to accommodate major chains within the city centre, if it doesn't the pressure will grow for more out of centre retail parks. 8. Positively prepared Supports development of a hotel and conferencing facilities. Worcester needs to move to the next step in Framework Agree that this issue should be addressed and is done so by Visit Worcester and the Business Improvement District. It is not appropriate to include a policy on this in the SWDP. This approach is in accordance with the Framework Noted. The issue is more appropriately addressed by the City Centre Masterplan which recognises the riverside as a major asset, envisaging it as a focus for leisure and entertainment Disagree. The SWDP supports town centre led development in accordance with the Framework. All development will be expected to meet the requirements of SWDP3 and a new policy regarding the historic environment will be included to protect the City s heritage assets. Retail development will be provided in accordance with revised SWDP 29 and the Framework Disagree: SWDP28 and SWDP 37 support hotel developments with urban areas. The Hotel Study highlights the need for 3 Council meetings 3 rd July 2012

4 order to become a business city of real potential; open to industry conferences; open to overnight business visits, and open to inward investment. SWDP needs to be in a position to accommodate the transition of Worcester City into a fully modernised university town. The city centre is important in terms of developing accommodation and supporting the vibrancy of nightlife and culture. Allocate site for high quality hotel and conferencing facility 9. Positively prepared Encourage development on the riverside beyond the cathedral (use Local development Order) hotel provision within Worcester. However, there are three extant planning permissions for hotels in the city centre and therefore there is no need to make further allocation Agree in part The city centre masterplan recognises the riverside as a major asset, envisaging it as a focus for leisure and entertainment. These issues will be addressed through the implementation of the Master plan. 10. Positively prepared Support initiatives that can promote and deliver leisure facilities for city centre night life 11. Positively prepared Encourage new office development within the city centre where possible Agree: This is an important issue and will be addressed in revised SWDP Agree. SWDP Paragraph 19.3 states that Worcester being at the top of the retail hierarchy will be the preferred location for major leisure, office and retail developments. This is supported by 4 Council meetings 3 rd July 2012

5 12. Inadequate justification Redevelop city centre unused office space into student accommodation SWDP27 in that new employment provision will be focused towards main urban areas, in accordance with paragraph 23 or the NPPF Disagree. Living over the shop is referenced in retail policy, SWDP 28, but restricting such use to students only would seem to be unduly restrictive. 13. Welcome reference to riverside. SWDP7 - need to promote city centre greening to combat urban heat effects. Urban capacity sites should be prioritised to ensure least harm and the most gain to the environment Agree in part. This will be addressed by SWDP Lack of information regarding whether mixed use sites of Opportunity Zones are deliverable and/or developable within period of the plan. 15. Justified Disagree: These sites are believed to deliverable. However a representation has been received requesting that as land owner part of the site is not deliverable. The boundary of the OZ will be redrawn accordingly Noted. Support the Masterplan, but await developments with interest to see whether the original concept and good ideas will be carried through. 16. Not effective 988 Disagree: 5 Council meetings 3 rd July 2012

6 How will broad principles be delivered? E.g. sustainable development not likely to be achieved with apparent reduced public transport funding whilst maintaining car parking charges. 17. Improved Worcester riverfront, however fountain makes area unpleasant to sit in and lack of eating/drinking establishments. Moving fountain to Cripplegate Park would ameliorate issues and increase park usage. 18. Sites in SWDP7 seem a good idea to encourage pedestrian flows or tourists/shoppers to the centre. Refurbishment should be sympathetic to City s character and no repeat of past mistakes. SWDP 4 addresses issues of sustainable transport which is a key objective of the plan. 988 Noted: The city centre masterplan recognises the riverside as a major asset, envisaging it as a focus for leisure and entertainment and this issue will be addressed as part of the master plans implementation. The installation of the fountain was seen as a key part of the riverside development and is considered an important feature Agreed. The protection of the historic environment is a requirement of SWDP 3 and this will be strengthened with the introduction of a new policy on the Historic Environment in accordance with the Framework. 6 Council meetings 3 rd July 2012