NORTH WEST DISTRICT COUNCIL

CABINET – 18 JANUARY 2011

Title of report RETAIL SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT

a) Financial (N) Key Decision b) Community (Y)

Councillor Matthew Blain 07979 852069 [email protected]

Director of Services

01530 45455 Contacts [email protected]

Senior Planning Officer 01530 454653 [email protected]

To consider the comments received to the consultation on the draft Purpose of report Retail SPD and to determine the Council’s response.

Before adopting a Supplementary Planning Document it is necessary to consider all representations made in response to the draft document (Regulation 18 (4) of the Town and Country Reason for Decision Planning (Local Development)() Regulations 2004) as amended by the Town and Country Planning (Local Development)(England)(Amendment) Regulations 2009.

Strong and Safer Communities Strategic aims Sustainable Communities

Implications:

Financial/Staff Allowed for within existing budgets

Link to relevant CAT Place Shaping

The SPD seeks to ensure that there is an appropriate balance between retail and non-retail uses in Ashby and the other local Risk Management centres. Failure to do so would affect the vitality and viability of these centres to the detriment of local communities and businesses.

Equalities Impact Equalities issue are assessed as part of the Sustainability Assessment Appraisal, which accompanies the SPD Human Rights None discernible

Transformational Not applicable Government

Comments of Head of Paid The report is satisfactory Service

Comments of Section 151 The report is satisfactory Officer

Comments of Monitoring The report is satisfactory Officer

A wide range of individuals and organisations in accordance with Council’s Statement of Community Involvement including Parish Councils and previously interested individuals. A full list of the consultees is appended to this report. In order to comply with Consultees Regulations 17 and 18, a Statement of Consultation and the SPD Matters were published alongside the consultation on the draft Retail SPD. The Statement of Consultation along with a summary of the consultation responses to the Draft Retail SPD are attached to this report.

Survey work which is included as an Appendix that forms part of Background papers the SPD document.

(I) THAT THE STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION, THE SPD MATTERS AND THE SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES (AS OUTLINED IN Recommendations APPENDIX A) ON THE DRAFT SPD BE NOTED (II) THAT THE SPD BE AMENDED AS OUTLINED IN THE REPORT AND; (III) THAT THE SPD BE FORMALLY ADOPTED

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Council is frequently asked to consider planning applications for hot food take aways and over a number of years concerns have been raised by Ashby residents about the number and impact of take aways in their town. In response to this concern the Council conducted a consultation on takeaways in Ashby during October 2009 to December 2009. The results showed respondents were concerned about the number and concentration of takeaways and felt this impacted on the variety of shops in Ashby. In addition, other concerns raised by residents highlighted problems relating to litter, anti-social behaviour and inappropriate parking.

1.2 In addition to these local concerns, since the adoption of the North West Leicestershire Local Plan 2002 (Adopted 2002) there have been amendments to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 as amended by the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes)(Amendment)(England) Order 2005. The main changes were the division of the previous A3 use class into the three separate use classes of restaurant and cafes (A3), pubs and wine bars (A4) and hot food take aways (A5). It is recognised that these uses can contribute to the attractiveness of a centre as well as serve the needs of local communities. However if there is not an appropriate balance between these uses or their concentration is too high, harmful impacts can result. These changes to the Use Classes Order give local authorities greater control over their number and to minimise the potential negative impacts of the proliferation of these uses. Therefore the SPD has also been prepared in light of these changes to aid and provide guidance in the determination of planning applications.

1.3 In response to these issues, a Retail SPD has been prepared to assist in the determination of planning applications that propose either a loss of a shop use (A1) or a new take away use (A5). The SPD applies to Ashby but also the District’s Local Centres of Castle Donington, , and . The Draft Retail SPD has been produced to provide supplementary advice to Local Plan Policies R4, R5 and R19.

1.4 The aim for the SPD is to provide supplementary information to those who wish to submit a planning application that affects retail uses and other services in Ashby and the other local centres. The draft SPD has been subject to public consultation and will therefore be a material consideration to be taken into account in determining planning applications.

2.0 THE SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT

2.1 Regulation 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 states that in preparing an SPD a Consultation Statement should be drawn up. This Statement is required to set out the names of any persons whom the Authority consulted on in connection with the preparation of the SPD, how they were consulted and a summary of the main issues raised and how these issues were addressed in the SPD. The Consultation Statement is appended to this report and this satisfies Regulation 17 (1) (b).

2.2 The draft Retail SPD was initially formally published in July 2010 for a 6 week consultation period. In order to ensure that all the various legal requirements and regulations which govern SPDs were complied with the Draft SPD was re-consulted on for an additional four week period from 8th November 2010 to 8th December 2010.

2.3 The process for producing a SPD requires there to be adequate opportunity for public consultation and for proper consideration of the feedback. The consultation process was undertaken and included:

- Consultation with those individuals and stakeholders on the Council’s database. - Documents made available in the Council offices in and in the district’s libraries - Press Release issued and notices published in the Telegraph and the Mercury. - Consultation advertised on the Council’s website on the Planning Policy Homepage.

2.4 A Sustainability Appraisal of the draft SPD was also undertaken, which sought to identify the likely economic, environmental and social effects of the SPD and to ensure that the SPD complies, as far as possible, with the principles of sustainable development. The Sustainability Appraisal was consulted on for the same time period as the SPD via the methods detailed above.

2.5 19 responses were received as part of this consultation exercise and before formally adopting the SPD, it is necessary to consider all of these representations and to agree any changes. The responses to the draft SPD together with officer’s comments and recommendations are included at Appendix A of this report. This satisfies the requirements of Regulation 18 (4) (b). A copy of the draft SPD is available in the Member’s Room.

2.6 It should be noted that in order to comply with Regulation 17 (1) (b), it is also necessary to list all those who were consulted on the Draft SPD and how they were consulted. This information detailed within Appendix A and forms part of the Statement of Consultation.

2.7 In summary, the SPD recommends that:

• Shopping uses should represent no less than 50% of all commercial uses within the defined centres of Castle Donington, Ibstock, Measham and Kegworth. • Shopping uses should represent no less than 50% of all commercial uses within the main shopping and commercial streets in the Core Shopping Area of Ashby de la Zouch. • No more than 10% of the total commercial units are to be occupied by hot food takeaway uses (A5) within the defined local centres and the main shopping and commercial streets in the Core Shopping Area of Ashby de la Zouch. • No less than 50% of commercial units are occupied by shops (A1) within the Ashby Market Street frontage • Within the Ashby Market Street frontage of Nos 67 to 89 and 76 to 108, no new additional hot food take away uses (A5) should be granted planning permission over and above those in existence or permitted at the time of the adoption of this SPD

2.8 As noted above a Sustainability Appraisal of the draft SPD was also published at the same time of the draft SPD. Only two comments were received with respect to this, which did not require any changes to be made. However, in view of the changes suggested in response to the draft SPD it was necessary for these to be reappraised. The results of this reappraisal were not considered by Officers to be significant in terms of the Sustainability Appraisal outcomes and therefore no changes were made.

2.9 Subject to Members approving the changes suggested, it is recommended that the SPD is formally adopted. Once adopted, in order to comply with Regulation 19, the Council will make available the statement of consultation, the SPD and the Adoption Statement.

Appendix A

Regulation 17 and 18 Statement and Summary of Responses to the Retail Supplementary Planning Document

Statement of Consultation

Draft Retail Supplementary Planning Document

Consultation statement prepared in accordance with Regulation 17 (1) (b) of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004.

1. Name of Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Retail

2. Purpose of SPD The Retail SPD covers the centres of Ashby, Castle Donington, Ibstock, Measham and Kegworth and provides guidance on how the Council will determine planning applications for change of use applications for shops and other service uses in these centres.

3. When the consultation took place? During October 2009 to December 2009

4. Who was consulted in connection with preparation of SPD and how were they consulted? A notice was placed on the Council’s website, the Leicester Villages Website, and in the Ashby Life community magazine and the Ashby Times newspaper.

5. What was consulted upon? The following notice was placed on the above websites and within the above publications:‐

‘Are you worried about the number of takeaways in Ashby? Or do you think that they offer a welcome diversity to the area?

Either way North West Leicestershire District Council would like to hear from you. The District Council has a responsibility for granting planning permission for Hot Food Takeaways and would like to find out how local people feel about them.

Share your views with us by email [email protected], telephone 01530 454567 or 01530 454760, or write to us at Place Shaping, North West Leicestershire Distinct, Council Offices, Coalville, Leicestershire, LE67 3FJ.’

5. Summary of the main issues raised in those consultations The majority of the responses came from Ashby residents. Of the 31 responses only one response was of the opinion that there are the correct numbers of hot food takeaways in Ashby. The remainder of the responses expressed concern that there are too many hot food takeaways in Ashby. The issues raised due to the number of hot food takeaways are summarised as follows:‐ • Litter from the takeaway premises being left in the streets. • Negative impact on retail sales and the character of the town. • A loss of shops and less variety of shops. • Traffic congestion and inappropriate parking outside the hot food takeaway premises • Anti‐social behaviour problems being experienced in Ashby • Health concerns as hot food takeaways encourage unhealthy eating

In response to this consultation Ashby Civic Society also undertook their own survey and received 21 responses, summarised below:‐ • 95% of responses were of the view that there are too many hot food takeaways in Ashby. • 86% of responses agreed that the Council should limit the number of hot food takeaways. • 62% of responses were of the opinion that hot food takeaways should account for no more than 5% of all shops in Ashby. 24% were of the opinion that this figure should be 10%. • 86% of responses were of the opinion that hot food take aways should close at 11pm.

6. How have those issues been addressed in the SPD? In light of the responses received and the concerns raised the Council decided to commence work on a Retail SPD to address these matters. These comments were also taken into account when preparing the draft SPD. Formal consultation on the Draft Retail SPD will then follow.

Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document Retail Supplementary Planning Document Consultation Drafts

Statement of SPD Matters

Notice of the publication of two draft Supplementary Planning Documents and their accompanying Sustainability Appraisals for public consultation in accordance with Regulation 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004.

The Council has issued a Retail Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).

The Retail SPD covers the centres of Ashby, Castle Donington, Ibstock, Measham and Kegworth and provides guidance on how the Council will determine planning applications for change of use applications for shops and other service uses in these centres.

The Affordable Housing SPD covers all of North West Leicestershire and updates the existing SPD as a result of new information regarding the need for affordable housing and the viability of providing affordable housing as part of new general market housing developments.

The draft SPDs, along with their accompanying Sustainability Appraisal Reports and Consultation Statements, will be the subject of a four‐week consultation from Wednesday 10th November 2010 to Wednesday 8th December 2010.

These documents will be available for inspection during normal opening times at the main reception at the Council Offices, Coalville between 8:45am and 5pm Monday to Friday.

A copy will be available in the District’s public Libraries at their normal opening times.

The documents will also be available on the Council's website: http://www.nwleics.gov.uk/pages/planning_policy

Representations on the draft SPDs should be sent by post to:

Planning Policy North West Leicestershire District Council Council Offices Road Coalville LE67 3FJ

Or by email to: [email protected]

All comments will be public information. Please note that representations should be received no later than 5pm on the 8th December 2010. If you wish to be notified of the adoption of these SPDs then please state the address at which you wish to be notified.

If you have previously commented on the SPDs your comments will still be valid and there is no need to send them again. However, if you wish to add to any previous comments please send them to the Council via the methods detailed above.

Statement of Consultation – List of Consultees advised by email

Age Concern England Mr Robinson Woodhouse Parish Council (A Firstplan (Kate Matthews) Irving) Ancient Monuments Ms Andrews Alliance Planning (Julian Fisher German (Kay Davies) Society Wooderson) Ashby de la Zouch Nigel Hughes Andrew and Ashwell (Melissa Fox Bennett (Thomas Mayes) Endowed Schools Ward) Foundation (Alan Turland) Ashby Town Centre Norton Robinson Andrew Granger & Company GL Hearn (Jessica Sparkes) Partnership (Emily (Rupert Harrison) Todd) British Waterways Paul Andrew Andrew Granger and Co Ltd GL Hearn (Lee-Ann Wickes) (Helen Edwards) Chrtd Survyrs (Andrew Granger) British Wind Energy Paul Pugsley Andrew Martin Associates Gough Planning Services (R A Association (Gemma (Caroline Chave) Gough) Grimes) Campaign for Real Ale Philip Preece Arlington Development Services, Greendale Court (Sue Walker) Limited (Mike Banner) Arlington Securities Plc (Richard Cutler) Castle Donington and Richard Holt Armstrong Burton Planning GVA Grimley (Craig Alsbury) District Volunteer Bureau Central Networks (E- Rick Hockney Atisreal (Katy Walker) Hallam Land Management (Paul on) (Roger Bedford) Burton) Council for British Roland Browning Johnathan Harbottle (Chartered Hallam Land Management Archaeology Surveyor & Chartered Town (Richard Walters) Planner) Country Land and Ruth Cox Boyer Planning Harlow Bros Ltd (Robert Harlow) Business Association (Helen Woolley) CPRE () Sue Colledge Bryan Wolsey Planning Ltd Harris Lamb Chartered (Chris Barker) (Bryan Wolsey) Surveyors (James Hollyman) CPRE (Leicestershire) Tom Redfearn Cadeby Homes Ltd Hayward Exclusive Homes Ltd (Joyce Noon) Derbyshire Gypsy Trevor Armston Castle Donington Community Heaton Planning (Jenna Pollack) Liaison Group Appraisal Group (Peggy Beddoe) English Heritage (Ann Wallis Hart Cerda Planning (Victoria Lane) Henry Boot Developments Ltd Plackett) Freight on Rail Broxtowe Borough Council CgMs (Chris Hicks) Hepher Dixon (Peter Dixon) (Philippa Edmunds) The Coal Authority Derbyshire County Council CgMs (Setareh Neshati) Holmes Antill (John Holmes) (Brian Smart) Greenpeace UK Derbyshire Gypsy Liaison CT Planning (P Kreuser) Howkins and Harrison LLP Group (Roger Yarwood) (James Collier) Guide Association UK Derwent Living (Paul Casey) Stewart Ross Associates Iceni Projects (Alison Coster) Leicestershire Development Chris Thomas Ltd - Outdoor Iceni Projects (James Constabulary (Wayne Agency (Julie Tanner) Advertising Consultants (Chris Waterhouse) Worsdale) Thomas) Leicestershire Wildlife East Midlands Development Colliers CRE (Adam Pyrke) ID Planning (Alistair Flatman) Trust (Michael Jeeves) Agency (Steve Harley) National Farmers East Midlands Regional David Lock Associates (Stefanie Indigo Planning Limited (Alastair Union (East Midlands Assembly (Mandeep Goedecke) Willis) Region) (Paul Tame) Dhadwal) Natural England East Eastern Shires Housing De Montfort Property Co Limited The Home Builders Federation Midlands Region Association Ltd (Anthony (Graham Everitt) (Tim Watton) (Rachel Hoskin) Riley) The Garden History The Planning Inspectorate Savills (L &P) Ltd (Jonathan John Church - Planning Society (Tanya Clinton) Morgan-Smith) Consultancy Limited (John Church) The Georgian Group Environment Agency (Geoff Savills (Nick Grace) Maximus (Jon Hickton) Platts) RSPB (Colin Erewash Borough Council Scott Wilson Ltd (Simon Betts) Jones Day (D Pacilly) Wilkinson) Rural Community Highways Agency (Geoffrey Sigma Planning Services JS Bloor Homes Ltd (Measham) Council (Leicestershire Wise) (Christopher Hough) (Nick Wilkins) and Rutland) (Diana Cook) Rural Community & Bosworth Signet Planning (Paul Stone) JS Bloor Ltd (Measham) (David Council (Leicestershire Borough Council (Sally Ann Joseph) and Rutland) (John Smith) Moores) The National Forest City Council Signet Planning (Robert Gilmore) King Sturge (Elle Cass) Company (Simon (Karen Shaw) Evans) The National Trust Nottingham City Council Smith Stuart Reynolds (Jane Lambert Smith Hampton (Claire East Midlands (Paul Tansey) Gardner) Norris) Regional Office (Alan Hubbard) Sport England (East Nottinghamshire County Smith Stuart Reynolds (Simon J Landmark Planning (Jonathan Midlands Region) Council (Suzanne Moody) Smith) Weekes) (John Berry) St David's Vicarage NWLDC (David Boyson) Stansgate Planning Consultants Marron's Solicitors (Morag (John Stevenson) (Miranda Rogers) Thomson)

Stephenson College Rushcliffe Borough Council Strutt & Parker (Richard Foxon) The Gospel Hall (Jane Foster) (Phil Marshall) Trust (Roland Wilson)

The Scout Association District Tapton Estates (Richard McDyre and Co (B C McDyre) Council (Ian Bowen) Needham) The Society for the South Derbyshire District The Tyler-Parkes Partnership Mono Consultants Limited Protection of Ancient Council (Kevin Exley) (Helen Winkler) (Carolyn Wilson) Buildings The Theatres Trust Parish Development Land and Planning Morgoed Estates Limited (Rose Freeman) Council (Karen Stirk) Consultants Ltd (Matthew Hard) (Jonathan Roberts)

UK Coal Ltd (C Ball) Ashby de la Zouch Town Dialogue Communicating Nelson Bakewell (Simon (Parish) Council (Colin Gay) Planning (Sebastian Hanley) Benison)

UK Rainwater Town Council DPDS Consulting Group (Alf NorthCountry Homes Group Harvesting Association (Andrea Robinson) Plumb) Limited (Paul Stock) (Roger Budgeon) Adele Snook Austrey Parish Council Leith Planning (Shan Paul and Company (Wendy (Anita M Allsopp) Dassanaike) Sockett) Alan Main Bagworth and Thornton DPDS Consulting Group (Diane Peacock and Smith (Malcolm Parish Council (A Hurdley) Bowyer) Walker) “Bev” Belton Parish Council Drivers Jonas Deloitte (Fiona Peatfield Associates (Stephen (Angela Severn-Morrell) Brereton) Peatfield) Brian Dincombe Parish DTZ Pieda Consulting (Mark Pegasus Planning Group (Andy Council (Gill Simkiss) Jackson) Kitchen) C T & E M Stevenson Castle Donington Parish E J Gray Associates (Edward Pegasus Planning Group (Gary Council (Fiona Palmer) Gray) Lees) Chris Bentley Clifton Campville with Fairgrove Homes (Dan Stack) Pegasus Planning Group (Haydn Thorpe Constantine Parish Jones) Council (Helen Elliott) Chris Tandy Parish Council / FallowBond Limited (John St. Modwen (Mike Timmins) Worthington Parish Council Bredaws) (S Cowin) Douglas Hart and Battleflat Persimmon Homes (North Peter Diffey and Associates Parish Council (Sara Cowin) Midlands) (Gareth Hankin) (Peter Diffey)

Ellen Senior Hartshorne Parish Council Persimmon plc (Kate Tait) Peter Storrie Consultants (Peter (R Smith) Storric) Fiona Thorn Hathern Parish Council (Mrs Tom Redfern Consultancy (Tom RPS - Planning Transport and M A Spencer) Redern) Environment Ltd (General) Glenn Freeman Heather Parish Council (Jan Trent Barton (Jeff Counsell) Savills (Michael Burrow) Shepherd) Ian Meller Hemington and Lockington Trent Barton (Keith Shayshutt) Mr C Tandy Parish Council (G Cameron) Jenny Toal Ibstock Parish Council (Alan Turley Associates Limited (Ben Mr B Russell Young) Frodsham) Jim Abbott Kegworth Parish Council Turley Associates Limited Ms R Bull (Lesley Pendleton) (Matthew Sheppard)

Jonathan Blaza Kingston on Soar Parish United Biscuits (Mike Ball) D Chapman Council (Richard Parrey) Margaret Montandon & Walton & Co (Vicki Richardson) Ms Kay Gosling Parish Council (Douglas Maas) Michael Daly Measham Parish Council Ward Design (Collette Beattie) Mr Kevin Mills (Dawn Roach) Michael Specht and Village White Young Green (Chris Ashby de la Zouch Civic Society Rita Webster Meeting (Alan Cooper) Palmer) Michele Ward , , Williamson Design and Mr Alan Cooper Parish Council Implementation Ltd (P R (Lindsay Swinfield) Williamson)

Mr & Mrs A Baker Overseal Parish Council (J E Wincanton (Simon Ramsell) Ravenstone with Parish White) Council (Helen Daniels) Mr & Mrs Roland Parish Council Bagshaws (Malcolm Gale) Barton Willmore (Stuart Field) Campbell (Rosie McConachie)

Statement of Consultation – List of Consultees advised by letter

Mrs D Fransman and Ms Catherine Jamieson Church Commissioners for Leicestershire Learning and Mr K Clifford England Skills Council Ms Heather McAtter Mr TH Heath Civil Aviation Authority Forestry Commission The Freight Transport Mr Robert Hepwood Commission for Architecture and Mrs M Patrick Association Ltd Miller Homes Limited - East the Built Environment Midlands Region Mr W G Perkins Webbir New Homes Ltd Commission for Racial Equality Mr C Kong The Woodland Trust Barrett (East Midlands) The Crown Estate Office Mrs Janet Hodson, JVH Town Planning Consultants Ltd Mr Mike Harris Mr John Coleman Disability Rights Commission Mr Trevor John Wells Balfours William Davis Ltd Gino Siani Mr Rob Foers CMB Support Mrs Brenda Shape DBK Back Forward Leicester City Council Thinking Mr Neil Adie East Midlands Tourist Board The Gypsy Council Mrs D K Murby De Montfort Housing Society Ltd FcH Housing and Care, Mr Simon Evans Help the Aged Miss Joanna Bridges, Stanton Clarke Homes Limited under Bardon Parish Council Leicester Housing Wimpey Homes Midlands National Playing Fields Mr E J Hatshorn Association East Association, Nailstone Parish Council Mr Andrew Wall Jelson Ltd The Rail Freight Group Mrs Cullen Housing 21 Shackerstone Parish Council Audrey Chaplin Crest Nicholson (Midlands) EWS Mr T Graham, Wallbrook Housing Ltd Twycross Parish Council Association The Manager Mr Chan Kataria Arriva Buses Midlands Thrumpton Parish Council J A Ball New Homes East Midlands Housing Association Walton Homes Ltd Peveril Homes Cresswell Coaches Ratcliffe on Soar Parish Council Ms Kate Benford Redrow Homes Midlands Kinch Buses, Mr Richard Parrey, FBP Ltd Kingston on Soar Parish Council Mr and Mrs Parker Mr Brian Pallett Macpherson Coaches Parish Council Leisure Ltd Mr Michael Bennion Mr Tony Rivero Paul James Coaches, Mrs A Mitchell, and Network Rail Property Great Wilne Parish Council Mr John Tilly Mr Jon Hockley Paul S Winson Coaches Mrs M Tomlison, H.M. Railway East Midlands International Aston on Trent Parish Council Inspectorate Airport Ms D A Love Mr J Feeney Mr Martin Gage Mrs C Scott, Weston on Trent Parish Council Katherine M Cohoon Mr Tim Wagstaff Mrs Elizabeth Vos Mr F N Hill, Melbourne Parish Council Whitwick Historial Mr Mike Allen Mr Peter Foster Mrs V Cove, Group Calke Parish Meeting Mr Harper Helen Woolley Mr Martin Carroll Mrs M South Country Land and Business Smisby Parish Council Association Leicestershire & Mr Mike Kaye Mr Brian Trueman Mrs C Litherland Leicester City Learning Derby City Council Woodville Parish Council Parntership Mr Nick Baseley Stephen Kitchen and Co Mr Adrian Read Mr R Smith, Ian Baseley Associates Castle Gresley Parish Council Karen Tate Mr Darren Cutler Ms Jane Evans Mrs C Busnston Brian Barber Harris Lamb Planning Ticknall Parish Council Associates Consultants Mr Peter Bailey Felicity Wye Mr Dolan Mrs J Nicklin Malcolm Judd and Partners Mobile Operators Association Parish Council (MOA) Mrs Claire Phillipson David Wilson Homes British Energy Mrs Joanne Bridgen Newton Regis Parish Council Mr F Davenport Mr Richard Dunnett ScottishPower, Mrs S Cheshire Stoneleigh Planning Parish Council Mr Peter Thorpe Mr Marcus Sharpe World Wide Fund for Nature K H Johnson TRANSCO Sawley Parish Council Mr Peter Lambert Mr Allan J Walker, Countryside Agency P R Williamson and Donington Williamson Design and le Heath Forum Implementation Ltd Mr Richard Aldridge Mr Tony Lovett Npower Centre Mr Tim Barrett Staffordshire County Redbank Manufacturing Council Company Ltd Mr Tom Mayes Mr Mark Williets Mr Andrew Wharton Mrs Elaine Ward Fox Bennett Advantage West Midlands Severn Trent Water Ltd

Ms Kate Benford Mr Alistair Blane Mr Andy Williams Mrs Pamela Bradshaw Marrons Leicestershire County and Countrywide Homes Ltd Rutland PCT Mrs B Harrison Mr Patrick Davis Mr Ben Hooton Mr David Reed SUSTRANS DTZ Pieda Consulting Leona Mellis Hallam Land Management Mr Gerry Keay Councillor S D Sheahan Knight Frank South West Industrial Properties Health Forum Mr Alan Barker Morag Thomson Mr Philp Thompson Mr Robert Orr Marron's Solicitors The Planning Bureau Limited Mr J Ball Mr Peter Storey Mr Peter Hill Ashby de la Zouch Library Linda Leonard Shoosmiths Solicitors Mr Neil Lucas Castle Donington Library Drivers Jonas Miss C E Draycott James Bailey Planning Mr and Mrs J Barnett Ibstock Library Mr Radfarn Lichfield District Council Mr Mike Ballantyne Kegworth Library The Heart of the National Forest Foundation Mr Mark Fisher East Staffordshire Borough Ms Gwyneth Tseng Measham Library The Lawn Tennis Council Association Mr Gavin Pratt Mr J Toon Mr John Bayliss David Price J and W Investment Ltd Mr S M Poultney North Warwickshire Community Centre, Dr Andrew Simmonds, S M Poultney & Son Borough Council Leicestershire County Council Mr Nick Bromhead Mr D S R Watson The Victorian Society Mr James McKay Rae Watson, Development Kegworth and District Gardening Surveyors Club Mrs Josie Jackson Mr John Colburn The Twentieth Century Society J M Boardman Planning and Urban Design Mr Christopher Lichfield Planning Mr Graham Walley Mr Stephen Birkinshaw Worman History and Natural Environment Government Office for the East Team, Midlands, Planning and Transport Team Lee-Ann Wickes Mr Terry O'Brien Mr Mandeep Dhadwal Mr Martin Prosser GL Hearn Brian Barber East Midlands Regional Assembly Health and Safety Antony Aspbury Associates Ms Christine Hooker Mrs Veronica Robinson Executive Ltd CPRE Derbyshire Branch Mr Paul Southby, Howkins and Harrison Mr Harris, Fisher Germain CBI East Midlands Richard Raper Planning Friends of the Earth, Age Concern Leicestershire Mr Dennis Singer Mrs S Yeomans East Midlands Region & Rutland Swift Valley Partnership Mrs Lynn Simms Mr Max Bowden The Youth Council

Represen Name of Support/ Summary of response Suggested Council response Recommendation tation ID responden Object t/organisat ion 01 The No comments to make on the SPD. Noted. No action needed. National Trust 02 Ashby de Support Support the principle of the SPD and Noted la Zouch encourage the Council to adopt it. Civic Society Would like to see the SPD control The street trading policy relates to Insert “ The potential impact upon takeaways that are near schools to mobile take away units i.e. burger the health of local residents where protect the health of pupils, who are the vans. However it is considered it can be demonstrated that the main users of these facilities. appropriate to include reference to proposal will raise heath issues” Reference should be made to the health within the Key Principle. at the end of Key Principle 4 judicial review of Copeland v Tower Hamlets Council. This would support the existing street trading policy which bans sales near schools for health . reasons.

Key Principle 3 should reduce The SPD seeks that no more than No changes recommended to the takeaways to 5% of total commercial 10% of the total commercial units be SPD units. This would then be in line with occupied by hot food takeaway uses. most other Local Authorities which have This is suggested as a balanced adopted similar polices. approach in that it would allow a retail focus alongside a range and mix of complementary non-retail uses, for example, banks, building societies, cafes, restaurants etc. Furthermore any proposal is not based solely on a numerical assessment and other criteria must be satisfied, for example, the location of other hot food take aways, impact on character and amenity.

Like to see Policy R19 applied to Ashby It is not the role of an SPD to amend No changes recommended to the and Coalville. The SPD suggested that existing policy or establish new policy. SPD. it only applies to other settlements. It is However Policy R4 of the Local Plan equally needed for Ashby and Coalville. identifies the suitable uses for Coalville and Ashby subject to various considerations. Policy R19 does the same in the Local Centres.

There are 9 additional premises in A take away use ancillary to a Future applications for restaurant Market Street, Ashby, which are restaurant may create similar issues uses to be assess against the restaurants that also provide takeaway to those associated with a sole take SPD. facilities. away use, e.g., car parking issues. Therefore suggest that future Add “A restaurant use with an applications for a restaurant with an ancillary take away use may also ancillary take away use are also exacerbate these issues. assessed against the SPD. However Therefore applications for this if an existing restaurant use type of use should also be incorporates a take away use, assessed against these Key planning permission is not always Principles.” needed. This would depend on the at the end of Para 9.5 scale of the take away use.

Welcome Key Principle 5 that restricts Noted. No action needed. further takeaways in Ashby.

When this policy is adopted, request The Development Control Team and No changes recommended to the that the Licensing Environmental Health the Environmental Health Team will SPD. and Planning Officers, and Councillors have their own specific criteria against utilise a consistent policy when which to assess applications. determining licenses and planning However in order to ensure applications. This would prevent the consistency in approach, both of current racketing of permission by these teams have been consulted on playing one department off against the the preparation of the SPD. other.

03 The Coal No specific comments to make on the Noted. No action needed. Authority document at this stage.

04 Measham The jewellers at 39 High Street, Noted. Measham audit to be updated. Parish Measham is not vacant and is still Council operational and is located on the upper Add “(Ground Floor Vacant and floor of the building. Upper Floor in Use)” to the end of Appendix 5, South east side of High Street, 39 Jewellers (A1)

05 Civil No objections made to the SPD No action needed. Aviation Authority 06 English No comments to make on the Draft Noted. No action needed. Heritage Retail SPD but generally support the objective of maintaining the retail function of the towns, particularly the historic town of Ashy de la Zouch. Noted. Question whether a full Sustainability Appraisal (SA) is required for a SPD and query whether the SA could be more focussed on the subject matter of the SPD,

07 Highway The issues covered by the draft SPD Noted. No action needed. Agency are not expected to have a material impact on the Strategic Road Network. As such the Highways Agency has no particular comments to make.

08 The A balance needs to be found between Both national and local policy No action needed. Theatres the main function of the town centre as recognises there needs to be an Trust a shopping and employment appropriate balance between the destination, the amenity of the retail function of the District’s centres residential population and the and the range of other appropriate opportunities to enjoy an evening out. and complementary uses. Take away Evening and night-time activities, uses can contribute to a centre’s including hot food take aways, are attractiveness but it is also recognised fundamental to urban renaissance as that too many of these uses can be to they ensure the vitality of an area the detriment of the area. The SPD beyond working hours. However too seeks to address these concerns. many licensed premise and take aways can harm the character and function of a town centre.

Take away and licensed premise Different take away uses will attract No action needed. venues can be systemised to cater for different customer profiles as the over 25’s or for families. They can suggested. However permission is be sited next to cinemas and theatres not needed to change from one take with less of an emphasis on fun pubs. away use to another take away use. Therefore the ‘type’ of take away use cannot be controlled once permission for a take away use has been granted.

Table 1, page 16 does not list sui Noted. Appendix updated to include generis as a Use Class Order. This examples of sui generis uses. information should be added as there is a theatre in Ashby. Insert at the end of Appendix 1- Use Classes Order “Sui Generis. There are many uses that are not categorised by the main use classes. These are classified as sui generis. For example, theatres, taxi hire.

Query whether the Venture Theatre The Draft SPD has been advertised No action needed. been consulted? on the Council’s website and within a Press Release.

09 Sport Supports the recognition in the Noted. No action required. England document for the contribution that sport, leisure and recreation have in supporting the balance of town centres particularly with regard to the evening economy.

Sport and recreation can make an Noted. The SPD seeks to maintain important contribution to the local an effective shopping role in the economy and assist in regeneration. district’s centres as well as providing a range of other appropriate and complementary uses, including leisure uses.

10 Leicester No comments to make on the SPD at Noted No action required. City this stage. Council

11 and 17 Castle Sustainability Appraisal – document Noted No action required. Donington appears to address the issues Parish associated with local centres and to Council have given consideration to the various policies and objectives.

SPD Document Concerned that the document will not The guidance will provide advice on No action required currently form part of the development the interpretation of Local Plan policy plan and not afforded ‘full weight’. This and will assist those involved in the could lead to mis-interpretation by application process. It will be a officers making decisions under material consideration to be taken into delegated powers – it will be one account when determining persons view. applications.

A public consultation was undertaken in Evidence collected for Castle No changes recommended to the Ashby with reference to hot food Donington with regard to the SPD. takeaways. If a similar consultation in proportion and clustering of take away Castle Donington were carried out, a uses indicates that Castle Donington similar response would be received. does not experience the same issues The central area of Caste Donington as Ashby,. However the situation will has a high level of residential properties be kept under review, through and therefore the issues associated monitoring, and the SPD can be with take aways such as litter, anti- amended if necessary. social behaviour and inappropriate parking, have a major impact. Parish Council would want the strict controls being implied in Ashby to be applied in Castle Donington.

It is hoped that the assessment of A3, The SPD will provide advice to be No action required. A4 and A5 applications will be to a used in the consideration of such standard level as the potential to allow a applications. piece-meal approach to development has a detrimental affect on the community in the long-term.

It is considered that within the ‘Evidence The purpose of this section is to No action required. Section’ of the document the wording is provide an overview of the current done in a way to favour a particular situation of each of the centres. area – some areas are addressed in a more positive manner than others, for example, Ashby.

Do not agree with the statement that no A comparison store is that which sells No changes recommended to the non retail use dominates the local high value non-food goods, for SPD. centre of Castle Donington, as it is felt example, clothes, furniture. that there is a proliferation of take Hairdressers fall within the retail use aways and hairdressers. Request class and permission is not needed to explanation of what a ‘comparison change from one retail use to another. store’ is. Recent survey work indicates that over half of the units are occupied by retail uses. This work also shows than no one particular non-retail uses dominates. For example, financial and professional uses account for approximately 10% of commercial uses, restaurants account for 9%, public houses for 5% and take aways for 5%.

Policy R19 should address the above Evidence suggests that over 50% of No changes recommended to the issues but it is felt that the interpretation the units with Castle Donington SPD. and lack of local knowledge creates comprise retail uses. There is also a decisions not fully considered in respect good variety in comparison stores. of local amenities of residents and the Therefore on the basis of this area. evidence, non-retail uses do not dominate this local centre.

Key Principle 1 – Retail Balance: Noted No action required. Parish Council supports this principle for Castle Donington.

Key Principle 2 – To maintain an The decision will be made by the No changes recommended to the appropriate balance between shopping Council, when determining planning SPD. and non-shopping is defined by Key applications either as delegated Principle 1. However who makes this decision or by Planning Committee. decision and will monitoring take place Monitoring will take place to keep to ensure that the overall view of the survey work up to date. This centre is considered. Although the principle allows consideration to be principle of utilising vacant premises is given to vacancy issues but not at the good, the impact of a change of use on expense of the impact of on character amenity and locality should also be or locality. considered.

Key Principle 3 –Reference to no more There may be instances when a use Future applications for dual uses than two A5 adjacent units needs class may not fit solely into one to be assessed against the SPD. clarification. For example, if a property planning use class but it is not becomes dual classed could this considered practical for the SPD to Insert “It is also appreciated that comply with this principle. cover every scenario or eventuality. there will be instances when a use Therefore when the principles of the may not fit comfortably within one SPD are applied, consideration would of the main use classes. In these be given to the nature of that cases, the principles of the SPD particular use, for example, its impact will be applied, with regard given on local character and local amenity to the nature and potential impact and whether it would raise the same of the use.” At the end of Para issues as a sole A5 use. 9.1

Key Principle 4 – What is “the The ‘immediate area’ and ‘clusters’ immediate area” and how are “clusters” will depend on the scale and nature of Insert at end of the last criteria in defined? Is this within an area/street the centre, or even the street within Key Principle 4 “Where a litterbin and is it open to misinterpretation. Who which the application site is located. cannot be provided within the decides if a traffic issue is unresolved? The suggested wording allows each curtilage of the premises, a Are local views considered? Different case to be judged on its merits, in that commuted sum will be sought people can have different views? More particular location and at that moment towards the provision of a litterbin definition is needed. in time. Advise reference traffic within the locality. If it is not possible to provide a litter bin issues will be sought from the within the curtilage of the take away Highway County Authority. premises, a contribution should be Neighbours and local views will be made towards additional litter bins sought through the planning within the highway. application process through notification and publicity of the application.

There is no objection in principle to seeking a contribution, where relevant, for the provision of a litter bin.

Key Principle 5 – This Ashby principle Evidence collected with regard to the should also be applied to Castle proportion and clustering of take away No changes recommended to the Donington, in particular to hot food uses indicates that Castle Donington SPD. takeaways, financial and professional does not experience the same issues services and hairdressers. There are as Ashby. However the situation will major concerns about the detrimental be kept under review, through affects of the smells generated by the monitoring, and the SPD can be close proximity of takeaways and amended if necessary. associated parking issues when there is limited off-street parking.

Key Principle 6 – This should relate to This principle specifically relates to Castle Donington, in some form, as the Ibstock. Evidence collected does not No changes recommended to the concentration of hot food takeaways indicate that Caste Donington SPD. exacerbates the detrimental impacts on experiences the same issues as amenity. Ibstock. Take away uses account for 19% of the commercial units in Ibstock. It is suggested that Key Principle 1 and 2 provide adequate guidance for the protection of Castle Donington’s existing retail function and protection from the potential detrimental impacts of hot food takeaways. However the situation will be kept under review, through monitoring, and the SPD can be amended if necessary.

Monitoring of the principles of the SPD The audit will be updated throughout should be on a more frequent basis as the monitoring year, if permission is Insert “Para 10.3 Updated survey well as include representation and granted for a change of use. Site work will also be sought through comments from the local visits will be made to application sites site visits to proposal sites” after representatives, in particular, in relation as well as the locality, in order to Para 10.2 to affects on Conservation Areas. assess any change of use applications that are received.

12 Roger Experience at dealing with proposals for Etchells, non-retail uses in shopping areas and Roger have been involved in a large number of Etchells & successful planning appeals. Company Comments are as a trader and use of Ashby town centre.

The guidance uses the number of units Acknowledge that there are various No changes recommended to the as a way of assessing the non-retail ways of assessing the retail content of SPD. content. Suggest that this is the least a centre and that floor space is reliable approach, for example, large probably the most accurate approach. units are given the same value as However , as accepted by the smaller units and does not provide a objector this approach is unrealistic sound basis for such an assessment, as and impractical as it would be difficult has been found by Inspectors on to collect this information. Therefore appeal. Ideally floor area would be the suggested approach of recording used for such an assessment, however the number of units is considered to it is accepted that this in unrealistic. give a truer impression of the mix of Therefore suggest that the frontage is uses rather than using frontage the most reliable and practical way of measurements. A measure of the mix making such an assessment. of commercial units provides an impression of a centres vitality and viability.

Para 8.2 refers to ‘surveyed frontages’, Para 6.8 identifies the area of Ashby Provide greater clarification within however the Key Principle refers to town centre to which the SPD applies. the SPD. ‘defined areas’. Unless the figure for This area, as defined in para 6.8, is the defined area is known, which is not, that which has been surveyed and is Delete all text in Para 6.8 and it is impossible to consider whether 50% contained within the Appendix of the replace with “ With regard to minimum retails figure is reasonable. SPD. However in light of this Ashby de la Zouch the SPD Approach of comparing’ surveyed representation, it has become applies to the following parts of its frontages’ and ‘defined centre’ is apparent that more clarity is needed, Core Shopping Area (as defined fundamentally flawed. The ‘surveyed both in the written text and the in the Local Plan) - Market Street, frontages’ do not include all the ‘retail’ accompanying Ashby town centre Bath Street, Kilwardby Street, type frontages. For example, shops in maps. The surveyed frontage is the Derby Road, Brook Street and the Green and North Street have not area to which the Key Principles 1, 2, courtyards to the rear. These been surveyed although they are in the 3 and 4 apply. This area was streets are considered to form the defined centre. An unworkable policy identified as making up the main main shopping and commercial without consideration of the whole shopping and commercial streets of streets of Ashby. (Appendix 2). ‘defined centre’ which needs to be Ashby. Green and North Street are With regard to the centres of reviewed. not within the area that to which the Castle Donington, Ibstock, SPD applies. Measham and Kegworth, the SPD applies to their local centre boundaries as defined in the Local Plan (Appendices 3-6)

Amend Key Principle 1.

Insert “In the town centre of Ashby de la Zouch, shopping uses should represent no less than 50% of all commercial uses within the main shopping and commercial streets. Delete ‘town and” and “Ashby de la Zouch” from the now second sentence.

Amend Key Principle 3

Delete “Within the defined town and local centres, subject to this SPD” and replace with “In the main shopping and commercial streets of Ashby de la Zouch and the defined local centres of Castle Donington, Ibstock, Measham and Kegworth”

Key Principle 2: Query the relevance of No changes recommended to the fixing a minimum period of marketing to This principle provides a range of SPD. assess the acceptability of the use. In issues that regard should be had to making a decision on a change of use for a change of use application that consideration should be given to would involve loss of retail, including whether a proposal would be harmful to impact character and function of the vitality and viability. A specific and centre, as well as the balance extended period of vacancy should not between retail and non-retail uses. be a precondition to the grant of The criteria relating to vacancy issues planning permission although a period allows this issue to be considered and of vacancy may be relevant in general assessment to be made as to whether terms on occasions. it would be preferential for a property that is vacant and has been for a period of time, to have a user although it may result in the loss of a retail use.

The nature of premises is also of No changes recommended to the relevance with some units more suited It is acknowledged that this may be SPD. to retail uses. Premises with the case in some instances, but in conventional shop fronts are more others works can be carried out to a suited to retail uses than those with premise in order for it to be more restricted shop windows. These are suited to retail uses. more suited to non-retail uses.

Key Principle 3 – ignores that fact that Future applications for restaurant many class A3 uses quite legitimately A take away use ancillary to a uses to be assess against the have an ancillary take away element. restaurant may create similar issues SPD. These affect the character of the to those associated with a sole take eastern end of Market Street in away use, e.g., car parking issues. Add “A restaurant use with an conjunction with the existing Class A5 Therefore suggest that future ancillary take away use may also uses. Suggest a condition is attached applications for a restaurant with an exacerbate these issues. to any new Class A3 use (eastern end ancillary take away use are also Therefore applications for this of Market Street) to prevent take away assessed against the SPD. However type of use should also be sales in locations where this would if an existing restaurant use assessed against these Key exacerbate existing problems. This incorporates a take away use, Principles.” approach is not necessary for planning permission is not always At the end of Para 9.5 applications away from the eastern end needed. This would depend on the of Market Street. scale of the take away use.

Key Principle 5 – amounts to an It is suggested that the Key Principle Amend Key Principle 5. embargo on further take away uses is amended to allow some flexibility within the defined Market Street for applications to be considered on Delete text to Key Principle 5 and frontage of Ashby and prevents their merits. This principle will still replace with: applications being considered on their seek to retain a retail focus in Market merits. A better approach would be for a Street with no less than 50% of the Within the defined Market Street principle to resist further A5 uses in this commercial units to be occupied by frontage of Nos 11 to 89, and Nos area if they exacerbate the adverse shops. However the restriction on 6 to 108 (Appendix A), the Council impact on the vitality and viability of the additional take away uses will apply to will ensure that no less than 50% shopping area or are likely to result in only the eastern end of Market Street, of the commercial frontages are increased adverse impact on the as this is where the existing take occupied by shops. amenity of the area. aways uses are clustered. Furthermore, since the second round Within the defined Market Street of consultation an Appeal Decision for frontage of Nos 67 to 89, and Nos 59 Market Street has been published. 76 and 108 (Appendix 2), the A change of use from restaurant to Council will ensure that no new take away use was allowed. The additional take aways are granted Inspector concluded that this take planning permission over and away use would not lead to a above those in existence or concentration of such uses and that permitted at the time of the this part of Market Street is dominated adoption of this SPD. by shop uses. Therefore having had regard to this representation and Delete Para 9.9 recent appeal decision changes to Key Principle 5 are proposed, as detailed. Applications for take away uses elsewhere in Market Street will be considered on its merits taking into account the principles of the SPD.

13 Packington Agree that the document is needed. The SPD will apply to development in No changes recommended to the Parish Query whether the restriction will only the specified area of Ashby Town SPD. Council apply to the mentioned Ashby, Ibstock Centre and the Local Centres of and Kegworth or will it become a Castle Donington, Ibstock, Measham general measure for all towns and and Kegworth. villages in the district. 14 North West Overall, the SPD needs to be clear of its Noted Delete from Paragraph 2.1 ‘aims Leicestersh purpose and when it means Class A1 to provide information to those ire District (Shops) in both the text and the policy. who wish to submit a planning Council – application that affects both retails Internal uses (Class A1) and other service Consultees uses in the specific town and village centres. Delete from Paragraph 2.2 ‘This guidance.’

Where relevant all references to retail have been deleted within the text and replaced with Shops (Class A1) and shopping.

Amend title of paragraph 9.2) from ‘Retail Balance’ to ‘Balance of Uses’.

Amend the titles of Key Principles 1 and 2 from ‘Retail Balance’ to ‘Balance of Uses.’

The description of the Use Classes Noted. Move ‘Use Classes Order” (Paragraphs 6.10 to 6.14) and the (Paragraphs 6.10 to 6.14) after changes to the Use Classes Order Paragraph 6.1. Renumber as 6.2 should be earlier in the document in to 6.6 order to inform what follows. Insert after first sentence in Paragraph 6.14 (To be renumbered paragraph 6.6) “ This is because planning permission is needed to change from one use class to another whereas previously this was not the case and so the District Council as Local Planning Authority had less control. This allows’ Delete ‘It allows’ from the beginning of the next sentence.

Insert at the end of paragraph 6.5 (to be renumbered paragraph 6.10) ‘This policy was adopted prior to the recent changes to the Use Classes Order. Therefore reference to Class A3 in the context of Policy R4 now includes restaurant and cafes, drinking establishments and hot food takeaways in accordance with the Use Classes Order.”

Suggest clarification of what is meant The Local Plan policies were adopted Add to the first bullet point of when reference is made to Class A3 prior to the 2005 changes to the Use section 5 ‘,particularly in light of uses in Policies R4 and R19 of the Classes Order. the changes to the Use Classes Local Plan Order which have separated Class A3 into three separate Use Classes.’

Insert at the end of paragraph 6.7 (to be renumbered paragraph 6.12) ‘This policy was adopted prior to the recent changes to the Use Classes Order. Therefore reference to Class A3 in the context of Policy R19 now includes restaurant and cafes, drinking establishments and hot food takeaways in accordance with the Use Classes Order.’

Suggest clarification of the role of the Noted. It is also suggested that the Delete “R5” from the first bullet SPD in relation to Policy R5. text clarifies the status of this local point under Section 5 – Objectives plan policy. of the SPD.

Insert at the end of paragraph 6.6 (To be renumbered 6.11) ‘It is acknowledged that along Market Street, financial and professional services (Class A2) have exceeded more than 10%of the total frontage. However Policy R5 is still the current planning policy and relevant applications will be considered on their individual merits and against other relevant policy and material considerations.’

Insert “Policy R5 of the Local Plan seeks to prevent groupings of financial and professional services. However the restrictions sought in the policy have already been exceeded although this still is a relevant planning policy and material consideration in determining a planning application.” After the third sentence of paragraph 8.7

Delete Paragraph 9.7

Query who raised concerns regarding These concerns were raised by local Delete first sentence of Paragraph the number of take aways in Ashby. residents of Ashby. 7.1 and replace with ‘Concerns have been expressed locally over the perceived proliferation of hot food takeaways in Ashby de la Zouch town centre and the negative impact on amenity and loss of shops and reduction in consumer choice.’

Insert “negatively on’ in the last sentence of paragraph 7.2 between ‘impacted’ and ‘the’.

Insert an additional paragraph 9.5 Suggest the type of evidence that Noted and agreed. that reads ‘The principles above should be submitted if a change of use seek to support existing policy is being sought for a property that is and support an appropriate vacant. balance of shopping and other commercial uses. Where reference is made to vacant units, written evidence should be submitted to show that attempts have been made to market the premises. This should include a statement detailing the marketing measures undertaken, any marketing particulars and the level of interest shown in the premises.’

Insert an additional paragraph 9.6 Suggest that clarification is provided as Noted and agreed. ‘Key Principle 4 requires the to the means use to ensure the provision of a litter bin and this will provision of a litter bin. be secured via appropriate means, including Section 106 agreements.’

Bullet Point 5 be amended to read Suggest wording change to Key Noted and agreed. ‘Impact on amenity, traffic or Principle 4 safety issues arising from the proposal itself or cumulatively with the existing uses in the area.”

Suggest wording change to Key Noted and agreed. Key Principle 6 be amended to Principle 6 read “The concentration of take away uses will not be permitted to increase above the existing 19% of commercial uses within the Local Centre of Ibstock.” 15 National No specific comments to make on the Noted. No action required. Trust SPD.

16 English No additional comments to make on the Noted. No action needed. Heritage SPD.

17 Castle See representation No 11 Donington Parish Council

18 Leicestersh No comments to make on the SPD. Noted. No action needed. ire County Council

19 The No comments to make on the SPD but Noted. No action needed. Theatres look forward to being consulted on Trust Local Development Documents.