Shipston on Stour Neighbourhood Plan
Economy Topic - Audit and Issues Report
By Stephen Miles
For the Economy Topic Group
Interim report July 2015
Updated report and final issue 07 September 2015
Contents
1. Background
Page 1
2. Methodology
Page 5
3. Audit findings
Page 6
4. Cross-topic issues and ideas
Page 12
5. Sustainability appraisal
Page 13
6. Update on recommended actions as S3.6.7
Page 13
Annex A: Designated Area map
Page 15
1 Background
1.1 Scope and purpose of the audit
1.1.1 This document summarises the position reached as of 07 September 2015 regarding work on
the local economy topic. The facts as researched and assessed by the plan-making team are
outlined, with a reasoned commentary given on the potential relevance to the current and
prospective development of the town. An overall assessment is provided, and the key issues and
opportunities to be considered per se by the economy group and for cross-topic matters by the
three other plan-making topic groups – infrastructure, housing and environment – are set out. Some
aspects of the work remain inconclusive: suggestions are made as to the priorities for concluding
1
actions to draw this stage of the plan-making to a close such that meaningful wider community
engagement can commence.
1.1.2 The Economy Topic Group comprised the following individuals: Ian Cooper; Trev Trevithick; and
Alex Lilley. This local trio live and/or work in the town; and have a strong interest in, and experience
and in-depth knowledge of, the local economy. On behalf of the plan-making team the economy
group designed and commissioned two supplementary surveys in 2014 of local businesses, building
on the then existing local evidence base, and providing up-to-date information to complement that
available from earlier local business surveys and the higher-level information within the then
published evidence base of the emerging Core Strategy. Of note too is the evidence and assessments
made during 2013 – 2015 in relation to proposals for a retail component in a mixed-use
development on land north of Campden Road. This planning application, and the resulting planning
appeal, has provided much information on, and evaluation of, the current retail needs, offer,
trading, and capacity in the town, and in particular the effects of such a development on town
centre vitality and best meeting local shopping needs.
1.1.3 The economy topic group made a considerable and sincere effort to research and assess the
facts. It may well be that some aspects of the town’s economy have been missed or not given
enough attention. The Neighbourhood Plan team apologises if this is so, and trusts that those
individuals and organisations who may wish to add or modify will do so in good part.
1.2 Producing a Neighbourhood Plan
1.2.1 The decision by the Town Council [STC] to sponsor the preparation of a Neighbourhood Plan
was made in November 2012. This followed in-depth soundings of the local community to gauge the
appetite for such a project, whether substantial help would be volunteered, and what local people
thought were important issues for the future of the town. A summary of this early stage of the planmaking process is in a comprehensive Scoping Report1 prepared for STC in November 2012. This
document was the basis of a formal STC decision to proceed, starting with a submission to the
Stratford-on-Avon District Council [SDC] for their authorisation to commence the project. That
authorisation was given on 08 April 2013.
1.2.2 In May 2013, as part of the ongoing community engagement, notably at the yearly Wool Fair,
STC sought community volunteers to form an independent project team to take forward the work.
The proposed plan-making process utilised the publications from Locality2, one of the national
advisors then hired by the Department for Communities and Local Government [DCLG] to promote
interest and provide ongoing support. Assistance from Locality had been secured for the launch of
the process, and this continued through 2013/4.
1.2.3 It was decided to sub-divide the plan-making work into four categories: economy; housing;
environment; and infrastructure. Volunteers were appointed to these topic groups. The initial task
was to research and collate the important information on each topic such that the main facts and
issues were properly documented and understood. When the implications were known there would
following discussion within and between the topic groups the resulting ‘evidence’ would be subject
to wider engagement on the emerging ideas and options for the future of the town.
1
2
Producing a Neighbourhood Plan Scoping Report issued by STC November 2012
Neighbourhood Plans Roadmap Guide: Locality 2012
2
1.2.4 It should be noted that from the initial the community engagement mentioned above a
number of key local economy concerns had been identified, refer to the Scoping Report Section 4.3.
These included:



a stronger local economy with more and local employment opportunities;
a town more adapted to meeting local needs and sustaining those changes; and
maintaining the vitality, functionality and heritage value of the town centre.
This feedback gave some focus to the work of the economy topic group.
1.3 Planning policy context
1.4.1 A Neighbourhood Development Plan is a community-led framework for guiding the land-use,
development, regeneration and conservation of an area. It will likely contain a vision, aims, planning
policies, and area-based proposals for improving the locality or providing new facilities; and
potentially the allocation of key sites for specific types of development, regeneration initiatives, and
such as valued landscape areas for special protection. Further to a decision taken in July 2014 in
conjunction with SDC this plan will include ‘site allocations’. A plan may deal with a wide range of
social, economic and environmental issues, or it may focus on a few pertinent matters. This plan is
looking across a wide range of issues, as guided by the launch-stage and subsequent community
engagement. When completed and adopted the plan will be part of the statutory development plan
for the area. That statutory status provides far more weight when planning decisions are made than
do other informal local documents such as parish plans and village/town design statements.
1.4.2 A Neighbourhood Plan must comply with European and National legislation, and must have
appropriate regard to national policy and guidance and be in general conformity with existing
strategic local planning policy. The National Planning Policy Framework and related planning
guidance provides the top tier. With regard to strategic policy - a District-wide context – the position
reached with the District Council’s emerging Core Strategy should be noted. That ‘emergence’ has
been somewhat protracted and an up-to-date adopted plan is not yet in place, indeed is some way
off. At the time of writing an interim report from the Inspector based on the examination-in-public
of the SDC draft Core Strategy3 had been published by SDC in March 2015. That interim report
identified some major shortcomings, primarily to do with the proposed amount of housing land
supply and the underlying assessment of housing needs. Ongoing technical work by SDC seeks to
address this issue. It may well be that the outcome will have implications for the main rural centres,
including Shipston on Stour, such that allocating additional housing land will become a
consideration. Clearly the amount of new housing in the town has huge implications for the local
economy, including the desirability of having local jobs as opposed to greater levels of commuting to
work. There are also economic implications from a higher level of local needs to be met from
expenditure by additional residents.
1.4.3 In late June 2015, to keep things moving, SDC published an updated and interim draft Core
Strategy document that incorporates proposed modifications and policies that are ‘’not subject to
significant representations or unresolved concerns”. In simple terms SDC has published an updated
draft Core Strategy minus the ongoing controversial bits – mainly housing related – so that planning
applications can be assessed against the up-to-date policy position. There is a ‘health warning’ with
the publication that formally all the stated policies - including those on the local economy - must
3
SDC Proposed Submission Core Strategy submitted to Secretary of State 30 September 2014
3
await the catching-up of the outcome of the ongoing work on the controversial issues, be then
reviewed by the examining Inspector, and if confirmed ‘sound’ be overall ‘adopted’ by SDC before
the policies in the June 2015 ‘down payment’ publication will carry full weight. That said, for the
emerging Neighbourhood Plan it is very helpful to read the summary evidence and set of policies in
relation to the local economy, and it is seen by SDC as unlikely that those policies will be further
amended. The comments in this audit report utilise the June 2015 SDC publication.
1.4.3 Over the last few years there have been several major planning applications mostly for large
scale housing developments. These have been determined in the absence of an up-to-date
development plan. One of those applications was a mixed-use proposal including a supermarket, by
developer ASL for land north of Camden Road. A more detailed overall commentary can be found in
the companion Housing Topic Croup report. These applications have mostly been for edge-ofsettlement sites [this can include the previously developed site of the former Norgren factory]. The
relevance to the local economy aspects of the emerging Neighbourhood Plan is twofold. Firstly the
cumulative outcome of planning permissions – mostly wins on appeal – means that a considerable
number of new dwellings is in the pipeline, more indeed than the allocation to the town within the
emerging Core Strategy. As noted above and assuming the developments are built this will mean a
much larger local population, with employment needs to be met, and additional expenditure within
the local economy. The second point is that as mentioned one major application included a large
retail component. Planning permission was awarded in February 2015 on appeal after a Public
Inquiry. The main planning issue was the retail impact on town centre vitality and trading and the
related retail ‘offer’ in the town and whether local needs were being adequately met. This planning
application and the related documentation on the retailing component of the local economy
provides useful and up-to-date evidence
1.5 The plan area and setting
1.5.1 The designated Neighbourhood Plan area is the Parish of Shipston-on-Stour, see the map at
Annex A.
1.5.2 The key geographical points in relation to the local economy are a) the town’s location near the
very southern end of the County and District; and b) the proximity of the town to the county
boundaries with Gloucester and Oxford, which also are in different regions, the Southwest and
Southeast respectively taking the economic planning region definitions as still used. A consequence
of this location, and the county and regional proximities, is that for development and especially
economic planning purposes SDC understandably looks north to the Coventry – Solihull –
Warwickshire sub-region of the West Midlands region and in particular the M40 corridor. The Local
Enterprise Partnership also reflects that geography. Arguably there are some consequences for the
production of a neighbourhood plan. The plain fact is that the town and surrounding area is, in terms
of published information on the regional and sub-regional economy, somewhat out-on-a-limb. This
will not have helped the economy topic group when they came to find and assess the available and
useful information.
1.5.3 The emerging Core Strategy does recognise this peripheral location, and the Area Strategy
section therein provides a summary of the key facts and implications. The main points made in that
section are: a) that the town has, using Census evidence, the highest proportion of people - nearly
half – living and working in the same Ward of all the main rural centres in the District; b) that
because of the distance from larger towns Shipston on Stour has the biggest local catchment area
4
for shops, services and facilities of any of the main rural centres, and c) that of the roughly half of
residents who work away from the town about 20% travel to Oxfordshire and Gloucestershire
combined, 24% to Stratford [the town not wider District]. The stated point is that the town is
unusually self-contained in employment terms. Or it was. The elderly statistics informing the
comments in the emerging Core Strategy pre-date the closures of several major employers in the
town.
1.5.4 The ‘big picture’ discussion point from published evidence about the setting is whether the
stated facts and comments about the town being unusually self-contained, out-on-a-limb from the
main economic action of the Coventry-Solihull-Warwickshire sub-region, and the consequent low
key status for economic policies for the town and surrounding area within the emerging Core
Strategy, is a concern to the plan-making group and the plan sponsor. For example, see ‘Shipstonon-Stour Area Strategy - Future Development Issues’: “The Employment Land Study concludes that
Shipston-on-Stour’s remoteness from the motorway network and larger settlements affects its
commercial attractiveness, albeit the quality of the place is high. There are 2.0 hectares of land
available for employment development at Tilemans Lane which would appear adequate to support
the future employment needs of the settlement”. That recommendation was made before the above
noted local job losses. Is the allocation enough? How does this sit with aims for the sustainable
development of the town and wider District? Why is there an arguably weak economic development
content within emerging Core Strategy [Policy AS6 Shipston-on-Stour]? From what is included It
might well be thought that the town is ‘off the radar’ in terms of economic development policy, a
victim of being at the southern extremity? Would the town make more progress if it looked more
south than north – Oxford and Cheltenham are no more distant than Coventry. Certainly this is one
for further discussion and consideration in the plan-making work. Having put down a marker we will
return to this theme in the light of evidence from the aforementioned business surveys the economy
topic group commissioned.
2. Methodology
2.1 The topic group has applied the guidance in the published Locality Roadmap Guide, in particular
Worksheet 3 therein4 ‘Building the Evidence Base’, which was issued to the plan-making team early
in 2014. This document gives sound advice on the need for a robust approach, and the sources of
evidence.
2.2 The topic group divided the work into three categories, reflecting personal knowledge and
interests. Ian Cooper researched data about the local economy, in particular the reports within the
then published evidence base for the emerging Core Strategy, plus information submitted in relation
to then ongoing planning applications and appeals for proposals that had a commercial development
content. Trev Trevithick focussed on leisure and tourism development, ensuring that parallel
ongoing local work on better developing that sector was linked to the neighbourhood plan. Alex
Lilley concentrated on the need for additional local business surveys, the scope and questions to be
asked, and procuring consultant support. It should be noted that SDC had offered to cover some of
the costs of those additional surveys given their interest in the economic development of the town.
4
Locality ‘Neighbourhood Planning Worksheet 5 Building the Evidence Base’ 2012
5
2.3 An economy topic group workshop was held on 22 October 2014 to present the findings of the
local economy research by Ian Cooper, and discuss the outcomes of two supplementary local
business surveys5 6conducted respectively by consultants People & Places and Towns Alive:


Shipston on Stour Business Survey Report 2014, People & Places, with 141 questionnaires
circulated by post and a response from 38 businesses, or 28% of respondents; and
Homeworkers Business survey Report 2014, Towns Alive, based on an online survey to
gather the opinions of homeworkers based in the town, with 35 surveys completed.
A minute7 was kept of the 22 October 2014 workshop meeting, and a copy of the thorough
presentation8 was published by the topic group for the wider benefit of the plan-making team. What
is particularly good is the topic group’s robust and methodical approach, as shown on the published
presentation. The group had collected evidence on trends in the local economy; had then related
that information to evidence of local needs such as the feedback from the supplementary surveys
and the evidence submitted in respect of planning applications and appeals. The comparative
position was then assessed by way of options for the local economy, assessing what potential
policies and interventions might be beneficial. The constraints and risks for those policies and
interventions were considered. Finally, a set of recommendations was made by the topic group.
Together with the published additional surveys and the workshop presentation material this
information constitutes an in-depth analysis and statement that the wider plan-making team could
respond to.
What in hindsight seems a little odd is that having rigorously done the research and analysis, the
topic group did not subsequently engage much with wider activity on the plan-making by the other
topic groups. That did not devalue their work. But it has raised an issue about how ‘joined-up’ the
local economy work has been with the rest of the plan-making, notably the cross-topic
considerations that were assessed by the wider team at two workshops in February/March 2015.
A further ‘caveat’ is that the economy topic group has relied heavily on information published by
SDC and the Local Enterprise Partnership [LEP]. This is understandable. But as noted above this
heavy reliance on data for the Coventry Solihull Warwickshire sub-region arguably does not reflect
the local realities and potential greater connections with nearby towns in Oxfordshire and
Gloucestershire. This may be something the collective topic groups should reflect upon.
3. Audit findings
3.1 The local economy in summary
3.1.1 The economy topic group did a good job summarising the key statistics. The population of the
town in 2011 was 5038 persons in 2318 households, an average household size of 2.17. Setting aside
the 1109 adult persons not economically active – that is retired or unemployed – there were in 2011
2459 residents in employment in the town or elsewhere. Of the 2459 there were:


5
1834 travelling to work by car, van or motorcycle
347 travelling to work by foot or bicycle
People & Places, Shipston on Stour Business Survey Report 2014
Towns Alive, Shipston’s Neighbourhood Plan Homeworkers Business Report August 2014
7
Shipston Neighbourhood Plan – Economy Group Workshop Notes – 22/10/2014 by E Lilley
8
Shipston-on-Stour Neighbourhood Plan Economy Topic Group – Evidence and Options –October 2014
6
6



89 travelling to work by public transport
133 working mostly or all at home
[a few fall in other categories so the above totals just short of 2459].
The big picture then is of a good proportion of the town’s employed persons working at home or
locally in the town. But the great majority travel by motor vehicle to places away from the town.
3.1.2 Vital evidence from the topic group is that over the period 2007 to 2014 the closure of several
significant local businesses resulted in the loss of 640 jobs. That is a big number in the context of the
2011 year residents in employment number of 2459 persons. Over 25%. The point is that the town
has become – likely continues even more to become – highly dependent on jobs away from the
town.
3.1.3 The town’s population increased by 62% from 1981 to 2011, with a doubling in the number of
dwellings over that period. It seems a fair assumption that given the recent scale of residential
planning permissions and further ones pending determination that that the town’s population will
continue to grow substantially. The big question that the economy topic group has raised is the
apparent mismatch between the creation of truly local jobs and a rapidly growing population. In
terms of seeking more sustainable development the trends are going in completely the wrong
direction.
3.2 Emerging Core Strategy
3.2.1 It is not clear whether the economy topic group much looked in 2014 at the then emerging
core strategy, other than reviewing some of the key evidence base reports such as the Employment
Land Study. In fairness such scrutiny was becoming worthwhile only by late 2014 when the
published draft core strategy had reached the submission stage – the published final draft as it were
that would be examined in public. Post examination, and for those policies that are not still bound
up with unfinished business on meeting housing needs, the June 2015 published ‘proposed
modifications’ version9 includes a ‘Shipston-on-Stour Area Strategy’. It is this content that makes for
interesting reading in terms of the above noted position with the local economy.
3.2.2 The main point to note is that the Area Strategy commences with a statement that ‘all strategic
objectives are relevant to this Area Strategy’. In other words the overall aims and objectives of the
Core Strategy will apply locally. This includes adopting effective measures that will deliver more
sustainable development. Indeed this is the key theme of the National Planning Policy Framework
that bears on the Core Strategy.
3.2.3 It might well be thought that the trends noted in Section 3.1 are at odds with what the draft
Core Strategy aims to deliver locally. This is most certainly an inference from the analysis and
conclusions reached in 2014 by the economy topic group. So does the more detailed commentary
and local policies in the June 2015 published Core Strategy offer promise? The loss of jobs with the
IMI Norgren closure is noted, as is the opportunity for tourism development, but it is perhaps
surprising that there is not more policy and proposals content about more local jobs and creating a
larger and more resilient local economy.
3.2.4 Two points are telling. First, in S6.6.19: ‘The Employment Land Study concludes that Shipstonon-Stour’s remoteness from the motorway network and larger settlements affects its commercial
9
Published June 2015 ‘Core Strategy as submitted September 201 showing subsequent proposed
modifications’
7
attractiveness, albeit the quality of the place is quite high. There are 2.0 hectares of land available for
employment development at Tileman’s Lane which would appear adequate to support the future
employment needs of the settlement’. Perhaps not the most enthusiastic view of prospects?
3.2.5 Second, in the Policy AS6 Shipston-on-Stour section the following measures apply:






Diversify the local economy and increase the provision of premises for local businesses;
Support the business uses on the Tileman’s Lane [Shipston Business Village] estate and retain
it for employment purposes;
Support the growth of new local enterprises fostered by effective business support;
Support the vitality of the town centre including through improved shopping and service
outlets;
Promote the role of tourism in the town and surrounding area; and
Improve the quantity and range of visitor accommodation.
3.2.6 In summary then, whilst the economic policies are broadly heading in good directions, the big
questions from the emerging Core Strategy for the Neighbourhood Plan team are:


Whether retaining 2ha. For employment development at Tileman’s Lane is adequate
and/or ambitious enough in the overall employment circumstances?
How best can the Neighbourhood Plan, by way of policies, projects and site allocations,
reinforce and locally deliver the Core Strategy aims as Policy AS6 for the town?
3.3 Supplementary Surveys
3.3.1 The 2014 People & Places Business Survey Report includes the collated feedback on the
questions: ‘What do you think needs to be done to support business and local economic growth?’
Some of the response is about greater levels of business networking, funding support and grant aid,
which is not really for a Neighbourhood Development Plan. But most of the feedback is relevant:





More and better car parking and better signage;
Improved public transport facilities;
Introduce town centre management from a central location;
Retain land and commercial premises for employment development;
Build more small employment units.
3.3.2 The 2014 Towns Alive Homeworkers Business Survey Report shows similar feedback as noted
above, with more comments [interestingly for homeworkers] to make about the need for:






Incubation and ‘starter’ units and offices including expansion of the Stour Enterprise Centre;
More space for business to operate from be it offices or industrial units;
More and smaller offices in the town;
Retention of industrial land;
Improved transport infrastructure and links;
More secure storage capacity for business equipment
3.3.3 This feedback chimes with some of the Core Strategy AS.6 Policies as noted in S.3.2.5. The
common thread is a local business view that more commercial development is desirable such that
8
there are opportunities for businesses to start and/or expand. Further, that employment land and
space should be retained, managed and promoted.
3.4 Evidence from planning applications.
3.4.1 From the outset of work on a Neighbourhood Plan the ‘elephant in the room’ was the
possibility of a large scale – for the town – retail development, first mooted in 2012, and the subject
of much and lively subsequent debate. Reviewing the work of the economy topic group it is
apparent that they found this issue hard to deal with at times such as at the above reported October
2014 Workshop – pre-judging such a development as undesirable due to an adverse impact on the
local economy and in particular the vitality of the town centre. Whatever those views were, and
might remain, the fact is that planning permission10 has been granted, on appeal, for a mixed-use
development on land north of Campden Road, to include a supermarket and associated filling
station. This proposal, whether or not it happens, has created a considerable body of evidence on
local needs, the retail impact, and the future vitality of the town centre. The evidence and
arguments are summarised by the independent Planning Inspector in the appeal decision letter
dated 23 February 2015. The economy topic group has not commented to the wider plan-making
team, but it is a matter of public record that the group did not welcome the decision. Whatever the
group’s viewpoint, it is important that the submitted and independently assessed evidence is noted
as it bears considerably on some of the emerging issues the Neighbourhood Plan is considering.
3.4.2 The planning conclusion was:
The proposal would represent a significant improvement in consumer choice. There would clearly
be an impact on the town centre but the consequences of this are not such as would cause the
appeal to be dismissed. Overall the proposal would not harm the viability and vitality of Shipston
town centre.
The submitted evidence, when balanced, showed that in the opinion of the Inspector the telling
factors were a) that the absence of shopping capacity within the town meant many consumers,
denied locally what they would choose, were travelling to distant stores, which was costly and
unsustainable; and b) that an out-of-town supermarket would probably result in the closure of the
smaller of the two Co-op stores, but that other town centre outlets would adapt and survive. The
decision letter is worth reading. Whether the supermarket will be built is unknown for now, the
developer and applicant ASL also got planning permission for the same site for a mostly residential
as opposed to mixed-use project [though a legal challenge is presently under way].
What is evident from this planning case is that the retail ‘offer’ in the town centre is arguably offthe-pace and is not fully meeting local retail needs and expectations in 2015. There may well be
scope for a Neighbourhood Plan to contain policies and proposals to raise the game in the town
centre.
3.5 Economy Topic Group statement
3.5.1 The economy topic group issued a short undated and unattributed ‘summary statement’ 11of
their conclusions, which is included below verbatim. This statement may, in the absence of any other
written output received, be taken as their input to the cross-topic considerations of issues.
“3.5.2 Needs
10
11
9
Planning Inspectorate appeal reference APP/J3720/A/13/2194850 decision 23 February 2015
Untitled and undated statement by Economy Topic Group issued May 2015 by E Lilley
Need for starter/industrial units.
Need for follow-on light industrial/office units.
Need to identify sites for the above. Note the difficulty of having industrial land surrounded by
housing causing noise, pollution, expansion of company restrictions [Turbine Blading]; danger of
mixed-use developments –how successful are they? What does this mean – housing + light industrial,
industrial, or retail? Cala Homes example.
Need for percentage of the town’s housing to be associated with employment in the town. This takes
the form of what employment opportunities are available [including surrounding rural industrial
estates] when considering planning applications and site allocations, and includes all types of
housing from affordable to middle-management style homes.
Need to maintain a diverse and sound retail offer within the town. The service and supply sector is
dependent on our current independent shops and is often underrated in terms of local employment
and economic impact. For example local farms supply the greengrocer and both butchers thereby
offering local jobs and keeping money flowing within our local community.
Need to carefully consider the impact of development on specific aspects of economic activity within
the town. For example continually expanding the town’s boundaries with housing will ultimately lead
to the need for additional retail centres outside the existing town centre, which will have a profound
impact on the nature of Shipston.
3.5.3 Wish list
Possibility of small hostel/boutique hotel on the former Norgren site. The significance of this cannot
be overrated – there is a massive under-supply of hotel/b&b accommodation in Shipston and many
projects, such as an expanded riverside walk/tourist attraction, will suffer if there are no beds in
which to put visitors. The Cala site is ideally placed equidistant between Stratford and the North
Cotswolds and would bring money and employment into the town.
Possibility of using the former Turbine Blading site for e.g. a medical centre but offering the site as a
trade-off for more industrial land within the town. The Turbine Blading site is now becoming very
restricted for industrial use due to the build-up of housing around it, but we must not lose more
potential industrial/employment land.
The current plan to turn Sandra’s into a Michelin-starred restaurant is likely to have a major
economic impact on the town – think Rick Stein and Padstow. We need to be managing the town’s
response to this. For example right now we don’t have the beds for potential high-income visitors to
such a restaurant – money that we should keep here will leak out of the town to places such as
Stratford and Moreton.
Existing barriers to economic growth.
High speed broadband is woefully inadequate in the town and needs to be rolled out properly and
soon, not continually delayed as at present. Technology will see a change in economic activity – from
more people operating internet based businesses from home to more homes ordering groceries and
goods online for home delivery.
Transport links to and from the town are inadequate and need to be addressed within at least a
district and county level. In particular public transport to bring working people into the town and out
10
to jobs they may have in towns nearby and rural industrial estates must be improved, while increased
home deliveries demand better and quicker road repair.”
3.6 Main messages and ideas
3.6.1 When all the above noted sources of information are combined and summarised it is apparent
that the economy topic group was only partly effective in its work and output. A fair effort was made
to research and interpret the ‘big picture’ of the local economy, exposing the very important point
about the growing mismatch between the town’s population and the availability of local jobs. This
divergence has been exacerbated by recent major job losses and an imminent surge in new
dwellings and residents assuming planning permissions result in many more new dwellings.
3.6.2 What the topic group did not explore was the existing and potentially greater economic
relationship with neighbouring Counties. Given the northwards focus in the emerging Core Strategy
evidence and policies this is an understandable oversight, planning baggage remaining from the old
Economic Planning Regions and County focus. Better connecting to the south in local economy terms
might be sensible: it is near, prosperous, and sectors such as tourism are firmly rooted. Why would
you not look both north and south?
3.6.3 The topic group also got some interesting feedback from the supplementary surveys they
commissioned. Both local businesses and homeworkers made some good points. The main ones
were a) creating additional flexible business space to help start-ups and expansion; b) retaining
employment land in that user rather than for more dwellings; c) improved public transport links; d)
more and better car parking; and e) better management of the town centre.
3.6.4 The evidence in 2014 from then ongoing planning applications was not really scrutinised by the
topic group. One senses they did not like the proposals, notably the ASL application that included a
supermarket, so they did not dwell on the underlying facts. This was a missed opportunity as the
process of determining that ASL application, and the February 2015 outcome of planning permission,
exposed some pertinent facts: a) that the town’s current retail offer does not fully meet the
requirements of many residents who consequently shop elsewhere with economic leakage resulting;
and b) that the retail impact of an edge-of-town supermarket on the town centre would not be
massive, there would likely be some adjustments, but not wide scale closures.
3.6.5 The emerging Core Strategy, whilst as noted being rather dismissive of the town as
economically out-on-a-limb, and having not that much by way of proposed economic policy specific
to the town, does contain in the few stated aims and policies several measures that chime with the
other evidence. Refer to page 155 of the June 2015 publication as referenced above. The listed
policies are:







11
Diversify the local economy;
Increase the provision of premises for local businesses;
Support the business uses at the Tilemans Lane estate and retain it for employment
purposes;
Support the growth of new local enterprises fostered by effective business support;
Support the vitality of the town centre including through improved shopping and service
outlets;
Promote the role of tourism in the town and surrounding area; and
Improve the quality and range of visitor accommodation.
3.6.6 The topic group’s summary statement is a ‘curate’s egg’ of a document: good in parts. But
frankly a bit odd in places, such as advocating out-of-town hotel accommodation, and the celebrity
analogy with Padstow. Overall though the stated ideas and wishes match more than conflict with the
supplementary survey evidence as summarised above, and the emerging Core Strategy economic
policies as listed.
3.6.7 So where does this take the thinking on the local economy in relation to the neighbourhood
plan-making work? My suggestion is that in the absence seemingly of a continued input by the
economy topic group threesome it would be excellent if one or two of the recently signed-up
community team volunteers could review this document and the referenced information sources
and attend a workshop-style meeting during August 2015. The aims of that meeting would be to a)
sense-check the document and hopefully agree it is a valid summary of the main issues and
opportunities; and b) to take forward the main messages into a cross-topic review of the findings
and implications, view to agreed ideas for policies and proposals emerging.
4. Cross topic group issues and ideas
4.1 Having advocated a workshop meeting [S3.6.7] to take forward the economy topic work it would
be a good idea if in parallel to that meeting taking place the topic group leads for housing,
environment and infrastructure could review this document, and with their respective teams think
about the cross-topic issues and opportunities. Issuing this audit and issues report completes the
‘box set’ of such reports, one for each topic: housing; economy; environment; and infrastructure. So
it is becoming more apparent what the overlaps are, where the common ground lies in terms of
potential policies and proposals and site allocations. Go back to the questions asked in S3.2.5.
4.2 To help this cross-topic deliberation it seems to me, based on the work and outcomes as outlined
above, that there may well be an emerging set of ideas around:







12
Putting economic development and local business support high up in the priorities for the
neighbourhood plan, maybe even making it the number one?
Such a stance when matched to the anticipated additional new dwellings numbers would
expose and tackle the inherent and worsening unsustainability of the town;
Recognising that the emerging Core Strategy may economically downplay the town, but the
economic policies therein do provide a very sound basis for a neighbourhood plan to work
from;
Take forward the issues and ideas derived from the supplementary surveys and earlier
community feedback, majoring on providing more and better business space and retaining
what there is now; pushing the tourism development agenda; making substantive
improvements to car parking and better managing the town centre – this may include some
physical changes including better traffic management;
Move on and respond pragmatically to the planned additional dwellings in-the-pipeline and
the outcome of the supermarket debate, deal with the resulting and upcoming issues,
including ensuring better physical connections with the town centre and community
facilities are created, in doing so encouraging modes other than the car;
Pick up strongly on the tourism development theme. Encourage more visitors and spending
by way of a better ‘offer’ and facilities and attractions, including an information centre;
Looking south as well north for the economic future and seeking better economic and
transport connexions. Go for a balance of north and south. Also prioritise measures to
support and develop the already strongly self-contained local economy, the homeworkers
and local traders and service providers.
There will be other ideas, other opinions, on the interpretations given and the priorities for action.
What is clear though is that from the economy topic work some important influences and issues have
been identified, and this is a good basis for putting a set of cross-topic policies and proposals
together and getting feedback from the wider community. It is also clear that the evidence base has
been reasonably well considered by the economy topic group, though with hindsight they might have
put more effort into communicating the resulting findings and ideas. In the event this has not much
hindered progress. The job has been done, including this audit and issues report covering more
ground by way of evidence and assessment than was anticipated.
5. Sustainability Appraisal
5.1 A final and generic issue for all topic groups is how most effectively to guide and embed
sustainable development12. This bears on all of the above mentioned employment issues and
opportunities. A very good starting point is for the topic groups to jointly decide how they will use
’sustainability appraisal’ as a policy formulation tool. This methodology will figure in the plan-making
by ensuring that the draft plan as a minimum is consistent with the other existing and emerging
plans produced by the District Council.
5.2 The main point is that sustainability appraisal is a very helpful tool13 well worth doing and not
just because a ‘box has to be ticked’. An early discussion across the topic groups should look at the
application of the tool and get it moving before in-depth consideration of issues leads to emerging
possible policies and proposals. An input from the District Council is required to ensure their
approach is understood and they will ‘buy-in’ to what is done locally.
6. Update on recommended actions as Section 3.6.7
6.1 In Section 3.6.7 it was suggested that a re-formed economy topic group might take forward the
earlier work as assessed in this ‘audit and issues report’. In August 2015 Alison Henderson took on
the lead role for the economy topic group, with the support and inputs from several of the town’s
traders including some active with the ‘Totally Locally’ campaign. A meeting of this new group was
held on 22 August 2015 to review the findings of the audit and issues report and better understand
the plan-making process. As of early September 2015 this group will be forming views on subjects
for policies and proposals and discussing overlaps with the other topics. Initial feedback as explained
by Alison Henderson at a meeting on 04 September 2015 with Stephen Miles is that the set of local
economy aims and subjects for policies and proposals as outlined above in Section 3.6 is a
satisfactory and basis for taking forward the topic.
Written and issued on 07 September 2105 to the Economy Topic Group by
Stephen Miles BSc MSc MRTPI
12
Definition: an approach to development that aims to allow economic growth without damaging the
environment or natural resources so compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
Locality Roadmap Guide Glossary of Terms 2012.
13
Levett-Therivel ‘DIY SA: Sustainability Appraisal of Neighbourhood Plans’ August 2011
13
14