Planning matters

The overdue update of the PPG does not radically change the approach to town centres and retail but there is a clear shift in emphasis. Restricting out-of-centre development is not the key to saving town centres and high streets, they need to change and evolve to respond to structural changes in the economy.

Minor amendments to the PPG tighten the wording of advice relating to the sequential and impact tests but limited further clarification is provided. There is no mention of disaggregation when applying the sequential test, but the availability of alternative town centre sites within a reasonable period of time should take account of scale and complexity of the proposed scheme i.e. it’s open to debate.

A key change is the Government’s response to the Solo Retail Limited v Torridge District Council (March 2019) judgement, which indicated the PPG relating to the impact test “cannot and should not be interpreted and applied in an overly legalistic way as if it was setting out mandatory requirements.” The diagram highlighting the steps that should be followed when carrying out impact assessments has been deleted. This change should allow applicants more flexibility when producing proportionate impact assessments.

The relevance of the list of indicators of a centre’s health and vitality have been downgraded from “are relevant” to “may be relevant”, although new indicators include: the balance between independent and multiple stores, barriers to new businesses and the evening/night time economy.

The main shift is the increased support for town centres to adapt and change, by providing a wide range of complementary uses, evening and night time activities. The PPG refers to town centres developing their own unique brand and offer services beyond retail. The creation of hubs or groups of particular uses in centres e.g. restaurants and leisure use in encouraged. Local planning authorities can still define primary and secondary retail frontages but this is not mandatory. The use of frontages and policies to control the mix of uses need to be justified i.e. where it clearly supports the vitality and viability of a centre. This change implies a more flexible and location specific approach to the protection of retail uses.

Finally, the need for a collaborative partnership approach between local authorities and other parties is reiterated and expanded, with a list of relevant stakeholders provided.

A note of caution, the Solo Retail Limited v Torridge District Council judgment is still a reminder not to interpret the new PPG too legalistically.