It is considered that either policy 6 needs to be reworded, or a new policy dedicated towards employment generating uses in rural locations be provided. At present, the more rural settlements will miss out on the potential for windfall development which could serve to boost local economic vitality. It is considered the creation of employment generating uses in rural locations on a small scale would provide local people with local jobs, helping to reduce carbon emissions from commuting, whilst also reflecting the current trend of home working and the proliferation of new start-up businesses that have arisen over the last year during the pandemic.

For example, taking the sustainable settlement of Ashby St Mary and Thurston, it is considered that some small employment generating uses here would supplement the vitality of the settlement, in accordance with the aspirations of paragraphs 83 and 84 of the NPPF. If policies are not reworded to be more flexible, then dedicated allocations should be considered, such as those proposed between Norwich Road and Mill Road as part of the 4 hectare allocation. Furthermore, due to the more rural location, employment land here would be highly attractive for the more creative and tech industries, which would normally not want to be located on busy commercial parks. Instead the opportunity to create a small network of smaller scale employment sites would better reflect the economic composition of the locality where there is an abundance of entrepreneurial spirit and the surge in consumer demand for more bespoke and local produce.

It is considered that Policy 6 does not propose an effective or justified strategy for the economy of rural areas. Policy 6 states that the needs of small, medium and start-up businesses are addressed through the provision of small-scale business opportunities in all significant residential and commercial developments. Additionally, the policy goes on to state that the promotion of creative industries will be focused on the city center. It is considered that this policy approach is not appropriate for the rural hinterland that composes two of the three relevant districts. Paragraph 83 of the NPPF states that planning policies and decisions should enable the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business in rural areas, both through the conversion of existing buildings and well-designed new buildings. Paragraph 84 of the NPPF goes on to state that planning policies and decisions should recognise that sites to meet local business and community needs in rural areas may have to be found adjacent to or beyond existing settlements, and in locations that are not well served by public transport. Paragraph 84 also states that sites that are physically well related to existing settlements should be encouraged where suitable opportunities exist.

Policy 6, therefore is not consistent with national policy due to this inherent conflict with paragraphs 83 and 84 of the NPPF. Policy 6 directs employment generating uses to existing allocations and the city center, ignoring the needs of the rural communities resulting in an unjustified strategy for supporting rural vitality. As such the GNLP is considered to be unsound in relation to the provision of employment generating uses in rural communities.