Cabinet Agenda

CABINET AGENDA

Tuesday 17 December 2013 at 10.00am at the Civic Centre, Gateshead

From the Chief Executive, Jane Robinson Item Business

1. Apologies for Absence

2. Minutes (Page 5)

The Cabinet is asked to approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 3 December 2013.

Key Decision

3. Combined Authority Consultation

Report of the Chief Executive (to follow)

Recommendations to Council

4. Local Council Tax Support Scheme (Page 13)

Report of the Strategic Director, Finance and ICT

5. Mitigating the Impact of Welfare Reform on Council Tenants (Page 23)

Report of the Strategic Director, Community Based Services

6. Gateshead Local Plan – Planning for the Future Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan Submission Document for Gateshead and Newcastle upon Tyne (Page 35)

Report of the Strategic Director, Development and Enterprise

Non Key Decisions

7. Gateshead Local Plan – Duty to Cooperate (Page 47)

Report of the Strategic Director, Development and Enterprise

8. Proposed Supplementary Planning Documents for Bridges Conservation Management Strategy and Walker Terrace/Regent Street Conservation Area Management Strategy (Page 61)

Report of the Strategic Director, Development and Enterprise

9. Energy Efficient Heating Scheme, Maintenance and Associated Works to Crowhall Towers (Page 69)

Report of the Strategic Directors, Community Based Services and Development and Enterprise

Contact: Kevin Ingledew (0191) 433 2142 Date: 9 December 2013

Item Business

10. Council Plan – Six Month Assessment of Delivery and Performance 2013/14 (Page 75)

Report of the Chief Executive

11. Responses to Consultation (Page 93)

Report of the Chief Executive

12. Exclusion of the Press and Public

The Cabinet may wish to exclude the press and public from the meeting during consideration of the following item on the grounds indicated:

Item Paragraph of Schedule 12 A to the Local Government Act 1972

13 3 14 3 15 3 16 4

2 2

GATESHEAD METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL

CABINET MEETING

3 DECEMBER 2013

PRESENT: Councillor M Henry (Chair)

Councillors: C Donovan, A Douglas, M Foy, M Gannon, L Green, J McElroy, and P Mole

Apologies for absence: Councillors M Graham and M McNestry

C145 MINUTES

The minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 5 November 2013 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

C146 RENT ARREARS FOR FORMER TENANTS – TRANSFER OF UNCOLLECTABLE AMOUNTS

Consideration has been given to the recommendation of The Gateshead Housing Company to transfer individual debt amounts from former tenants’ accounts to debtors’ accounts where all possible recovery action has been taken.

RESOLVED - That the transfer of £ £83,398 former tenants’ arrears into debtors’ accounts as recommended by The Gateshead Housing Company be approved.

The above decision has been made to ensure effective management of the Council’s resources, as any further pursuit of these arrears is unlikely to result in significant sums being recovered. It is more beneficial to concentrate on early proactive recovery of new debt, but debts transferred to debtors’ accounts can be reinstated if further contact details are found.

C147 NORTH EAST LA7 EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND (ESF) NOT IN EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT OR TRAINING (NEET) YOUTH PROJECT

Consideration has been given to the action taken in accepting the contract for the Council to lead the North East LA7 ESF NEET Youth Project.

RESOLVED - That the action taken by Strategic Director, Learning and Children in accordance with the urgent action procedures set out in paragraph 4(e) of Part 2 of Schedule 5 (General Delegations to Managers) of the Council’s Constitution, in accepting the contract to deliver the North East LA7 ESF NEET Youth Project by the seven Local Authority partners and to the Council acting as the Lead Partner be endorsed.

1 3 The above decision has been made for the following reasons:

(A) The project will support 2,500 young people aged 16 -18 from North East who are NEET into education and employment; it will benefit 380 Gateshead residents

(B) The project will protect 4 jobs in Gateshead Council and a further 12 across our local authority partners as well as delivering 9 employment opportunities in Gateshead Council (6 jobs are generic, 3 Jobs require specialist knowledge and will probably be external to Gateshead Council).

C148 APPOINTMENT OF AUTHORITY SCHOOL GOVERNORS

Consideration has been given to the appointment / re-appointment of Authority School Governors.

RESOLVED - That the appointment / re-appointment of the following Authority School Governors for a period of four years (unless otherwise stated) from the date indicated in accordance with the Instrument of Governance/Articles of Association of each school be approved.

School Appointment Reappointment Date from Furrowfield Cllr Lee 03.12.13 (SEN) Holmes

Charles Thorpe Cllr Jack W From Comprehensive Graham 19.1.14 to (six month 31.7.14 reappointment at Cllr’s request)

Glynwood Ms Heather 13.02.14 Community Maddison Primary

Barley Mow Cllr Catherine 03.12.13 Primary Simcox

Ryton Mr Jon Comb 03.12.13 Community Junior

2 4

C149 RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION

Consideration has been given to responses to recent consultations.

RESOLVED - That the responses to the following consultations as set out in appendices 1 to 3 to the report be endorsed.

• Draft Special Educational Needs (SEN) Code of Practice – Department for Education • Pre-Submission Draft Local Plan Document and a number of Supplementary Planning Documents – Durham County Council • Protecting Local Authority Leaseholders from Unreasonable Charges - Department for Communities and Local Government

The above decision has been made to enable the Council to contribute responses to the consultations.

C150 PETITIONS SCHEDULE

Consideration has been given to the latest update on petitions submitted to the Council and the action taken on them.

RESOLVED - That the petitions received and the action taken on them be noted.

The above decision has been made to inform Cabinet of the progress of the petitions received.

C151 EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC

RESOLVED - That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the remaining business in accordance with the indicated paragraphs of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

C152 DIGITAL QUAY (Paragraph 3)

Consideration has been given to the proposal to proceed with the development of the Digital Quay project in the Gateshead Accelerated Development Zone (ADZ) through the acquisition and refurbishment of Baltimore House at Baltic Business Quarter.

The alternative options to that being recommended, but which were discounted, included waiting for private sector investment and use of existing Council assets.

RESOLVED - (i) That acceptance of European Regional Development Funding (ERDF) funding of the amount set out in the

3 5 report towards the capital costs of Digital Quay be approved.

(ii) That the allocation of capital programme resources identified for Economic Growth Projects of the amount set out in the report to be used as match funding and supporting the capital costs of delivering the Digital Quay project including the cost of acquisition of Baltimore House be approved.

(iii) That the Council’s acquisition of Baltimore House exercising the power contained in section 120 (1) (b) of the Local Government Act 1972 for the amount set out in the report be approved subject to Heads of Terms being agreed by the Strategic Director, Development and Enterprise under delegated authority within the overall agreed budget.

(iv) That an inclusive headline rent of the amount per sq ft (excluding business rates) as set out in the report for space within the Digital Quay project, and the eligibility criteria for occupiers as set out in appendix 2 to the report be approved and this to be reviewed annually

(v) That subject to availability and financial viability, space to be made available to accommodate business support organisations and activities at a reduced rent or nil cost where it can be demonstrated this is compliant with ERDF funding conditions and furthers the aims of the Digital Quay project.

(vi) That extending the delegated authority of the Service Director Property and Design to include the approval of leases granted to occupiers of all other business centres, including Digital Quay, where they are in accordance with agreed fees and charges and external funding conditions be approved subject to the further approval of Council as part of the annual review of the Council’s Constitution.

(vii) That acceptance of Scape Community Investment Funding of up to the amount set out in the report to support start-up businesses be approved.

The above decisions have been made for the following reasons:

(A) To maximise opportunities for economic growth in Gateshead.

(B) To support successful delivery of Vision 2030 objectives, Gateshead Quays and Baltic Business

4 6 Quarter Masterplans and the Accelerated Development Zone (ADZ). (C) To provide a catalyst for new investment in the ADZ, ensure continued development on Baltic Business Quarter and maintain confidence in the development.

(D) To bring forward additional SME business accommodation on Baltic Business Quarter.

(E) To maximise the opportunities for business start- up in the digital technology sector.

(F) To provide a focus for creative businesses, encourage graduate retention and create good quality employment.

(G) To maximise available external funding opportunities.

C153 SALE OF ABBOTSFORD ROAD DEPOT, FELLING (Paragraph 3)

Consideration has been given to the sale of the freehold estate of the Abbotsford Road Depot, Felling.

RESOLVED - (i) That the disposal of the freehold interest of the site of the former Abbotsford Road Depot, Felling, to Jacob Adler for a consideration of the amount set out in the report be approved.

(ii) That a condition is imposed on disposal to ensure the Council receives a percentage (to be agreed) of the uplift in value should the purchaser develop the site for residential use up to 2023.

The above decisions have been made for the following reasons:

(A) To achieve a capital receipt.

(B) To bring an unused site back into economic and employment use.

C154 NEW LEASE OF ALEXANDRA ROAD INFANT SCHOOL, ALEXANDRA ROAD TO THE GATESHEAD JEWISH PRIMARY SCHOOL LIMITED (Paragraph 3)

Consideration has been given to a new lease of Alexandra Road Infant School to the Gateshead Jewish Primary School Limited (GJPS Ltd).

RESOLVED - (i) That the new lease to GJPS Ltd on the terms set out in the report be approved.

5 7 (ii) That an option to purchase the freehold within the lease, subject to the tenant meeting the conditions outlined in the report be approved.

The above decision has been made to regulate the occupation of the school, to increase the rent which is being paid and to allow the tenant to raise funding to redevelop the temporary classrooms on site.

C155 SURPLUS DECLARATION AND GRANT OF LEASES OF WATERGATE PARK PAVILION AND FOOTBALL AND RUGBY PITCHES, LOBLEY HILL, GATESHEAD (Paragraph 3)

Consideration has been given to the surplus declaration and grant of leases of Watergate Park pavilion and football and rugby pitches.

RESOLVED - (i) That the land and property be declared surplus to the Council’s requirements.

(ii) That the Strategic Director, Development and Enterprise be authorised to grant a lease of the Watergate Pavilion for a term of 35 years at a rent as set out in the report to Whickham Fellside Youth Football Club pursuant to the Council’s Community Asset Transfer Policy.

(iii) That the Strategic Director, Development and Enterprise be authorised to grant a coterminous lease of the football pitches at Watergate Park to Whickham Fellside Youth Football Club for a term of 35 years at an annual rent of the amount set out in the report, subject to rent reviews every five years.

(iv) That the Strategic Director, Development and Enterprise be authorised to grant a lease of the rugby pitches fields at Watergate Park for a term of 35 years to Emmanuel College at an annual rent of the amount set out in the report, subject to rent reviews every five years.

The above decision has been made to manage resources and rationalise the Council’s assets in line with the Corporate Asset Strategy and Management Plan.

C156 SURPLUS PROPERTY DECLARATIONS (Paragraph 3)

Consideration has been given to surplus property declarations.

RESOLVED - (i) That in respect of Victoria House Aged Persons Unit, Victoria Road, Gateshead:

6 8

(a) the Property be declared surplus the Council’s requirements; (b) the Strategic Director, Development and Enterprise be authorised to obtain tenders for the demolition; (c) the demolition of the building be approved; and (d) the Strategic Director, Development and Enterprise be authorised to dispose of the property on the open market, subject to Secretary of State consent.

(ii) That in respect of Brandling Community Centre, Church Place, Gateshead:

(a) the property be declared surplus the Council’s requirements; and (b) the Strategic Director, Development and Enterprise be authorised to grant a 7 year lease of the property to North Benwell Amateur Boxing Club on the terms set out in the report.

(iii) That in respect of the Shipcote Centre, Edendale Terrace, Gateshead:

(a) the property be declared surplus to the Council’s requirements; (b) the Strategic Director Development and Enterprise be authorised to obtain tenders for the demolition; and (c) the demolition be approved.

The above decisions have been made for the following reasons:

(A) To manage resources and rationalise the Council’s assets in line with the Corporate Asset Strategy and Management Plan.

(B) To ensure delivery of the cost savings identified in the Community Centre Review as approved by Cabinet on 26th February 2013 (Minute No C224).

C157 SALE AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND BY KEEPMOAT HOMES LIMITED AT RAVENSWORTH ROAD, DUNSTON (Paragraph 3)

Consideration has been given to a reduction in the sale price of land at Ravensworth Road, Dunston to Keepmoat Homes Limited (“Keepmoat”) previously agreed by Cabinet on 25 June 2013 (minute C53).

RESOLVED - That a revised sale price as set out in the report for the disposal of land at Ravensworth Road, Dunston to Keepmoat be approved.

7 9

The above decision has been made for the following reasons:

(A) To enable the development to proceed without the risk of losing the older persons accommodation from within the scheme.

(B) To enable the development to proceed on a comprehensive basis avoiding undue delay.

Copies of all reports and appendices referred to in these minutes are available online and in the minute file. Please note access restrictions apply for exempt business as defined by the Access to Information Act.

The decisions referred to in these minutes will come into force and be implemented after the expiry of 3 working days after the publication date of the minutes identified below unless the matters are ‘called in’.

Publication date: 5 December 2013

Chair…………………..

8 10 3 REPORT TO CABINET 17 December 2013

TITLE OF REPORT: Creation of a Combined Authority

REPORT OF: Jane Robinson, Chief Executive

Purpose of the Report

1. To afford Cabinet an opportunity to consider the proposed response to the Secretary of State’s statutory consultation currently being undertaken by Department for Communities and Local Government in relation to the creation of the Combined Authority for the area of Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear and to agree the response to be forwarded to the Secretary of State on behalf of the Authority.

Background

2. On 24 June 2013 (Minute no C22) Cabinet endorsed the findings of the Governance Review undertaken in May 2013 including specifically the finding that the creation of a Combined Authority covering the Authority areas of Durham, Gateshead, Newcastle, North Tyneside, Northumberland, South Tyneside and Sunderland (the LA7) would improve the discharge of functions relating to transport, skills and economic development across the region. All of the LA7 Cabinets considered that a Combined Authority would strengthen collaboration between the seven local authorities and enable strategic decision-making on economic growth and transport to be taken.

3. On 18 July 2013 Council endorsed the decision of Cabinet (Minute no CL29). The Councils of other LA7 authorities in turn endorsed the decision of their respective Cabinets.

4. The Scheme and Governance Review documents were submitted to the Secretary of State in August 2013, after a period of consultation had been undertaken with regional and local stakeholders, inviting him to consider making an Order that would establish a Combined Authority across the LA7 area. There was support for the creation of a combined Authority from all stakeholders.

5. The Secretary of State before deciding whether or not to place an Order before Parliament is legally obliged to consult on the establishment of a Combined Authority. Such consultation commenced on 7 November 2013 and ends on 2 January 2014. Consultation must take place with all of the LA7 Authorities as well as the Tyne and Wear Integrated Transport Authority. The Secretary of State also has discretion to consult with anyone else that he considers appropriate.

6. In addition to the consultation referred to above, the Secretary of State has decided it is appropriate to consult with the North East Local Enterprise Partnership as well as the Local Authorities that neighbour the Combined Authority area. Those Authorities include Eden District Council, Carlisle City Council, Cumbria County

1 of 7 11 1 Council, Darlington Borough Council, Hartlepool Borough Council, North Yorkshire County Council, Richmondshire District Council and Stockton on Tees Borough Council. He has also chosen to consult the Northumberland National Park Authority.

7. The consultation document and draft Order published by DCLG are appended to this report at Appendix 2.

8. The consultation document specifically requests the LA7 Authorities “to actively seek through such means as they consider appropriate the views of their residents, local businesses, and the voluntary sector with a view to providing the necessary evidence for Government to be satisfied about the degree of local support there is for a combined authority.”

9. The consultation document makes specific reference to the referendum that took place in November 2004 in relation to the creation of a North East Regional Assembly. Whereas the Secretary of State in the consultation document accepts that there are substantial differences between a Regional Assembly and a Combined Authority, the document states “the Government believes that it is right that before any decision on a combined authority for this “North East Local Enterprise Partnership” area is taken, there is clear and compelling evidence that the past opposition of electors within the local area to governance changes in that area does not continue to any new proposal for a combined authority. Accordingly, it will be important that this consultation yields the evidence necessary for Government to reach a conclusion on this issue”.

10. With the need to obtain the views of local residents as well as local businesses and the voluntary sector before 2 January 2014 made clear by the Secretary of State, each of the LA7 Authorities have undertaken consultation in their areas as considered appropriate by them. All of the LA7 Authorities established an online consultation exercise via their websites. This provided full information on what the Combined Authority would mean for them and for the region as a whole and also sought views on the formal consultation questions. As well as the online consultation activity, the local consultation in each of the LA7 areas has included face to face discussions with residents and other key stakeholders within business as well as the public and community/voluntary sectors. The meetings with residents and businesses across the LA7 area will take place between 4th and 12tth December 2013.

11. In Gateshead the online consultation has been live since 26th November on the Gateshead Consultation Portal to invite views of residents, businesses and the voluntary sector. Partners have been made aware of the local consultation via recent meetings with the Private Sector and Gateshead Older People’s Assembly. The closing date for responses was Wednesday 11th December. Members of Viewpoint, Gateshead Council’s Citizens Panel, were notified of the local online consultation and invited to attend a focus group on Wednesday 11th December. Background information was provided and residents were asked to give their views on the consultation questions. A seminar for Councillors in Gateshead took place on Friday 13th December. The findings and analysis of this local consultation exercise, along with those of the other Authorities, will form part of the proposed submission to Government at Appendix 3. The detail of the local consultation is set out at Appendix 4.

2 of 7 12 2

Proposal

12. Cabinet is asked to consider and approve the submission to Government of a joint response to the consultation from the seven North East local authorities attached to this report at Appendix 3

Recommendations

13. It is recommended that Cabinet

(i) Endorses the response attached to the Report at Appendix 3 and approve submission to the Secretary of State

(ii) Notes the summary of responses from across the Combined Area to the consultation

(iii) Authorise the Chief Executive following consultation with the Leader and the Strategic Director, Legal and Corporate Services to finalise the response at Appendix 3 as appropriate and submit the final response to the Secretary of State by the consultation response deadline of 2 January 2014.

For the following reasons:

(i) To support the findings of the Governance Review and submission of a scheme to Government for the establishment of a Combined Authority.

(ii) A Combined Authority as a corporate body will ensure more efficient strategic decision-making, enabling a decision to be taken at the LA7 Area level that will bind the 7 local authorities without the need for the 7 authorities to have to each make a decision in their own right.

CONTACT: Martin Harrison extension: 2101

3 of 7 13 3

APPENDIX 1

Policy Context

1. The proposals will enable Gateshead in conjunction with the other LA7 Authorities to access Government funding and to work in partnership to deliver economic regeneration, effective transport infrastructure and co-ordinated skills development. These accord with and support the general aims of the Gateshead Sustainable Community Strategy Vision 2030 and the Council Plan.

Consultation

2. A formal consultation exercise was carried out over a 3-week period between 22 May and 11 June 2013 in relation to the governance review. A copy of the draft governance review report and draft scheme was sent to key stakeholders and published on all 7 local authorities’ websites. Views of key stakeholders were obtained through a series of meetings and one to one discussions as well as two stakeholder events hosted by the Leaders and Elected Mayor. In addition, each LA7 authority engaged with the stakeholders in their local area. There is overwhelming support from stakeholders in favour of creating a Combined Authority for the North East. Stakeholders are welcoming of the agreement by the seven local authorities to strengthen collaborative arrangements and set up a stable and long term governance structure for the wider area which is democratically accountable and has a clear focus on enabling economic growth.

3. The Secretary of State is now undertaking statutory consultation as he is required to do by the legislation. The consultation period runs for eight weeks. The responses received during the consultation period will inform the Secretary of State’s decision on whether or not to place the Order establishing the Combined Authority before parliament and thereafter whether he will make the Order.

4. The Secretary of state has specifically requested the LA7 Authorities consult with local residents. This was done by each LA7 Authority posting extensive information regarding the Combined Authority on their respective websites along with a questionnaire for individuals, businesses and voluntary sector representatives to complete and submit to the LA7 Authorities should they wish to do so or submit a consultation direct to DCLG.

5. Each LA7 Authority discussed the Combined Authority with local residents at either focus groups or resident forums between 4th and 12th December 2013. In Gateshead the consultation process was as outlined in paragraph 11 of the report.

6. A letter was sent to regional and local stakeholders advising them of the consultation exercise and directing them to the DCLG website so that they can consider the consultation document and draft Order and submit any response direct to the Secretary of State.

7. There have also been articles in the local press explaining that the public are being asked to give a view on the creation of a Combined Authority and a link given to the DCLG website so that the consultation document and Order can be viewed.

4 of 7 14 4 8. On 29 October 2013 representatives from the LA7 Authorities attended parliament to engage with local MPs and Lords to explain the advantages of creating a Combined Authority in the North East and to answer their questions. The MPs and Lords were very supportive of the creation of the Combined Authority in the North East of England.

9. The Leader of the Council and Cabinet have been consulted and a Members seminar was held on 13th December 2013.

Alternative Options

10. The following decision options are available for consideration by Cabinet:-

a) Endorse the formal response attached to the Report at Appendix 3 and agree to it being forwarded to the Secretary of State; or

b) Refuse to endorse the response to the Secretary of State attached to the Report at Appendix 3 and to refuse to forward the response to the Secretary of State.

c) Amend the response to be forwarded to the Secretary of State.

Implications of Recommended Option

11. It is recommended that Cabinet take the steps set out in paragraph 13 of the Report to endorse the response at Appendix 3 and agree to it being forwarded to the Secretary of State. The response has been drafted having regard to the consultation responses received from local businesses, the voluntary sector and residents across the LA7 area.

12. The response is to be endorsed by the Cabinets of all of the LA7 Authorities as it is a joint response from the Authorities, albeit with additional responses from individual LA7 Authorities after engaging in their local consultation exercise.

13. Resources:

a) Financial Implications

The establishment of a Combined Authority will have financial implications for each Council.

The core principles are:

for transport costs, the total contribution from each authority for the year does not exceed the equivalent cost as it would have been calculated under previous arrangements. any other costs incurred in establishing new arrangements would be offset by efficiency gains achieved through the new body and met through existing resources and utilising the skills and capacity that already exist within the constituent local authorities. Staffing requirements will be fulfilled by existing staff across the 7 local authorities wherever possible.

5 of 7 15 5 Transport Funding

As the Combined Authority will become the Local Transport Authority for the LA7 area, it will become a levying body with respect to Transport. The significant differences in the transport responsibilities and the cost of transport services between Tyne and Wear, Durham and Northumberland mean that a single transport levy would not be appropriate. The solution proposed following discussion with DCLG and Department for Transport, is that the Combined Authority would issue a levy on a differential basis that will accommodate the differentials in the cost of delivering transport services in County Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear.

On the abolition of TWITA its property, rights and liabilities will be transferred to the Combined Authority. These would be ring-fenced under the terms of the Combined Authority agreement to the Tyne and Wear area and will not be the responsibility of Durham and Northumberland.

Combined Authority costs

The costs of the Combined Authority that are reasonably attributable to the exercise of its functions (including start up costs) will be met by the LA7 authorities. The amount payable by each LA7 Authority is to be determined by apportioning the costs of the Combined Authority between the LA7 Authorities in such proportions as they may agree or in default of such agreement equally between the LA7 Authorities. The Combined Authority will agree an annual budget for the purpose of expenditure.

Any change in the contributions would need to be agreed by the new Combined Authority in consultation with its member authorities and in time for the contribution to be built into Council Budgets in future years.

b) Human Resources Implications – It may be that there are employees of the LA7 and TWITA who would have the right to transfer their employment to the Combined Authority under the provisions of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE). This can be addressed in detail if the recommendations of this report are agreed.

At the current time, there are no pensions or TUPE issued envisaged for the Council. If required, a further report will be brought to seek the appropriate authority to proceed.

c) Property Implications - There are no identified property implications at this stage.

14. Risk Management Implication - There has been engagement with representatives from the Department for Communities and Local Government at an early stage and the timescales for the creation of a North East combined authority discussed in detail. The Combined Authority is to be in place by 1 April 2014 subject to the Order being made. The Leadership board of the 7 local authorities are aware of the timescales and the project board met on a weekly basis to ensure that everything is in place by 1 April 2014.

6 of 7 16 6 15. Equality and Diversity Implications - There are no equality and diversity issues arising directly from this report. The equality and diversity implications will be kept under review as further work is undertaken to develop more detail in relation to the outline proposals.

16. Crime and Disorder Implications – There are no crime and disorder implications directly arising from this report.

17. Health Implications – There are no health implications directly arising from this report.

18. Sustainability Implications – There are environmental and sustainability implications arising from this report. The issue of transport is closely linked to the environment and if there is to be a North East wide approach to transport then environmental issues could be dealt with at this level. In terms of sustainability the main reason for considering the establishment of a combined authority is to improve the economic climate of the area and to promote sustainable economic growth.

19. Human Rights Implications – There are no human rights implications directly arising from this report.

20. Area and Ward Implications - A Combined Authority will have Borough wide implications as set out in this report.

Background Information – • The Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 • Transport Act 1968 • Local Transport Act 2008 • Economic Prosperity Boards and Combined Authorities – Consultation on Draft Statutory Guidance (Never finalised) – Issued by Department for Communities and Local Government • Creating the right governance for growth in the North East – LA7 Leadership Board • North East Independent Economic Review Report • The Governance Review document • The Scheme submitted to the Secretary of State

7 of 7 17 7 Appendix 2

Proposal to establish a combined authority for the area of Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear

Consultation

818

You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open- government-licence/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected].

This document/publication is also available on our website at www.gov.uk/dclg

If you have any enquiries regarding this document/publication, email [email protected] or write to us at:

Department for Communities and Local Government Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU Telephone: 030 3444 0000

For all our latest news and updates follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/CommunitiesUK

November 2013

ISBN: 978-1-4098-4057-2

919 1. Chapter 1 – The consultation

• Why we are consulting • Who we are consulting • How to respond

2. Chapter 2 – The Councils’ Scheme

• The scheme • The governance review

3. Chapter 3 – Issues for consultation

• Consultation questions

4. Annex – The proposed constitution and functions for the combined authority

5. Appendix – Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear Combined Authority Order – Draft

1020 Chapter 1 – The consultation

Why we are consulting

1. The seven councils of the “LA7 Leadership Board” with the support of the “North East Local Enterprise Partnership” have jointly prepared and published a scheme with proposals for delivering greater economic growth in their area. These councils – Durham County Council, Gateshead Council, Newcastle City Council, North Tyneside Council, Northumberland County Council, South Tyneside Council and Sunderland City Council – are proposing measures to improve transport, economic development and regeneration in the local area. These proposed measures centre on replacing the Tyne and Wear Integrated Transport Authority with a combined authority that will bring together responsibility for strategic transport, economic development and regeneration across the area of Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear.

2. Where councils come forward with such locally led proposals, the statute1 provides that the Secretary of State may, if certain statutory conditions are met and if Parliament approves, make an Order opening the way for the councils to adopt their new ways of working. Such an Order would establish the combined authority that the councils are proposing to facilitate their joint working. The combined authority would replace the existing Tyne and Wear Integrated Transport Authority. Whilst the Secretary of State will consider the circumstances of each particular case, he has adopted a localist policy in relation to how he will exercise these powers. This is to say that where councils come forward with such proposals that command wide local support, if the Secretary of State considers that the statutory conditions are met, he will invite Parliament to approve the Order establishing the proposed combined authority to enable the councils to give full effect to their ambitions for joint working.

3. The particular circumstances of the “North East Local Enterprise Partnership” area mean that questions about the extent of local support for the combined authority assume particular significance. In November 2004, local electors in the Government Office Region of the North East voted decisively against an elected assembly for the North East Region. On a turnout of almost 48 per cent, 78 per cent of those who voted rejected the previous Government’s proposal for an additional tier of government. Given this clear expression of widespread opposition among local residents for new governance institutions, the Government will give particular weight to evidence from the consultation about the level of local support this proposal for a combined authority commands. This Government has also abolished Government Office Region structures – including abolishing the Government Offices for the Regions, the Regional Development Agencies and the Regional Planning Bodies/Regional Spatial Strategies.

4. The Government recognises that there are substantive material differences between a regional assembly and a combined authority. The “North East Local Enterprise Partnership” area is smaller than the former Government Office Region. Statute requires the initiative for any combined authority to be driven locally originating from the

1 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009

1121 councils concerned, and that a combined authority is more an enhancement of existing joint arrangements bringing key growth functions together in one place, rather than a wholly new tier of government. Nevertheless, given the events in the area over the last ten years, the Government believes it is right that before any decision on a combined authority for this “North East Local Enterprise Partnership” area is taken, there is clear and compelling evidence that the past opposition of electors within the local area to governance changes in that area does not continue to any new proposal for a combined authority. Accordingly, it will be important that this consultation yields the evidence necessary for Government to reach a conclusion on this issue.

5. There are also a number of statutory conditions that have to be considered, including that the area of the combined authority must consist of contiguous whole local government areas and not overlap with the area of another combined authority, an economic prosperity board, or an integrated transport authority and the Secretary of State must consider, having regard to the scheme published by the councils concerned, that establishing the combined authority would be likely to improve:

• The exercise of statutory functions relating to transport in the area; • The effectiveness and efficiency of transport in the area; • The exercise of statutory functions relating to economic development and regeneration in the area; and • Economic conditions in the area.

Before making such an Order the Secretary of State must consult:

• Each appropriate authority; and • Such other persons if any, as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

The statute also requires that the Secretary of State in making the Order must have regard to the need:

• To reflect the identities and interests of local communities; and • To secure effective and convenient local government.

6. Accordingly, given the proposal from the seven councils and having regard both to particular circumstances of the local area and to his localist policy, the Secretary of State is now consulting on a proposal to establish a combined authority for the area of Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear, replacing the Tyne and Wear Integrated Transport Authority.

Who we are consulting

7. The appropriate authorities that the statute requires the Secretary of State to consult are:

• A county council if the area of the county council, or part of that area, is within the area for which the combined authority is to be established;

1222 • A district council if the area of the district council is within the area for which the combined authority is to be established; • An economic prosperity board, if its area or part of its area, is within the area for which the combined authority is to be established; and • An Integrated Transport Authority, if its integrated transport area, or part of that area, is within the area for which the combined authority is to be established.

8. In this case these statutory consultees are Durham County Council, Gateshead Council, Newcastle City Council, North Tyneside Council, Northumberland County Council, South Tyneside Council, Sunderland City Council and the Tyne and Wear Integrated Transport Authority.

9. In addition the Secretary of State considers in this case it is also appropriate to consult:

• The local enterprise partnership concerned – the “North East Local Enterprise Partnership”; and

• Those councils and authorities that neighbour the combined authority area – Eden District Council, Carlisle City Council, Cumbria County Council, Darlington Borough Council, Hartlepool Borough Council, Northumberland National Park Authority, North Yorkshire County Council, Richmondshire District Council and Stockton-on- Tees Borough Council.

We also welcome comments from members of the public, local businesses and their representative bodies and representatives of the voluntary sector.

10. Given the circumstances of the area we would also ask the councils concerned to actively seek through such means as they consider appropriate the views of their residents, local businesses, and the voluntary sector with a view to providing the necessary evidence for Government to be satisfied about the degree of local support there is for a combined authority.

How to respond

11. Your response must be received by 2 January 2014. It can be sent by email to [email protected] or in writing to:

Ruth Miller Department for Communities and Local Government Zone 3/J1 Eland House Bressenden Place London, SW1E 5DU

Please title your response ‘Response to proposal to establish a combined authority for the area of Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear.’

1323 Confidentiality and data protection

12. Any responses to this consultation may be made public. If you do not want all or part of your response or name made public, please state this clearly in the response. Any confidentiality disclaimer that may be generated by your organisation’s IT system or included as a general statement in your fax cover sheet will be taken to apply only to information in your response for which confidentiality has been specifically requested.

13. Information provided in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be subject to publication or disclosure in accordance with the access to information regimes (these are primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004). If you want other information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, there is a statutory Code of Practice with which public authorities must comply and which deals, amongst other things, with obligations of confidence.

14. In view of this it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. The Department will process your personal data in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 and in the majority of circumstances this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties

1424 Chapter 2 – The Councils’ Scheme

The scheme

15. On 31 July 2013 the seven councils of the “LA7 Leadership Board” with the support of the “North East Local Enterprise Partnership” published in accordance with the statute a scheme with proposals for delivering greater local economic growth centred on the establishment of a combined authority. Before preparing this scheme, the councils had as required by the statute2 undertaken a review of the governance arrangements across Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear. A document (“the governance review”) describing this review and its conclusions may be viewed at www.gateshead.gov.uk/la7-governance, where the scheme is available as an Annex. The paragraphs below outline the findings of the councils’ governance review, and their conclusions which underpin the proposals in the scheme.

The governance review

16. The governance review considered the effectiveness and efficiency of (a) transport within the area covered by the review and (b) arrangements to promote economic development and regeneration within the review area. In particular it was commissioned to determine the following:

• Whether the area covered by Durham County Council, Gateshead Council, Newcastle City Council, North Tyneside Council, Northumberland County Council, South Tyneside Council and Sunderland City Council can properly be seen as constituting a functional economic area for the purposes under consideration in the review;

• Whether the existing governance arrangements for economic development, regeneration and transport in the area are effective or would benefit from changes; and

• To examine the options available and in relation to each option, to evaluate the likely improvement in: - the exercise of statutory functions relating to economic development, regeneration and transport in the area, - the effectiveness and efficiency of transport in the area; and - the economic conditions in the area.

17. The governance review considered the following five options: do nothing; informal joint working arrangements; an economic prosperity board; a combined authority; and additional functions for an economic prosperity board or a combined authority over time.

2 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009

1525

18. A review of economic evidence was undertaken to test the rationale for working across the “LA7 Leadership Board” geography as a functional economic market area and to assess the economic conditions across the area.

19. The report highlights the significant national and international evidence available demonstrating the potential of the sub-national scale to promote and support the search for economic growth and resilience. It concluded there are strong economic linkages in the labour market and across a range of key industries in the area. The labour market has four centres – Newcastle, Durham City, Washington and Sunderland – and there is also a case to be made for increasing integration as the economy changes with more service sector jobs and growing interaction across higher level and industrial jobs.3 In each of the key economic sectors there are complementary and differentiated patterns:

• Automotive – There is a network of tier one automotive suppliers across the area, with the positive experience of Nissan in Sunderland reportedly contributing to the location of Hitachi in County Durham. The strength of advanced manufacturing and engineering around the A19 corridor and a new National Advanced Manufacturing Park has been recognised in the developing City Deal; • Pharmaceuticals – Estimates suggest that the area is responsible for a third of the country’s GDP in pharmaceutical manufacturing; • Low carbon energy generation – There are significant opportunities for offshore wind energy generation; • Tourism and culture – This sector includes over 10,000 businesses and employs over 60,000 people. There are significant assets considered by Visit England to be ‘day trip’ sites and events that bring substantial visitor spend in to the area; and • Retail and leisure – The main centres are the City Centre of Newcastle and the Gateshead MetroCentre.

20. This section of the governance review concludes that whilst there is not a uniform pattern, there are strong interdependencies across local authority boundaries and there is a key role for public policy makers to create opportunities for networking and ongoing interaction across sectoral and spatial boundaries. The governance review also draws support from the recommendations of the recent North East Independent Economic Review4 into the “North East Local Enterprise Partnership” area.

Existing governance arrangements

21. The governance review looked at the existing governance arrangements. The “LA7 Leadership Board” was established in December 2012 and formalises the existing close relationship between the seven local authorities. It is seeking to formalise an active and transparent role for private sector involvement through the “North East Local Enterprise Partnership”, alongside greater democratic legitimacy.

3 See Eksogen (2010), Tyne and Wear City Region Economic Review: Economic Geography, Linkages and the Low Carbon Economy Executive Report 4 http://www.ekosgen.co.uk/index/news/2013-04-11/the-north-east-independent-economic-review/

1626 22. The “North East Local Enterprise Partnership“ covers the same area as the seven local authorities. The Board of the “North East Local Enterprise Partnership“ is chaired by a business leader and consists of 18 members – nine from the business sector, two from the education sector and the Leaders/Elected Mayor from the seven local authorities. Sunderland City Council acts as the accountable body and all “North East Local Enterprise Partnership“ employees are employed through Sunderland City Council, with other support coming from staff seconded from other local authorities.

Case for a combined authority

23. The governance review considers arrangements for delivering the strategic objectives for the area: economic growth – driven by strategic funding, skills and inward investment and trade; and transport.

24. The seven local authorities share the ambition to deliver growth across the area, but whilst the tradition of co-operation between the authorities has brought results, the review acknowledges that the informal structures have developed into a complex web of layered committees and groups, and that this reduces the capacity for effective decision-making, with a lack of clarity about roles and responsibilities. The review considers that a combined authority would ensure a joined-up approach, which in turn would improve efficiency and effectiveness in delivering economic growth and transport functions. The review draws attention to outcomes that would demonstrate these improvements, focussed on greater clarity and alignment of funding, greater prioritisation and better forward thinking.

25. An evidence review has been completed by Glasgow University to underpin the development of the “North East Skills Action Plan” in the “North East Local Enterprise Partnership” area. It considered the skills system to be a complex interconnected web of institutions involved in designing, supporting, resourcing and delivering the improvement of skills. The conclusion of the evidence review is that a combined authority would provide a coordinated approach for skills collaboration, underpinned by robust economic and labour market intelligence and employers would be at the centre of the design and delivery of the system. The governance review draws attention to outcomes that would demonstrate these improvements, focussed on one co-ordinated skills plan, improved efficiency in the system and improvements in the involvement of employers.

26. Local authorities in the area already play a significant role in inward investment through a range of bodies. The “North East Local Enterprise Partnership” has established protocols in relation to UK Trade and Investment enquiries from foreign investors. The combined authority would provide an ‘Investment Gateway’ with a website and would support strengthened information exchange. The review draws attention to outcomes that would demonstrate improvements, drawing on the skills of the “North East Local Enterprise Partnership” and facilitation of better promotion of the area whilst avoiding duplication of effort.

1727

27. Strategic transport functions are currently delivered by:

• The Tyne and Wear Integrated Transport Authority, which is the strategic and policy-making body on transport for Gateshead Council, Newcastle City Council, North Tyneside Council, South Tyneside Council and Sunderland City Council;

• Nexus, the Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive that delivers services on behalf of the Tyne and Wear Integrated Transport Authority; and

• Durham County Council and Northumberland County Council, unitary authorities with responsibility for transport strategy and policy and the delivery of transport services in their areas.

28. Since the establishment of the “North East Local Enterprise Partnership” covering the area of all seven local authorities, the authorities have increasingly worked together on strategic transport priorities. Earlier this year they established a “Local Transport Body” for the purpose of prioritising local transport funding. The governance review considers that establishing a combined authority, which would take on all the functions of the Integrated Transport Authority and the local transport functions of Durham and Northumberland, would ensure political leadership at the highest level on strategic transport planning, enabling difficult decisions to be taken within a long-term investment programme, and ensuring the most efficient use of combined transport resource across the area.

29. The governance review considers that a combined authority would have a stronger voice in discussions with the European Union, devolved administrations and national bodies such as the Highways Agency, the Homes and Communities Agency, the Skills Funding Agency and the Department for Transport. It also sees advantages for a combined authority in relation to procuring and sharing services and the relationship with the “North East Local Enterprise Partnership”. Any costs incurred in establishing new arrangements would be offset by efficiency gains and met from existing resources.

30. The governance review concludes that coordinated action against the agreed priorities will bring improvements and that whilst establishing the “LA7 Leadership Board” has been an important step in formalising these arrangements, it has limitations. The governance review concludes that only by establishing statutory arrangements for collaboration would the area be able to fully achieve its ambition for growth.

31. Accordingly, the review’s conclusions on the five options were as follows:

• Do nothing. This option was discounted on the basis that it would fail to create the institutional enhancement that is most likely to address the underlying economic needs of the area. The ambitions of the area would not be realised.

• Enhance informal joint working arrangements. This option was discounted on the basis that sophisticated arrangements are already in place, and establishing a Joint Committee would not be a significant improvement as in many cases key decisions would need to be referred back to the individual authorities. It would effectively add,

1828 rather than remove, a layer of bureaucracy and again the ambitions of the area would not be realised.

• Economic prosperity board. This option was discounted on the basis that whilst it improves existing arrangements it misses the opportunity to maximise economic benefits as transport linkages are significant for the proper functioning of the economic area. Again, the ambitions of the area would not be realised.

• Combined authority. This option was deemed to create the institutional enhancement most likely to address the economic needs of the area, by providing a stable, legally independent and accountable body for devolved powers and funding. It will enable strategic decision making that aligns economic growth and transport and will be better informed through shared information and analysis. Through some shared services and operational co-ordination, efficiencies may also be achieved. It is considered that this model would improve access to economic, skills and employment opportunities and create improved links for leisure and tourism.

• Additional functions for either an economic prosperity board or a combined authority over time. The governance review recommends that if a combined authority is established it should seek devolution of responsibility for the allocation of the Single Local Growth Fund and consider the implications of the European Union Structural and Investment Funds Growth Programme from 1 April 2015.

32. The governance review concluded that there is a clear case for strengthening the governance arrangements and that establishing a combined authority will be the best way to address both the needs and strategic ambitions of the area. It would facilitate closer partnership working, allow a coordinated approach to tackling local priorities, increase effectiveness and efficiency, allow for improved strategic planning and decision making on the basis of stronger evidence collection and analysis, improve the delivery of statutory functions, and lead to the improvement of economic conditions in the area.

33. The governance review is clear that the Board of the “North East Local Enterprise Partnership” will join forces with the combined authority through an integrated governance model. Detailed governance arrangements will be contained in standing orders, which would only be changed with the consent of all members of the combined authority. The detail of the integrated governance model is being agreed, but is based on the following two principles:

• The public sector is the right place for public assets to be held and managed. Elected representatives must play a key role in scrutiny and decision making to reflect the ultimate beneficiary, the public; and

• The business sector needs to have the influence and opportunity to input knowledge and expertise in to designing the solutions and how they are implemented on the ground.

1929 Chapter 3 – Issues for consultation

34. Having regard to the proposal from the seven councils, the support of the “North East Local Enterprise Partnership” and his localist policy, the Secretary of State is considering making an Order under the statute which, if Parliament approves, would replace the “Tyne and Wear Integrated Transport Authority” with a combined authority. This would bring together Durham County Council, Gateshead Council, Newcastle City Council, North Tyneside Council, Northumberland County Council, South Tyneside Council and Sunderland City Council for the delivery of transport, economic development and regeneration functions.

35. Under the statute the Secretary of State can make the Order only if, having regard to the councils’ scheme, he considers that establishing the combined authority would be likely to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of transport in the area, the exercise of statutory functions relating to transport, economic development and regeneration in the area and the economic conditions in the area. In making this judgement the Secretary of State would welcome views on this matter from consultees and others in response to this consultation. Chapter 2 of this consultation sets out the views and conclusions of the seven councils to which consultees and others may wish to have regard when responding to the consultation.

36. The Secretary of State also recognises in making the Order he must have regard to the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities and to secure effective and convenient local government. Again the Secretary of State would welcome the views of consultees and others on these matters when responding to the consultation.

37. Finally, were the Secretary of State to make such an Order, he is minded that it should provide for a combined authority with a constitution and functions as described in the Annex to this consultation document. A draft of an Order to give effect to these proposals is at the appendix to the Annex. The Secretary of State would welcome the views of consultees and others on these matters when responding to the consultation.

38. In short, comments are invited on the proposal to establish a combined authority for the area of Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear, and in particular:

• On whether you support changing the governance institutions for the area of the “North East Local Enterprise Partnership” area by the creation of a combined authority;

• On whether you consider that establishing the proposed combined authority would be likely to improve the provision of transport in the area and its effectiveness and efficiency, the provision of economic development and regeneration in the area, and the economic conditions in the area;

2030 • On how establishing such an authority may impact on the identities and interests of local communities and on securing effective and convenient local government;

• On the proposed constitutional arrangements (including the formal name of the combined authority) and functions for a combined authority as set out in the Annex to this consultation paper; and

• On how such an authority and the local enterprise partnership can work in a seamless manner to ensure the private sector is ‘hardwired’ into the leadership and decision making for the functional economic area.

2131 Annex

The proposed constitution and functions for the combined authority

Establishment

1. It is proposed that the combined authority would come into existence on 1 April 2014. The authority could be known as the ‘Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear Combined Authority’. It would cover the councils for the local government areas of Durham, Gateshead, Newcastle Upon Tyne, North Tyneside, Northumberland, South Tyneside and Sunderland – the constituent councils.

2. The Tyne and Wear Integrated Transport Authority would be dissolved on the same day and its functions, property, rights and liabilities including those that relate to contracts of employment transferred to the combined authority. The councils formerly in the Tyne and Wear Integrated Transport Authority area (Gateshead Council, Newcastle City Council, North Tyneside Council, South Tyneside Council and Sunderland City Council) would retain responsibility for the historic property, rights and liabilities relating to transport matters that had not transferred to the Tyne and Wear Integrated Transport Authority. Any property, rights and liabilities of a similar type held by the county councils of Durham and Northumberland would remain the responsibility of those councils.

Constitution

3. The combined authority would be made up of one elected member from each of the seven constituent councils. The members of the combined authority, by agreement and following a nomination from the “North East Local Enterprise Partnership”, should appoint a member of the “North East Local Enterprise Partnership” to be a non- constituent member of the combined authority, making eight members in total.

4. Each constituent authority would appoint another of its elected members to act as a member of the combined authority in the absence of the appointed member – the substitute member. The “North East Local Enterprise Partnership” should also nominate a substitute member for agreement by the combined authority. Substitute members will have the same decision making authority and voting rights as the person whose place he/she is taking.

5. As the economic transformation of the area depends on strong governance, there is an expectation that each council would appoint its Leader or Elected Mayor to the combined authority. In the case of the “North East Local Enterprise Partnership” the

2232 expectation is that the Chairman would be appointed. This provides for decision making at the highest level and sets the strategic direction of the authority.

6. At the first meeting of the combined authority a Chairman and Vice-chairman would be appointed from among its members. Members of the combined authority would not be paid for the work they undertake for the authority. However, they could receive allowances for travel and subsistence.

7. Where a member of the combined authority ceases to be a member of their local authority or of the “North East Local Enterprise Partnership”, they would also cease to be a member of the combined authority and a replacement member would be appointed as soon as practicable.

8. A constituent authority or the “North East Local Enterprise Partnership” may at any time terminate the appointment of a member or a substitute member appointed/nominated by it to the combined authority.

Voting

9. The constituent council members of the combined authority will have one vote each. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman would not have a second or casting vote.

10. Non-constituent members would be non-voting members but may be given voting rights on certain issues should the constituent council members of the combined authority resolve to grant these.

11. Subject to the provisions of any enactment the combined authority will aim to reach decisions by consensus. If, exceptionally, it is not possible to reach consensus on any matter on which it is necessary to reach a decision, the matter will be put to a vote that will be decided by a simple majority of the members of the combined authority present and voting.

12. The following matters will require the unanimous support of members of the combined authority for approval:

• Adoption of growth plan and investment strategy; • Adoption of local transport plan; • Adoption of the combined authority’s annual budget; • Setting of the transport levy; • Allocation of local transport plan funding to constituent authorities; • Approval of key growth schemes including the local majors scheme devolved funding; • Approval of borrowing limits, treasury management strategy including reserves, investment strategy and capital budget of the combined authority; and • Such other plans and strategies as determined by the combined authority.

2333

Funding

Economic development

13. The costs of the combined authority in relation to the exercise of its economic development and regeneration functions and all start-up costs would be met by the constituent authorities. These costs may be apportioned between the constituent authorities in equal shares.

Transport

14. Section 74 of the Local Government Act 1988 allows for a combined authority to be given power to issue a levy in respect of its expenses relating to its transport functions. The Tyne and Wear Integrated Transport Authority already has a levying power and the scheme proposes that the combined authority should be given a similar power. However, because of the differing needs of Durham and Northumberland and that it would not be appropriate for costs arising from historic debt of the Tyne and Wear Integrated Transport Authority to fall on the county councils, the current method of apportionment by population size would not be appropriate. Instead, the relevant regulations5 will be amended to enable the combined authority to decide how best to apportion the amount to be raised by the levy between the seven local authorities. These levies, as with all levies, will be subject to the provisions on council tax referendums in the Local Audit and Accountability Bill, if Parliament enacts this legislation.

15. For the financial year 2014-15, the current financial arrangements will continue, with the Tyne and Wear Integrated Transport Authority levy set in early 2014 covering the Tyne and Wear authorities only. The first full levy covering all seven local authorities would be for the financial year 2015-16.

Functions

16. The primary focus of the combined authority is to manage a significant programme of investment in transport and economic infrastructure, and to influence and align with Government investment, in order to drive economic growth.

Economic development

17. The authority would have powers that would allow it to drive strategic economic growth across the functional economic area. It will focus on strategic issues such as:

• Setting the growth plan for the area; • Setting the investment strategy for the area;

5 The Transport Levying Bodies Regulations 1992

2434 • Collecting economic intelligence and analysis as a basis for strategic planning and coordination; • Acting as the accountable body for a range of devolved funding; • Setting a strategy and making decisions on the skills agenda across the area; and • A co-ordinated approach to inward investment.

18. In addition, the combined authority would have other duties and powers relating to the publication of information, legal proceedings, provision of further education, tourism, and assessment of economic conditions that would contribute to the economic improvement of the functional economic area.

Transport

19. The transport functions of the Tyne and Wear Integrated Transport Authority would be transferred to the combined authority. In addition, all the Local Transport Authority functions of Durham County Council and Northumberland County Council would be transferred to the combined authority. This would mean that the combined authority would deal with such transport issues as:

• Prioritisation and programme management of local major transport schemes; • Development of a Joint Local Transport Plan and associated strategies; • Working on bus related issues; • Developing cooperative arrangements across the area on traffic management; and • Leading collaborative working on concessionary travel.

All functions conferred or imposed on the Tyne and Wear Integrated Transport Authority by any enactment relating to functions of the Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive would be exercisable by the combined authority.

General power of combined authority

20. The combined authority would have a ‘function related general power of competence’ provided to them under Chapter 3 of Part 1 of the Localism Act 2011.

Scrutiny arrangements

21. The combined authority may establish at least one overview and scrutiny committee with members appointed from constituent councils and other bodies to exercise scrutiny functions over the combined authority and any sub-boards. The overview and scrutiny committee would have a range of powers appropriate to its functions, including the power to recommend that a decision be reconsidered by the combined authority.

2535 Substructures and internal scheme of delegation

North East Local Enterprise Partnership

22. The close relationship between the “North East Local Enterprise Partnership” and the proposed combined authority will allow for a seamless operation bringing together the public and private sectors. The Leaders/Elected Mayor of the constituent authorities are members of the “North East Local Enterprise Partnership”. The addition of the Chairman of the “North East Local Enterprise Partnership” as a member of the combined authority will ensure that the local enterprise partnership is able to provide leadership where required and that decisions taken by the combined authority fully support the priorities of the local enterprise partnership and the views of business. The combined authority and the local enterprise partnership will engage the wider business community to ensure that all partners contribute to the wider ambition for more and better jobs.

23. A shared economic strategy will be developed and agreed, building on the findings of the “North East Independent Economic Review”. Investment decisions taken by the combined authority would fully reflect business views. This will ensure that public investment is targeted to maximise business benefit.

24. The combined authority and the “North East Local Enterprise Partnership” would ensure that executive and staff resources are used in the most effective way to deliver the shared economic strategy.

25. The combined authority would act as the accountable body for the “North East Local Enterprise Partnership”.

Joint Committee

26. The combined authority and the constituent councils would enter into joint arrangements covering specified transport functions. This would include the establishment of a joint committee to provide advice on transport policy matters to the combined authority, and to be responsible for the discharge of those transport functions.

Executive arrangements

27. The Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive would continue during a transitional phase, as an executive body of the combined authority in relation to its transport functions in the areas of Gateshead Council, Newcastle City Council, North Tyneside Council, South Tyneside Council and Sunderland City Council. In addition, during this phase, operational transport functions would be devolved Durham County Council and Northumberland County Council to enable local delivery arrangements to continue in relation to:

• Information provision; • Infrastructure delivery;

2636

• Commissioning and procurement of subsidised bus services; and • Concessionary travel.

Following the transitional phase, the combined authority would establish consistent delivery arrangements to operate across the geography of the combined authority as a whole.

Other Arrangements

28. The combined authority may establish further joint committees or sub-committees and delegate powers and functions as considered by it to be appropriate. This is provided for through existing legislation, rather than expressly through the Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear Combined Authority Order.

20 2737 Draft Order laid before Parliament under section 94 of the Local Transport Act 2008 and section 117 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, for approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.

DRAFT STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

2014 No.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT, ENGLAND

TRANSPORT, ENGLAND

Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear Combined Authority Order 2014

Made - - - - ***** Coming into force - - *****

This Order is made in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 84, 91 and 93 of the Local Transport Act 2008(a) and sections 103 to 105 and 114 to 116 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009(b).

The Secretary of State, having regard to a scheme prepared and published under section 82 of the Local Transport Act 2008 and section 109 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, considers that the making of this Order is likely to improve – (a) the exercise of statutory functions relating to transport in the area to which this Order relates, (b) the effectiveness and efficiency of transport in that area, (c) the exercise of statutory functions relating to economic development and regeneration in that area, and (d) economic conditions in that area.

The Secretary of State is satisfied that the area to which this Order relates meets the conditions set out in section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

The Secretary of State has consulted– (a) the district councils for the area comprised in the Tyne and Wear integrated transport area, (b) the councils for the local government areas who are within the area for which the combined authority is to be established; (c) the Tyne and Wear Integrated Transport Authority,

(a) 2008 c.26. (b) 2009 c.20.

2838 (d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considered appropriate.

The councils whose areas are comprised in the Tyne and Wear integrated transport area have consented to the making of this Order.

In making this Order, the Secretary of State has had regard to the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities, and to secure effective and convenient local government.

A draft of this instrument has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament pursuant to section 94 of the Local Transport Act 2008 and section 117 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

Accordingly, the Secretary of State makes the following Order:

PART 1 General

Citation and commencement 1. This Order may be cited as the Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear Combined Authority Order 2014 and shall come into force on 1 April 2014.

Interpretation 2. In this Order — “the 2009 Act” means the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009; “combined area” means the area consisting of the areas of the constituent councils; “the Combined Authority” has the meaning given by article 3(2); “constituent councils” means the councils for the local government areas of Durham, Gateshead, Newcastle Upon Tyne, North Tyneside, Northumberland, South Tyneside and Sunderland. “the county councils” means the County Council of Durham and Northumberland County Council; “the ITA” means the Tyne and Wear Integrated Transport Authority; and “the Local Enterprise Partnership” means the North East Local Enterprise Partnership.

PART 2 Establishment of a combined authority for Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear

Establishment 3.—(1) There is established a combined authority for the combined area. (2) The Combined Authority is to be a body corporate and to be known as the Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear Combined Authority.

2939 (3) The functions of the Combined Authority are those functions conferred or imposed upon it by this Order or by any other enactment (whenever passed or made), or as may be delegated to it by or under this Order or any other enactment (whenever passed or made).

Constitution 4. Schedule 1 (which makes provision about the constitution of the Combined Authority) has effect.

Funding 5.—(1) The constituent councils must meet the costs of the Combined Authority reasonably attributable to the exercise of its functions relating to economic development and regeneration. (2) The amount payable by each of the constituent councils is to be determined by apportioning the costs of the Combined Authority referred to in paragraph (1) equally between the constituent councils.

PART 3 Transport

Abolition and transfer of functions etc. 6.—(1) The Tyne and Wear integrated transport area is dissolved and the ITA is abolished. (2) On the abolition of the ITA— (a) its functions; and (b) its property, rights and liabilities are transferred to the Combined Authority.

Adaptation of enactments — integrated transport authority 7.—(1) This article has effect in consequence of article 6. (2) In any enactment (whenever passed or made)— (a) any reference to an integrated transport area; or (b) any reference which falls to be read as a reference to such an area, is to be treated as including a reference to the combined area. (3) In any enactment (whenever passed or made)— (a) any reference to an integrated transport authority; or (b) any reference which falls to be read as a reference to such an authority, is to be treated as including a reference to the Combined Authority. (4) Schedule 2 (which amends section 9 of the Transport Act 1968 in consequence of article 6) has effect, but this does not affect the generality of paragraphs (2) and (3).

Transfer of functions — county councils 8. There are transferred to the Combined Authority—

3040 (a) the functions of the county councils under Parts IV and V of the Transport Act 1985(a); and (b) the functions of the county councils as local transport authorities under Part II of the Transport Act 2000(b).

Adaptation of enactments 9.—(1) This article has effect in consequence of article 8. (2) In relation to any function transferred under article 8, any reference in any enactment (whenever passed or made) to a county, or to any class of area which includes a county, is to be treated as including a reference to the combined area. (3) In any enactment (whenever passed or made) any reference in relation to any function transferred under article 8 to a county council, or to any class of body which includes a county council, is to be treated as including a reference to the Combined Authority.

Passenger Transport Executive 10.—(1) In this article “the Executive” means the Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive. (2) The Executive is to be an executive body of the Combined Authority for the purposes of Part 5 of the Local Transport Act 2008 and Part 6 of the 2009 Act. (3) In the application of section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 (arrangements for the discharge of functions) to the Combined Authority the Executive is to be treated as if it were an officer of the Combined Authority.

Continuity 11.—(1) Nothing in articles 6 to 9 affects the validity of anything done by or in relation to the ITA or either of the county councils in relation to the functions transferred under article 8 before 1st April 2014. (2) There may be continued by or in relation to the Combined Authority anything (including legal proceedings) which— (a) relates to any of the functions, property, rights or liabilities transferred to the Combined Authority; and (b) is in process of being done by or in relation to the ITA, or to either of the county councils in relation to the functions transferred under article 8, immediately before lst April 2014. (3) Anything which— (a) was made or done by or in relation to the ITA or to either of the county councils for the purposes of or otherwise in connection with any of the functions, property, rights or liabilities transferred; (b) is in effect immediately before the transfer takes effect, has effect if made or done by or in relation to the Combined Authority. (4) The Combined Authority shall be substituted for the ITA in any instruments, contracts or legal proceedings which— (a) relate to any of the functions, property, rights or liabilities transferred; and (b) are made or commenced before the transfer takes effect. (5) A reference in this article to anything made or done by or in relation to the ITA includes a reference to anything which by virtue of any enactment is to be treated as having been made or done by or in relation to the ITA.

(a) 1985 c..67 (b) 2000 c.38

3141 (6) Without prejudice to the generality of this article a levy issued by the ITA under section 74 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and in accordance with the Transport Levying Bodies Regulations 1992 to the constituent councils in respect of the financial year beginning 1st April 2014 is to have effect for that year as if it had been so issued by the Combined Authority.

PART 4 Additional functions

Economic development and regeneration functions 12.—(1) The functions of the constituent councils set out in Schedule 3 to this Order are exercisable by the Combined Authority in relation to its area. (2) The functions are exercisable concurrently with the constituent councils. (3) Any requirement in any enactment for a constituent council to exercise such a function may be fulfilled by the exercise of that function by the Combined Authority.

Incidental provisions 13. The following provisions shall have effect as if the Combined Authority were a local authority for the purposes of these provisions— (a) section 142(2) of the Local Government Act 1972(a) (the power to arrange for publication of information etc relating to the functions of the authority); and (b) section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 (the power to prosecute and defend legal proceedings). 14.—(1) The Combined Authority shall have the power to exercise any of the functions described in subsection (1)(a) and (b) of section 88 of the Local Government Act 1985(b) (research and collection of information) whether or not a scheme is made under that section. (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1) of this article, paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 88(1) of the Local Government Act 1985 shall have effect as if a reference to “that area” were a reference to the combined area. 15. Section 13 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989(c) shall have effect as if – (a) in subsection (4) after paragraph (x) there were inserted – “(xx) subject to subsection (xx), a committee appointed by the Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear Combined Authority;”; and (b) after subsection (4) there were inserted – “(xx) A person who is a member of a committee falling within paragraph (xx) of subsection (4) or a sub-committee appointed by such a committee shall for all purposes be treated as a non-voting member of that committee or sub-committee unless he is a member of one of the constituent councils as defined by article 2 of the Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear Combined Authority Order 20xx.”. 16. The Apprenticeship, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009(d) shall have effect as if the Combined Authority were a local authority for the purpose of section 84(2).

3242 Signed on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Name Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Date Department for Communities and Local Government

SCHEDULE 1 Article 4 Constitution

Membership 1.—(1) Each constituent council shall appoint one of its elected members to be a member of the Combined Authority. (2) Each constituent council shall appoint another of its elected members to act as a member of the Combined Authority in the absence of the member appointed under sub-paragraph (1) (“the substitute member”). (3) The Local Enterprise Partnership shall nominate one of its members to be a member of the Combined Authority (“Local Enterprise Partnership Member”). (4) The Local Enterprise Partnership shall nominate another of its members to act as a member of the Combined Authority in the absence of the member appointed under sub-paragraph (5) (“the substitute member”). (5) The Combined Authority shall appoint a member nominated by the Local Enterprise Partnership as a member of the Combined Authority (“Local Enterprise Partnership Member”). (6) The Combined Authority shall appoint another member nominated by the Local Enterprise Partnership to act as a member of the Combined Authority in the absence of the member appointed under sub-paragraph (5) (“the substitute member”). (7) For the purposes of this Schedule any reference to a member is to be treated as including a reference to the Local Enterprise Partnership Member. (8) A person ceases to be a member or substitute member of the Combined Authority if they cease to be a member of – (a) the constituent council that appointed them; or (b) the Local Enterprise Partnership that nominated them. (9) A person may resign as a member or substitute member of the Combined Authority by written notice served on the proper officer of the Council or the Chair or Vice Chair of the Local Enterprise Partnership (as the case may be) of– (a) the constituent council that appointed them; or (b) the Local Enterprise Partnership that nominated them and the resignation shall take effect on receipt of the notice by the proper officer of the Council or Chair or Vice Chair of the Local Enterprise Partnership (as the case may be). (10) Where a member or substitute member’s appointment ceases by virtue of sub-paragraph (8) or (9) – (a) the constituent council that made the appointment must, as soon as practicable, give written notice of that fact to the Combined Authority and appoint another of its elected members in that person’s place; (b) the Local Enterprise Partnership must, as soon as practicable, give written notice of that fact to the Combined Authority and nominate another of its elected members in that person’s place.

3343 (11) The Combined Authority shall appoint a member nominated under sub-paragraph (10)(b) at the next meeting of the Combined Authority. (12) A constituent council may at any time terminate the appointment of a member or substitute member appointed by it to the Combined Authority and appoint another member of it’s executive in that person’s place. (13) Where a constituent council exercises its power under sub-paragraph (12), it must give written notice of the new appointment and the termination of the previous appointment to the Combined Authority and the new appointment shall take effect and the previous appointment terminate at the end of one week from the date on which the notice is given or such longer period not exceeding one month as is specified in the notice. (14) The Local Enterprise Partnership may at any time terminate the appointment of a member or substitute member nominated by it to the Combined Authority and nominate another of its members in that person’s place. (15) Where the Local Enterprise Partnership exercises its power under sub-paragraph (14), it must give written notice of the new nomination and the termination of the previous appointment to the Combined Authority. (16) The Combined Authority shall appoint a member nominated under sub-paragraph (15) and the new appointment shall take effect and the previous appointment terminate at the end of one week from the date on which the notice is given or such longer period not exceeding one month as is specified in the notice. (17) For the purposes of this paragraph, an elected mayor of a constituent council is to be treated as a member of the constituent council.

Chairman and vice-chairman 2.—(1) The Combined Authority must in each year appoint a chairman and a vice-chairman from among its members and the appointments are to be the first business transacted at the first meeting of the Combined Authority after the appointment of members of the Combined Authority. (2) A person ceases to be chairman or vice-chairman of the Combined Authority if they cease to be a member of the Combined Authority. (3) If a vacancy arises in the office of chairman or vice-chairman, an appointment to fill the vacancy is to be made at the next ordinary meeting of the Combined Authority, or, if that meeting is to be held within 14 days of the vacancy arising, at the meeting following that meeting.

Proceedings 3.—(1) Any questions that are to be decided by the Combined Authority are to be decided by a majority of the members and substitute members, acting in place of members, present and voting on that question at a meeting of the Combined Authority. (2) Each member, or substitute member acting in that member’s place, is to have one vote and no member or substitute member is to have a casting vote. (3) Members appointed from the Local Enterprise Partnership will be non-voting members of the Combined Authority. (4) Questions relating to the following matters require a unanimous vote in favour by all seven constituent council members, or substitute members acting in place of those members, to be carried – (a) adoption of any growth plan and investment strategy; (b) adoption of any local transport plan; (c) approval of the Combined Authority’s annual budget; (d) setting of the transport levy; (e) allocation of local transport plan funding to the individual constituent authorities; (f) approval of key growth schemes including the local major schemes devolved funding;

3444 (g) approval of borrowing limits, treasury management strategy including reserves, investment strategy and capital budget of the Combined Authority; and (h) such other plans and strategies as determined by the Combined Authority. (5) The proceedings of the Combined Authority are not invalidated by any vacancy among its members or substitute members or by any defect in the appointment or qualifications of any member or substitute member.

Committees 4.—(1) The Combined Authority may appoint one or more committees as an overview and scrutiny committee, or as the case may be committees, of the Combined Authority. (2) The Combined Authority shall appoint members of each of the constituent councils to any overview and scrutiny committee appointed by the Combined Authority. (3) Any overview and scrutiny committee appointed by the Combined Authority may not include any member of the Combined Authority. (4) Any overview and scrutiny committee appointed by the Combined Authority will have the power to– (a) invite members to attend before it to answer questions; (b) invite other persons, including members of the public, to attend meetings of the committee; (c) review or scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with the discharge of any functions which are the responsibility of the Combined Authority; (d) make reports or recommendations to the Combined Authority with respect to the discharge of any functions which are the responsibility of the Combined Authority; (5) The power to review or scrutinise a decision made but not implemented under sub-paragraph (4)(c) includes the power to recommend that the decision be reconsidered by the Combined Authority. (6) Where any overview and scrutiny committee appointed by the Combined Authority makes a report or recommendation under sub-paragraph (4)(d) the committee may – (a) publish the report or recommendations; (b) by notice in writing require the Combined Authority to – (i) consider the report or recommendations; (ii) respond to the overview and scrutiny committee indicating what (if any) action the Combined Authority proposes to take; (iii) if the overview and scrutiny committee has published the report or recommendations under sub-paragraph (6)(a), publish the response. (7) A notice served under sub-paragraph (6)(b) must require the Combined Authority to comply with it within two months beginning with the date on which the Combined Authority received the reports or recommendations or (if later) the notice. (8) The Combined Authority shall comply with a notice given under sub-paragraph (6)(b). (9) Sub-paragraphs (6)(a) and (8) are subject to section 9FG of the Local Government Act 2000 and to any provision made under section 9GA(8).

Records 5.—(1) The Combined Authority must make arrangements for the names of members and substitute members present at any meeting to be recorded. (2) Minutes of the proceedings of a meeting of the Combined Authority, or any committee or sub-committee of the Combined Authority are to be kept in such form as the Combined Authority may determine.

3545 (3) Any such minutes are to be signed at the same or next suitable meeting of the Combined Authority by the person presiding at that meeting. (4) Any minute purporting to be signed as mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) shall be received in evidence without further proof. (5) Until the contrary is provided, a meeting of the Combined Authority a minute of whose proceedings has been signed in accordance with this paragraph is deemed to have been duly convened and held, and all the members and substitute members present at the meeting are deemed to have been duly qualified. (6) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3) the next suitable meeting is the next following meeting or, where standing orders made by the Combined Authority provide for another meeting of the authority to be regarded as suitable, either the next following meeting or that other meeting.

Standing orders 6. The Combined Authority may make standing orders for the regulation of its proceedings and business and may vary or revoke any such orders.

Remuneration 7. No remuneration is to be payable by the Combined Authority to its members, other than allowances for travel and subsistence paid in accordance with a scheme drawn up by the Combined Authority.

SCHEDULE 2 Article 7(4) Amendment of Section 9 of the Transport Act 1968 1. Section 9 of the Transport Act 1968(a) is amended as follows. 2. In subsection (1)(a)— (a) in sub-paragraph (i) after “except Greater Manchester” there is inserted and “the Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear”; (b) the word “and” after sub-paragraph (ia) is omitted; and (c) after sub-paragraph (ia) there is inserted— “(ib) the counties of Durham and Northumberland and the metropolitan county of Tyne and Wear shall be the area of a combined authority; and”. 3. In subsection (1)(b)— (a) the word “and” after sub-paragraph (ia) is omitted; and (b) after sub-paragraph (ia) there is inserted— “(ib) in relation to counties of Durham and Northumberland and the metropolitan county of Tyne and Wear, the Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear Combined Authority; and”. 4. In subsections (2) and (3) after “the area of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority” in each case occurring there is inserted “, the area of the Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear Combined Authority”.

(a) 1968 c. 73; section 9 was amended by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (c. 65) Schedule 18, paragraph 1; by the Transport Act 1985 (c. 67) sections 57(1), 58(2), Schedule 3, paragraph 3, Schedule 8; by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1994 (c. 39) Schedule 13, paragraph 80(2); and in relation to England and Wales only by the Local Transport Act 2008 (c. 26) section 98(4), Schedule 4, paragraph 2 and Schedule 7, Part 4 and by S.I. 2011/908.

3646 5. In subsection (5) after “or the area of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority” there is inserted “or of the Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear Combined Authority”. 6. In subsection (5A) after “2011” there is inserted “and the Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear Combined Authority means the authority of that name constituted by the Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear Combined Authority Order 2014”.

SCHEDULE 3 Article 12(1) Economic development and regeneration functions 1. Such functions of the constituent authorities as are exercisable for the purpose of economic development and regeneration in reliance on the general power of competence under section 1 of the Localism Act 2011(a). 2. The power under section 144 of the Local Government Act 1972(b) (the power to encourage visitors and provide conference and other facilities). 3. The duties under sections 15ZA, 15ZB, 15ZC, 17A, 18A(1)(b), of the Education Act 1996(c) and the power under sections 514A and 560A of that Act (duties and powers related to the provision of education and training for persons over compulsory school age). 4. The duty under section 69 of the 2009 Act (duty to prepare an assessment of economic conditions).

EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Order) This Order establishes the Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear Combined Authority. Part 6 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (“the 2009 Act”) provides for the establishment of combined authorities for the areas of two or more local authorities in England. Combined authorities are bodies corporate which may be given power to exercise functions relating to transport and to economic development and regeneration in their area. The Secretary of State may only establish a combined authority for an area where a scheme for such an authority has been published under section 109 of the 2009 Act. This Order has been made following the publication of such a scheme on 31 July 2013 by the constituent councils whose areas together make up the combined area of the new authority. The scheme is available at: www.gateshead.gov.uk/la7-governance. Part 2 of the Order establishes the new authority, to be known as the Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear Combined Authority on 1 April 2014, and makes provision for its constitution and funding. Article 4 of and Schedule 1 to the Order make provision for the constitution of the Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear Combined Authority. This is supplemental to the provision that is made by Part 1A of Schedule 12 to the Local Government Act 1972 (see paragraph (6A) of that Schedule, as amended by the 2009 Act). Article 5 makes provision for the funding, by the constituent councils, of those costs of the Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear Combined Authority that relate to the exercise of its economic development and regeneration functions.

3747 Part 3 concerns the transport functions of the combined authority. Article 6 abolishes the Tyne and Wear integrated transport area and its integrated transport authority and transfers the authority’s functions, property, rights and liabilities to the combined authority. Article 7 makes adaptations to enactments consequential upon article 6. Article 8 transfers specified transport functions of the Durham and Northumberland county councils to the Combined Authority. Article 9 makes adaptations to enactments consequential upon article 8. Article 10 makes the Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive an executive body of the Combined Authority and article 11 contains general continuity provisions. Part 4 confers additional functions on the Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear Combined Authority. Article 12 confers functions of the constituent councils relating to economic development and regeneration. These are set out in Schedule 3 to the Order and are to be exercised concurrently with the constituent councils. Articles 13 to 16 make some general, incidental provisions relating to the Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear Combined Authority to enable it to carry out its functions more effectively. A full regulatory impact assessment has not been prepared as this instrument will have no impact on the costs of business and the voluntary sector.

31 3848 Appendix 3

North East Leadership Board – Joint response to consultation on the proposal to establish a combined authority for the area of Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear

The seven local authorities of Durham, Gateshead, Newcastle, North Tyneside, Northumberland, South Tyneside and Sunderland as the North East Leadership Board, welcome the opportunity to formally respond to the Secretary of State’s consultation on the proposals to form a Combined Authority for the area. This response has been agreed by each Local Authority Cabinet/Executive and focuses on how the CA will improve the economic conditions in the North East through strengthened partnership arrangements and the evidence of local support from residents, businesses, partners and the voluntary sector.

Strong partnership that supports economic growth The seven north east local authorities have a pivotal role in stimulating economic growth and are committed to achieving this together. There is a history of successful joint working in the North East and a shared strength of ambition and desire to bring about a step change in the prosperity of the area. The ambition articulated by the Leaders and Elected Mayor, and endorsed by the North East Independent Economic Review, is to create the best possible conditions for growth in jobs, investment and living standards, to make the North East an excellent location for business, to prioritise and deliver high quality infrastructure and to enable residents to raise their skill levels and to benefit from economic growth long into the future. In the North East, a combined authority offers an opportunity to achieve this vision through stronger local governance and infrastructure that will deliver economic growth and development.

Proposals for improving economic governance in the area have been developed from the bottom up by the local authorities themselves with the support of the area’s stakeholders and business community and represent the commitment to a shared vision for economic growth. As recognised by the Heseltine Review, with a detailed understanding of local areas, their opportunities and challenges, the seven local authorities, acting collectively as a Leadership Board, are uniquely placed shape the strategic direction as well as support delivery of the key interventions that will deliver growth and prosperity.

Significant changes to the economic development landscape and funding regimes in recent years have reduced institutional capacity in the North East to coordinate and align investment around wider economic priorities. At the same time areas such as London and Manchester and the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have strengthened governance arrangements offering the necessary stability and longevity to access more powers, flexibilities and resources. A combined authority for the North East would create such a stable and accountable platform for devolution of resources and powers from central government.

It would ensure that current institutions work better together and that these arrangements are strengthened for the long term future. Support among the business community and other stakeholders demonstrates that there is both the appetite and the need for local leadership and local determination of policy. The establishment of a combined authority will ensure more efficient and effective governance arrangements for the functional economic area underpinned by long-term stability. It will formalise an active and transparent role for the private sector in decision making, reinforced by greater democratic legitimacy secured through local government leadership within a coherent governance framework.

Working through an integrated governance model the North East Leadership Board and the North East LEP board will provide a unified and influential voice when interacting with government and national agencies in the development of local growth policy. In partnership they will ensure full, meaningful involvement of political and business leaders in the development of strategic interventions and will bring collective expertise and resources to

3949 bear on advancing the interests of the area and its people. The seamless nature of the relationship is underlined by the integration at board level and the position of the combined authority as the accountable body for the LEP. The leaders and elected mayor of all seven local authorities are members of the NELEP Board, one of the few LEP boards with full local political representation, and the North East Local Enterprise Partnership will be a non- constituent member of the Combined Authority. The business board members of the North East LEP Board view the Combined Authority as an exciting step forward for the North East. The North East LEP supports the view that the formation of a contiguous Combined Authority should lead to improved outcomes in public service delivery and will be fundamental to the economic success of the area.

The integrated governance model is a significant step forward for the North East LEP and the Combined Authority in the integration of their complementary but distinct roles under a coherent approach in the determined pursuit of growth.

A clear scope for the North East Leadership Board The current arrangements for collaboration across the seven local authority area are based on a strong but informal partnership between the local authorities. Establishing the North East Leadership Board was an important step in formalising these arrangements, however recent experience of establishing the Local Transport Body has illustrated their limitation. Economic data, the recent North East Independent Economic Review (NEIER) and the Government’s response to the Heseltine Report provide a strong evidence base in support of the case for, and scope of, a single, co-ordinated strategic approach through a combined authority.

The NEIER report was published in April 2013 and offers an agenda for NELEP and its partners with a strong emphasis on the commitment of the seven Local Authorities to strengthen collaborative working arrangements and strategic decision making across the area. The NEIER, reflecting on the evidence that underpins the review, stresses that formal structures and arrangements are required to manage and direct the available resources to deliver economic growth. In particular the proposed Combined Authority was highlighted as a major step towards strengthening local capacity to drive economic growth and seen as an essential component to achieve the objective of ‘more and better jobs’.

The Independent Economic Review Team strongly support the establishment of a Combined Authority, with responsibility for transport and economic development and working with the NELEP on skills and exporting and internationalisation. Specifically the review recommended that the Combined Authority, as a collective body set up by the seven local authorities, each represented with a democratic mandate by its Leader and supported by the LEP, should take on 4 critical area-wide functions which are poorly undertaken at the moment because of the absence of such an institution: namely transport, skills, economic development, and providing a strong voice and champion for the region at large. The Combined Authority will create a stronger institutional structure and a single voice to promote the NELEP area and, over time, secure a greater share of national resources. The devolution of funding would enable locally devised interventions that are planned and delivered in a coherent manner, maximising the benefit for the local area.

The Governance Review undertaken by the seven local authorities also concluded that establishing a combined authority for the area offers significant opportunities to accelerate the economic development and effectiveness of the North East and is the optimal arrangement to do so. There is a strong case, as set out in the Governance Review, that co- ordinated action to deliver the proposed functions of the combined authority in the context of agreed priorities across the area will bring improvements. This is particularly the case when the public and private sectors work together in design and implementation. The key findings of the Governance Review were that:

4050  The evidence review of the economy sets out a rationale to work collaboratively across the LA7 area, recognising strong and increasing integration across labour markets, housing markets and key sectors.  There is scope for a joint approach to enable economic growth based on key sectors and place.  Real opportunities exist for policy coordination and integration across different policy themes.  There is a need for ‘institutional capacity’ across the area to: . take on devolved powers and responsibilities; . provide the governance framework for a single approach to investment across the area; and . raise the profile of the area.  There is a clear impetus to ensure the North East is maximising the use of new funds alongside local resources.  There is a need to simplify and strategically coordinate the skills system for employers, providers and learners.  The seven local authorities have been successful at attracting inward investment and there is further untapped potential, but the current approach lacks coordination.  There is a significant opportunity to take a joint and prioritised approach to transport investment within a coordinated strategic approach that is integrated with wider economic development objectives.

Both the North East Independent Economic Review and the Governance Review recognise the issues and challenges facing the areas but also draw attention to the significant assets and opportunities which can be built on. The Newcastle City Deal and the emerging Sunderland City Deal and Rural Deal are also highlighting the key areas of activity to support growth. In providing the right conditions for growth - skills and transport come through as clear priorities. In addition inward investment is of key importance to the North East Economy as a whole and the area has been successful in attracting both foreign and UK based inward investment over recent years. There is currently a lack of coordination and a variable quality of provision and level of service across the area, leading to potential confusion for the client and missing of opportunities. This is clearly something the Combined Authority can resolve and as well as projecting strong leadership and identity nationally and internationally. The creation of a Combined Authority will allow the area to demonstrate its capacity to take on more functions and responsibilities; establish a single approach to investment supporting economic growth; and provide the governance framework which enhances decisions and information at a strategic level.

The combined authority proposals detailing this clear scope for the new body have been endorsed by each local authority through their full council. This decision was based on the clear case that has been established that new statutory arrangements, will provide the opportunity to coordinate activity and resources on transport, skills and economic growth, complementing local authority functions and enhancing the effectiveness of the way they are discharged. Local authorities will continue to deliver local services and represent the interests of local communities within this context.

Local Support for the establishment of a Combined Authority for the North East A process of local consultation and engagement was undertaken as part of the governance review and the proposal to establish a combined authority received overwhelming support from regional and local stakeholders.

The Governance Review and Draft scheme to establish a combined authority was submitted to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government at the end of July 2013

4151 after each Local Authority endorsed the proposal through their executive arrangements and also full Council.

The seven local authorities have consulted locally with residents, businesses, partners and the voluntary sector on the proposals to inform both the Governance Review and their joint response to the Government’s consultation. The outcome of both consultation exercises demonstrates the strength of local support for a proposal to strengthen co-ordination between the seven local authorities on transport, skills and economic growth through a combined authority.

Support across the business community and other stakeholders has been further confirmed in the consultation that the LEP team are leading around the European Structural and Investment Funds Strategy. An extensive programme involving on-line consultation, thematic and sectorally-based workshops, that has drawn together representatives from the public, private and voluntary and community sectors, has seen a strong, common narrative around the importance of structured partnership working at the LEP-CA geography to ensure that activities, initiatives and interventions are delivered to maximum effect and with maximum efficiency.

A report is attached as an appendix to this response detailing the process undertaken to consult on the proposals and the outcome. [Consultation report to be circulated on Monday 16 December following completion of consultation activity]

Comments on the Annex to the Consultation Document

The North East Leadership Board has reviewed the Annex to the consultation document and would make the following comments.

Paragraph 1

Name of the Combined Authority - There is a clear desire across the constituent authorities and its key stakeholders for the use of ‘North East’ to appear in the name of the Combined Authority. Government has already approved the use of the ‘North East Local Enterprise Partnership’ (NELEP) as well as ‘North East Local Transport Body’ (NELTB). It is essential to ensure clarity for external organisations on the geography of the Combined Authority, which is coterminous with both the NELEP and NELTB areas, that the Combined Authority is called the North East Leadership Board. It is noted that the Secretary of State has adopted a localist approach in exercising his powers under the statute and within this context it is requested that the name of the combined authority reflects the strong sense of shared identity and interests of the local communities within the combined area who identify with the term ‘North East’.

Paragraph 2.

When it is stated that the Tyne and Wear Integrated Transport Authority will be dissolved and its functions, property rights and liabilities including those that relate to contracts of employment will be transferred to the Combined Authority, it is understood that the reference to rights and liabilities relating to contracts of employment includes continuity specifically in relation to the Local Government Pension Scheme but this requires confirmation.

It is also understood that on the dissolution of the Integrated Transport Authority that the Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive will continue during the transitional phase so that it continues as the Executive body for the Combined Authority and fulfils the same responsibilities and functions as when it was the Executive body for the Tyne and Wear Integrated Transport Authority.

4252

Paragraph 3

We assume that reference to one elected member from each constituent authority means one member of the Executive of each constituent authority and in particular the Leader of each Authority and for the Authority with a Mayoral system this means the Elected Mayor.

Paragraph 4

As with paragraph 3 above reference to an elected member being appointed as a substitute member we take to mean that a member of the Executive will be appointed as a substitute member.

Paragraph 5

By reference to ‘expectation’ that each Authority will appoint its Leader or Elected Mayor to the Combined Authority we assume that you mean there will be a requirement for each Authority to appoint its Leader or Elected Mayor to the Combined Authority.

Paragraph 13

To clarify, the costs of the Combined Authority in relation to economic development are to be determined by apportioning the costs of the Combined Authority between the Constituent Authorities in such proportions as they agree, or in default of such agreement, equally between the Constituent Authorities.

Paragraph 14

It should be made clear that the differing needs of Durham and Northumberland in relation to transport costs relate not only to historic debt, but also to current and any future debt that has, or will, be incurred by the delivery of the transport functions for the Tyne and Wear Authorities that previously operated within the Tyne and Wear Integrated Transport Authority area.

Paragraph 27

As highlighted above, there is an expectation that the Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive will continue during the transitional phase so that the dissolution of the Integrated Transport Authority and the establishment of the Combined Authority will have no effect on the continuity of the Executive and the statutory functions undertaken by the Executive and it will discharge those functions on behalf of the combined authority in the same manner as it has up to this point undertaken on behalf of the Tyne and Wear Integrated Transport Authority.

4353 DRAFT

Response to Government consultation on Proposal to establish a combined authority

Local Consultation Report

1. Introduction

The seven Local Authorities in the North East (Durham, Gateshead, Newcastle, North Tyneside, Northumberland, South Tyneside and Sunderland) as the North East Leadership Board have been developing proposals to establish a more co-ordinated approach to important issues affecting the whole region such as transport, skills and attracting investment. The North East Leadership Board has been clear about its commitment to embed collaborative working arrangements in a statutory form and has engaged with key stakeholders throughout the development of the proposal for a Combined Authority for the area. This report summarises all of the consultation and engagement activity that has taken place from the Governance Review process through to the Secretary of State’s consultation on the submitted proposals for a Combined Authority.

A Governance Review undertaken in April/May 2013 found that the creation of a Combined Authority for the area would improve the discharge of functions relating to transport, skills and economic development across the region. A consultation with regional stakeholders and key partners on the Governance Review found that there was overwhelming support for the establishment of a Combined Authority. Each of the seven local authorities consider that a Combined Authority would strengthen collaboration and enable strategic decision-making on economic growth and transport to be taken and endorsed the Governance Review and Scheme through their Cabinet/Executive and full Council.

As part of the legislative process to establish the new body and gain parliamentary approval, the Government must run a consultation to seek views on the proposed combined authority. The Government’s consultation document specifically requests that the Local Authorities actively seek through such means as they consider appropriate the views of their residents, local businesses, and the voluntary sector with a view to providing the necessary evidence for Government to be satisfied about the degree of local support there is for a combined authority.

4454

2. Summary of Responses

Over 500 stakeholders (including almost 400 residents) participated in the local consultation exercise. The majority of responses were received during the second period of activity in November/December 2013 through focus groups, stakeholder meetings and an online survey. An analysis of the responses is included in sections 4 and 5 of this report.

With regard to the overall proposal to establish a more coordinated approach across the area for important issues such transport, skills and inward investment the vast majority of responses were positive with 76% of respondents to the online survey in favour of achieving this through a combined authority. A review of the detailed comments identified key themes centred on efficiency of service delivery, the value of coordination across a larger area, the need for a single, coordinated and strong voice for the North East and the benefits that such an approach would bring for the area, its people and businesses.

Overall there is strong support for the proposed scope of the Combined Authority. Transport, skills, inward investment and the coordination of strategic funding are seen independently and, more importantly, collectively as key components for facilitating economic growth.

The majority of respondents felt that the geographical area proposed was appropriate in the context of the proposals however a number of respondents raised the question on why the Tees Valley authorities were not included in the proposals.

The consultation process has demonstrated a significant level of local support for the proposal to establish a combined authority in the North East and the comments and concerns raised by stakeholders will be noted as proposals are further developed, and on an ongoing basis as the new body is established.

3. Summary of process

The draft Governance Review and draft Scheme for a Combined Authority were initially consulted upon between 22 May and 11 June 2013. The key documents were published on each local authority website, alongside a list of FAQs and contact information for providing comments and feedback or requesting additional information. In addition, a letter was sent to key stakeholders enclosing the draft governance review and directly inviting them to respond to the proposals and to attend one of two workshop events hosted by the Leaders and Elected Mayor. All of the key stakeholders were also assigned a key point of contact within the local authorities with whom they could discuss the proposals in more detail and a number of 1-2-1 discussions also took place.

The partners engaged with as part of this consultation exercise included1:

 The North East and Tees Valley LEPs  Business and sector representative organisations (such as CBI, Chamber of Commerce, FSB, Developing Consensus and G9)  The Tyne and Wear ITA and PTE (Nexus)  Newcastle International Airport  Regional Ports  Universities

1 A full list of the partners who were consulted is included at Appendix A

4555

 FE Colleges  The Skills Funding Agency  SEMTA  Trade Unions  Relevant Government departments and agencies  MPs, MEPs and Lords  Regional Newspaper Editors

The North East Leadership Board has issued 6 press releases since agreeing to undertake a governance review in November 2012, providing updates on each stage of the process. Local media coverage has continued throughout this period raising awareness of the proposals among residents and stakeholders across the area.

During the summer of 2013 the region’s media ran a co-ordinated campaign to lobby Government for devolution of power, responsibility and resources to the North East. The ‘NEvolution’ campaign was specifically focused on the skills agenda, transport and funding for growth (including European funds) in full alignment with the proposed focus of the combined authority.

Following submission of the Governance Review and draft Scheme to the Department for Communities and Local Government, and publication of the Secretary of State’s consultation on the proposals, the North East Leadership Board initiated a second local consultation aimed primarily at residents which ran from 26 November to 12 December 2013. An online consultation2 was published on each local authority website alongside the relevant key documents, and a number of focus group sessions took place covering all of the local authority areas. Letters were sent to regional and local stakeholders to raise awareness of both the Secretary of State’s consultation and the local online survey. 378 responses were received to the survey (284 of which were from residents), 12 focus groups took place involving a total of 112 people and a range of local stakeholder meetings were held across the area. The full range of activity enabled engagement with residents, political representatives, business representatives and members of the voluntary and community sector.

Information arising from the local and regional consultation activity across 6 of the local authorities was available at the time of circulation and feeds into this consultation report, which will accompany the joint consultation response from the seven local authorities. The report will be updated to include the information from the local exercise in Sunderland before it is finalised.

4. Responses

4.1 Governance Review Consultation – May/June 2013

19 formal written responses were received during the initial period of consultation in May/June and most of the key stakeholders listed at Annex A were engaged through 1-2-1 meetings or stakeholder events. The response during this consultation period and through the engagement that has taken place subsequently has been overwhelmingly in support of creating a Combined Authority for the North East. Stakeholders have welcomed the proposal to strengthen collaborative arrangements across the seven local authorities through a democratically accountable, stable and long term governance structure for the wider area with a clear focus on enabling economic growth. Stakeholders have noted that the turmoil of

2 A copy of the online consultation is included at Appendix B

4656

economic governance at the sub-national scale in England has put the North East at a disadvantage and that the Combined Authority in conjunction with the North East LEP and a number of key partners can create the right framework to harness the energy of all involved to take advantage of opportunities in the area. Stakeholders feel that the case for the Combined Authority being established focusing on skills, transport and economic growth is clearly set out and these are the right priorities in the current climate.

The results of the consultation were detailed in the report considered by each Cabinet/Executive and Council in agreeing the final governance review and scheme. The relevant section of the report detailing the results is attached at Annex C.

4.2 North East Independent Economic Review (NEIER)

In 2012 the North East Local Enterprise Partnership (NELEP) board which includes the seven Local Authority Leaders/Elected Mayor, asked a team of leaders from finance, industry, public and civil society to produce a strategic and constructively critical view of the North East economy. The North East Independent Economic Review (NEIER) report was published in April 2013 and offers an agenda for NELEP and its partners, reflecting the commitment of the seven Local Authorities to strengthen collaborative working arrangements and strategic decision making across the area.

The NEIER review process was led by an independent review panel and supported by a number of international experts. The review was taken forward in a series of stages which included a summary of existing evidence and research, evidence gathering and stakeholder engagement, the production of a series of think pieces and a number of review panel sessions with a wide range of stakeholders from different sectors. The evidence was presented to a large stakeholder audience at the NEIER Evidence Base Conference in February 2013 and a number of launch events were held in April 2013. In addition, the ‘Driving Forward Economic Growth Conference’ in September 2013 concentrated on the progress made since the launch of NEIER in April 2013 and the next steps moving forward in delivering a single growth strategy. At each of the conferences and the launch events, which were attended by hundreds of key stakeholders from across the area, the North East Leadership Board set out the ambition and rationale for strengthening the collaborative arrangements across the seven local authorities in the NELEP area.

In addition to wide consultation on the NEIER - which itself endorses the creation of a Combined Authority for the area - through the wider NEIER process the concept of a Combined Authority was strongly supported by a number of key stakeholders. A number of responses to the NEIER including those from the North East CBI, the National Housing Federation, the Homebuilders Federation and the Northern Housing Consortium, and also Developing Consensus (which represents the region’s leading property investors, developers and professional advisors), welcomed the proposals by the Leadership Board.

4.3 MPs, MEPs and Lords Event – 29 October 2013

An event was also hosted to engage regional MPs, MEPs and Lords in the Combined Authority development process and the wider agenda for growth being articulated through the European Structural and Investment Fund Strategy and the Strategic Economic Plan.

Over 20 MPs and Lords attended the event and overall there was strong support for the decision to form a Combined Authority for the North East, and the Leadership Board were congratulated on the collaborative work that has taken place so far to progress the

4757

proposals. MPs and Lords also offered their support with any issues regarding the process and timetable.

Transport and connectivity featured strongly in the discussion and the comments received in relation to priorities for the North East. The group felt that Transport and connectivity should be embedded into the priorities of the CA, and that the North East really needs a transport system to help people get to jobs wherever they might be in the region. This was felt to be particularly important for rural areas where it is necessary to get people into hubs of employment and training. MPs and Lords emphasised that it was a good move from the seven local authorities to work together and recognised that there would be challenges and pitfalls along the way.

4.4 Public Consultation – November/December 2013

During the second period of consultation in November/December 2013 the online consultation received 378 responses (284 of these (75%) were from residents) and 112 people took part in 12 focus group sessions. Quantitative responses The online survey was prefaced with introductory text that provided a high-level summary of information about the North East Leadership Board and the proposal to strengthen their joint arrangements through a combined authority. This text also provided links to more detailed information about the proposals. The survey and introductory text is attached to this report at Appendix B. The results of the online consultation were as follows:

 76% of respondents agreed that a more co-ordinated approach will help to improve the provision of economic development and regeneration within the seven local authority areas.  74% of respondents agreed that a more co-ordinated approach will help to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of transport within the seven local authority areas.  65% of respondents agreed that a more co-ordinated approach will help to improve the overall economic conditions within the seven local authority areas.  76% of respondents supported the proposal to establish a more co-ordinated approach as described in the introductory text.  73% of respondents agreed that the local authority areas involved in this approach should be made up of Durham, Gateshead, Newcastle, Northumberland, North Tyneside, South Tyneside and Sunderland.  64% of respondents agreed that the focus of a more co-ordinated approach should initially be transport, skills and economic growth only.

Qualitative Responses Qualitative responses were collected through the online survey, focus groups, stakeholder meetings and a central email address. The same questions were used throughout the consultation exercise to ensure consistency across all methods. The list of stakeholders engaged with during the second period of consultation are listed at Annex D.

Overall Proposal to strengthen coordination through a Combined Authority

In relation to the overall proposal to establish a more coordinated approach across the area the vast majority of responses were positive. The key themes of the responses centred on efficiency of service delivery, the value of coordination across a larger area, the need for a single, coordinated and strong voice for the North East and the benefits that such an

4858

approach would bring for the area, its people and businesses. Concerns raised focused on fears of increased bureaucracy and added layers of government and also the risk that not all areas would be adequately represented.

Some key points that came our strongly in the responses include:  The North East Leadership Board will promote and deliver growth and employment whilst better coordination of transport and economic related activities will significantly benefit the area.  The area requires a combined approach in order to obtain long term benefits for the whole region in order to grow and develop. Local coordination rather than competition is the best course for the North East. A joint approach to regional issues will be beneficial and significantly more efficient in terms of tackling strategic issues that have an impact on all areas.  The North East lags behind the rest of the country on jobs, employment, investment, living standards and life expectancy. As spending cuts in the North East are disproportionate to the rest of the country, a closer working relationship between the local authorities can only be a positive move in helping to increase opportunities to overcome economic challenges.  The region needs to work together creatively and imaginatively to help it and its communities achieve their full potential. Working together, the Leadership Board will have the opportunity to combine efforts and have a strong voice and vision for the region.  The proposal will help to ensure that the North East becomes more competitive in seeking external investment and a co-ordinated approach to transport and skills will be more effective.  It is imperative that there is a strong, democratically accountable body responsible for overseeing and implementing a strategic economic plan for the NE Local Enterprise Partnership (NELEP) area, providing strong governance for the NELEP and maximising the potential for economic growth in the area.  A single, coordinated and stronger voice will be better for working with relevant partners and negotiating with Government. People of the North East will be more effectively represented at national level by adopting a co-ordinated approach in the area. This will give greater autonomy to the North East to invest and spend funding in the best way to suit the needs of the area.

 Transport came out extremely strongly with respondents recognising that as travel patterns do not align to local authority boundaries, a combined approach will allow for much more flexibility and potential for internal tailoring of transport provision to meet the varying needs of the wider area's population  Many decisions such as those on transport need to be considered at a wider level - not just a local authority level. A co-ordinated approach will help our areas provide a better, joined up offer to businesses wanting to invest in the area.  A combined approach across the seven local authorities will improve services and create efficiencies through economies of scale. Joint working, sharing resources, skills and knowledge will help local authorities achieve more together than individually which is particularly important considering the financial pressures that local authorities are facing.

 Opportunities may be being missed as things currently stand which a Combined Authority could take advantage of.

4959

 The North East has nothing to lose and everything to gain by presenting a united front. This part of the country is often over looked and misrepresented to and by central government.  This is not an expensive proposal - there is no new 'tier' of bureaucracy but it gives the North East the power to organise an effective integrated transport system, attract businesses and create jobs, and ultimately improve standards of living and lifestyle.  There should be no further expense to taxpayers and this should be delivered within the local authorities existing resources. However, it was also noted that lack of investment in this structure may limit the ambitions and ability to deliver on the issues which clearly need to be tackled.

Concerns raised through the consultation on the overall proposals include:  The possibility that certain parts of the region will not benefit from funding and that rural issues in particular will not be considered and sufficiently addressed  The perception that the proposals would mean another layer of management and bureaucracy at a time of austerity and Local Authority budget cuts.  Concerns that government will not devolve the required powers and/or budgets, resulting in another layer of bureaucracy.  The need for accountability of the Combined Authority to the electorate and scrutinising of decisions.  Local Authorities should concentrate on management of their own areas, keeping decisions as local as possible and assist existing organisations such as NELEP  Doubts on whether the Local Authorities can deliver any benefits  A Combined Authority is the first step towards a regional authority  How decisions will be made regarding where resources or investment are allocated.

Proposed Scope of the Combined Authority - Initial focus on transport, skills and economic growth

Key comments include  These are the biggest issues that cut across the remit of the local authorities involved, and are therefore a sensible place to start. Concentration on these areas will have the biggest financial impact on the region, and all three of these are intrinsically linked so need to be considered alongside each other, rather than in isolation.  Areas do differ across the region and different local approaches need to be taken to address most issues however transport, skills and economic growth need to be considered in a joined up way and a more coordinated approach will benefit all local residents across the region.  Respondents felt that overall these functions were the right ones for the Combined Authority to start with and that attempting to co-ordinate too many areas of local authority concern at once would be likely to stall the entire initiative.

5060

 A significant proportion of respondents mentioned that economic growth should include a focus on culture & heritage and tourism.  There were also calls for the approach to be rolled out to other functional areas once the Combined Authority is established. Recommendations from respondents were that education in particular was included and also housing - both seen as key areas that support economic growth and that need a form of regional coordination. Other suggestions for regional cooperation included tackling disadvantage and promoting equality; green infrastructure and biodiversity; and energy generation. Comments were also made that the CA approach should be the start of a process which leads to shared resources in a number of areas including health and emergency services.  Concerns were raised about local delivery that will address the varying needs of North East communities especially in regard to transport. Reassurances were also requested around costs.  Some respondents felt that local authorities should be working together on these areas without the need for a Combined Authority.

Geographical coverage The majority of respondents felt that the geographical area proposed was appropriate in the context of the proposals however a number of respondents raised the question of why other areas, in particular the Tees Valley authorities, were not included in the proposals. Key comments include  The geographical area is based on a functional economic market area and it makes sense for consistency and alignment of strategy.  This is a geographically coherent area with a strong sense of identity, a common culture, heritage and commitment and also a strong sense of place.  Because the area is geographically and historically linked, the foundation is already in place to work together to improve employment, infrastructure and transport links for the region  The seven local authorities do constitute a significant proportion of the population of the North East region and represent an area which is a coherent sub-national area in terms of economic development, regeneration and transport.  Although there are differences in terms of the distinctiveness of different parts of this area, including urban and rural conurbations and disparities of wealth and economic performance, the local authorities have a deep understanding of the needs of the area, a strong track record of partnership working and delivery, as well as a significant amount of intelligence and research to provide evidence for what is required to make improvements.  Concerns were raised regarding potential duplication with NE LEP and how the need of the rural authorities of Durham and Northumberland would be represented.  Some respondents felt that the size is right and that adding more authorities would make it too big and reduce efficiency, whereas a considerable number felt that some or all of the Tees Valley authorities should be included in the proposals.  A significant number of respondents agreed with the proposals for a Combined Authority but felt it would be much better if all twelve local authorities in the region were involved to provide a stronger voice and access to more opportunities for economic growth.

5161

5. Conclusions

The seven local authorities have undertaken a wide range of consultation and engagement activity to obtain views on the proposals to establish a combined authority. This has generated over 500 responses from across a variety of sources including a wide range of public and private sector stakeholders, the voluntary and community sector and a large majority (almost 400) from members of the public.

Responses across the full range of stakeholders have been extremely positive, welcoming the progress made so far in deepening collaboration with wide support for further enhancing this through a combined authority. The high level of positive responses and feedback among members of the public who participated in focus groups and the online survey is of particular significance in demonstrating the extent of local support, and illustrates that the proposal reflects the identities and interests of local communities.

With regard to the overall proposal to establish a more coordinated approach across the area for important issues such transport, skills and inward investment the vast majority of responses were positive. The key themes of the responses centred on efficiency of service delivery, the value of coordination across a larger area, the need for a single, coordinated and strong voice for the North East and the benefits that such an approach would bring for the area, its people and businesses.

The majority of respondents felt that the geographical area proposed was appropriate in the context of the proposals however a number of respondents raised the question of why other areas, in particular the Tees Valley authorities, were not included in the proposals.

The consultation process has provided clear evidence of significant local support for the proposal to establish a combined authority in the North East and the concerns raised will be noted as proposals are further developed and on an ongoing basis as the new body is established.

5262

Annex A

Key stakeholders consulted in May/June 2013.

Association of North East Councils (ANEC) North East Local Enterprise Partnership Tees Valley Local Enterprise Partnership Tyne and Wear Integrated Transport Authority Nexus (Tyne and Wear PTE) Newcastle International Airport Newcastle Liberal Democrats Group Regional Newspaper Editors North East Farming and Rural Advisory Network (NEFRAN) TT2 Limited Tees Valley Unlimited Semta (North East) Universities Durham Newcastle Northumbria Sunderland Colleges Association of Colleges NCG Bishop Auckland College Derwentside College East Durham College Gateshead College New College Durham Newcastle College Northumberland College South Tyneside College Sunderland College Tyne Metropolitan College Government Homes and Communities Agency departments and Skills Funding Agency agencies Business and North East Chamber of Commerce sector CBI North East representative G9 Group organisations Developing Consensus North East FSB Trade Unions TUC Northern Unison (Northern Region) GMB Unite Ports Berwick Blyth Seaham Sunderland Tyne MPs Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley)

5363

Guy Opperman (Hexham) Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) Mary Theresa Glindon (North Tyneside) Chi Onwurah (Newcastle Central) Nick Brown (Newcastle East) Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle North) Ian Mearns (Gateshead) Dave Anderson (Blaydon) Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) Pat Glass (North West Durham) Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) Kevan Jones (North Durham) Grahame Morris (Easington) Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) MEPs Martin Callanan (North East) Fiona Hall (North East) Stephen Hughes (North East) House of Lords Lord Andrew Adonis Baroness Hilary Armstrong Lord Michael Bates Lord Jeremy Beecham Lord Don Curry Lord Donald Dixon Lord Charles Falconer

5464

Lord Derek Foster Lord Brian Mackenzie Baroness Diana Maddock Lord David Puttnam Viscount Matthew Ridley Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson Baroness Joyce Quin Lord Redesdale (Rupert Mitford) Lord Tom Sawyer Baroness Maeve Sherlock Lord John Shipley Lord John Stevens Lord Nigel Vinson Lord John Walton Justin Welby John Wharton

5565

Annex B

Online consultation – Introductory context and questions

Seven councils in the North East (Durham, Gateshead, Newcastle, North Tyneside, Northumberland, South Tyneside and Sunderland) have been working together, as the North East Leadership Board, to develop a more co-ordinated approach to important issues affecting the whole region such as transport, skills and attracting investment.

Their shared ambition is to create the best possible conditions for growth in jobs, investment and living standards, to make the North East an excellent location for business, to prioritise and deliver high quality transport infrastructure and to enable residents to raise their skill levels and to benefit from economic growth long into the future.

The North East Leadership Board is keen to join a number of other areas, including West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and Merseyside, in making their arrangements more formal by creating a legal body referred to as a 'combined authority'. This will ensure that the North East does not lose out on opportunities for greater decision-making powers, access to more funding from Government and is in a better position to collaborate on key local issues (click here for more details).

The combined authority will not replace individual councils, who will continue to deliver the vast majority of their services to local people.

A proposal has been submitted to Government which aims to formally establish the North East Leadership Board by April 2014. We would like your views which will be used by the seven councils in their response to a Government consultation about the proposal.

Questions

1. Thinking about the seven local authority areas, do you agree that a more co- ordinated approach will help to improve…

…the provision of economic development and regeneration

…the effectiveness and efficiency of transport

…the overall economic conditions?

2. Do you support the proposal to establish a more co-ordinated approach to important issues such as transport, skills and attracting investment?

3. Do you agree that the local authority areas involved in this approach should be made up of Durham, Gateshead, Newcastle, Northumberland, North Tyneside, South Tyneside and Sunderland?

4. Do you agree that the focus of a more co-ordinated approach should initially be transport, skills and economic growth only?

5666

Annex C

Improving economic Governance in the North East Local Enterprise Area Summary of Consultation Responses – June 2013

1. Consultation Process

The LA7 Leadership Board has been clear about its commitment to embed collaborative working arrangements in a statutory form and has engaged with key stakeholders throughout the process. The partners engaged with as part of the consultation exercise included the North East LEP and Tees Valley LEP; business and sector representative organisations such as the CBI, the North East Chamber of Commerce, the FSB, Developing Consensus and G9; the Tyne & Wear ITA and Passenger Transport Executive – Nexus; Newcastle International Airport; the regional ports; Universities; FE Colleges; the SFA; SEMTA; the trade unions; relevant government departments and agencies; and of course MPs, MEPs and Lords. These stakeholders have been sent information at key stages throughout the process and the LA7 Leadership Board have invited the views of partners and stakeholders on the draft proposals and the on-going engagement on the partnership approach to be established in the long run. Following the publication of the draft proposals and the invitation for written responses, the LA7 Leadership Board also hosted two stakeholder engagement events, where partners together with a wider range of stakeholders, were encouraged to share their views on the draft proposals. All of the key stakeholders have also been assigned a key point of contact to discuss the proposals in more detail, with a clear view that engagement will be maintained moving towards establishment of the Combined Authority to finalise all the practical details. All of this activity has been supported by a comprehensive communications plan including press releases and detailed information available on all local authority websites. Complementary stakeholder engagement has also taken place with each local authority taking a lead on updating and consulting with staff, local union representatives, members and key local partners. All of the consultation responses including written responses, key points raised at the stakeholder events and any points raised from one to one discussions with key stakeholders so far have been considered and addressed as appropriate in the final iteration of the Governance Review Report and the Scheme. 2. Responses

There is overwhelming support from stakeholders in favour of creating a Combined Authority for the North East. Stakeholders are welcoming the agreement by the seven local authorities to strengthen collaborative arrangements and set up a stable and long term governance structure for the wider area which is democratically accountable and has a clear focus on enabling economic growth. Stakeholders have noted that the turmoil of economic governance at the subnational scale in England has put the North East at a disadvantage and that the Combined Authority in conjunction with the North East LEP and a number of key partners can create the right framework to harness the energy of all involved to take advantage of

5767

opportunities in the area. Stakeholders feel that the case for the CA being established focusing on skills, transport and economic growth is clearly set out and these are the right priorities in the current climate. The LA7 leadership board has discussed the emerging proposals with stakeholders and has asked for partners to consider the correct framework that needs to be put in place for the combined authority in the areas of strategic funding, inward investment, skills and transport whilst also recognising that further work with key stakeholders will be needed over the coming months to transform this framework into the detailed working arrangements that need to be put in place. Specific points that have been raised in regards to funding, inward investment, skills, transport and the wider partnership arrangements are summarised below. 2.1 External Funding

 The proposal to deliver a flexible responsive and joined up approach to funding opportunities by providing greater clarity and alignment of priorities is widely welcomed.  A small streamlined management tier focusing on key issues like transport and having close control over the allocation of funding makes a great deal of sense in the current climate.  The ability to obtain private sector funding is critical to the successful economic development of regions, independent access to funds and the availability of these funds for a prolonged period is necessary. 2.2 Inward Investment

 The unified voice of the CA will be extremely important for strategically positioning the North East, both nationally and globally.  There are existing and upcoming opportunities that will be better targeted by a single inward investment body.  The role of destination marketing and regional branding for the North East fits naturally with economic growth priority and this should include tourism  A strong push is needed to market the region globally to drive demand needed for economic growth and jobs and the CA provides a good opportunity to make this happen. 2.3 Skills

 Colleges operate in a complex environment and feel they are ‘fit for purpose.’ There is commitment by providers to engage in a strategic conversation and joint action plan with local authorities and other partners to bring about the outcomes outlined in the draft proposals.  The Colleges would in particular welcome the CA taking responsibility for providing robust market needs analysis and would find this useful in underpinning dialogue with students and key stakeholders as well as supporting college business plans. Additionally the CA should focus on addressing investment and information asymmetries.  Welcome the opportunity to build upon existing employer relationships to increase the number of apprenticeships, tackle youth unemployment, create work experience opportunities and widen access to higher level skills by

5868

collectively driving demand through existing channels using flexible and innovative models of delivery. This process is already taking place through the collaboration between the AoC Ne Skills Group and the North East LEP.  New freedoms and flexibilities afforded to Colleges should not be reduced as a result of adding another layer of regulation through the proposed LA7 commissioning process.  Colleges have been critical on proposals regarding commissioning and funding, highlighting that detailed engagement with providers will be needed to work out the details. 2.4 Transport

 An integrated transport system is welcomed with particular support for coordinating and prioritising strategic transport investment through a Joint Local Transport Plan.  Any further development which will encourage the accessibility of the region both nationally and internationally is widely welcomed.  It is essential that the LA7 operate as a Combined Authority with economic development and transport forming the central rationale with a focus on aviation, roads, ports and rail within an overall economic strategy.  The infrastructure needs of the area need to be planned and developed over a sensible time scale with effective funding in place, the development of road and rail infrastructure together with investment in the ports and airports of the region are important and need to be addressed.  The Combined Authority could lead to the 5 regional ports working better together on certain projects for the benefit of all.  A CA with oversight of transport over the 7 LA areas has the potential to get a better appreciation and focus on the role of transport in the region’s economy, and investment and service priorities than the current arrangements.  The current consultation document and scheme provides the high level basis for an informed debate as to how the CA should practically take forward transport, but there are a wide number of important issues of detail which need to be considered and these should be addressed through a process over time.

2.5 Partnership working and practical arrangements

 The proposals which give the North East a strong collective voice and forum for addressing clear priorities are welcomed.  The good work that is happening in the region at the moment should not cease whilst the CA is established.  Delivering a coordinated stance towards the delivery of services, local leadership and sharing resources is exactly what the area needs.  It is essential that there is a consistency of approach and a credible leadership. A three year appointment on an elected basis should be considered.  The CA must form part of a wider structure which also secures key leadership functions for the business community and properly resourced LEP.

5969

 The business community widely endorse the NEIER findings, in particular the proposed institutional arrangements setting out the key responsibilities for the CA and the LEP  Keen to see the business voice in the North East inputting into the CA strands of activity. Having the NELEP chair as an observer on the CA board is welcome but it is vital there are clear mechanisms in place for a strong business voice on all thematic sub-groups and committees.  The relationship between the CA and the LEP will be crucial moving forward.

6070

Key stakeholders consulted in November/December 2013 Annex D

Regional Stakeholders Association of North East Councils (ANEC) North East Local Enterprise Partnership Tees Valley Local Enterprise Partnership Tyne and Wear Integrated Transport Authority Nexus (Tyne and Wear PTE) Newcastle International Airport Newcastle Liberal Democrats Group Regional Newspaper Editors North East Farming and Rural Advisory Network (NEFRAN) TT2 Limited Tees Valley Unlimited Semta (North East) Universities Durham Newcastle Northumbria Sunderland Colleges Association of Colleges NCG Bishop Auckland College Derwentside College East Durham College Gateshead College New College Durham Newcastle College Northumberland College South Tyneside College Sunderland College Tyne Metropolitan College Government Homes and Communities Agency departments and Skills Funding Agency agencies Business and North East Chamber of Commerce sector CBI North East representative G9 Group organisations Developing Consensus

North East FSB Trade Unions TUC Northern Unison (Northern Region) GMB Unite Ports Berwick Blyth Seaham Sunderland

6171

Tyne Local Stakeholdersi

6272

i A list of local stakeholders is currently being compiled and will be added to the final draft of this report before submission.

6373 Appendix 2

Proposal to establish a combined authority for the area of Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear

Consultation

This document/publication is also available on our website at www.gov.uk/dclg

If you have any enquiries regarding this document/publication, email [email protected] or write to us at:

Department for Communities and Local Government Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU Telephone: 030 3444 0000

For all our latest news and updates follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/CommunitiesUK

November 2013

ISBN: 978-1-4098-4057-2

1. Chapter 1 – The consultation

• Why we are consulting • Who we are consulting • How to respond

2. Chapter 2 – The Councils’ Scheme

• The scheme • The governance review

3. Chapter 3 – Issues for consultation

• Consultation questions

4. Annex – The proposed constitution and functions for the combined authority

5. Appendix – Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear Combined Authority Order – Draft

Chapter 1 – The consultation

Why we are consulting

1 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009

4 77

councils concerned, and that a combined authority is more an enhancement of existing joint arrangements bringing key growth functions together in one place, rather than a wholly new tier of government. Nevertheless, given the events in the area over the last ten years, the Government believes it is right that before any decision on a combined authority for this “North East Local Enterprise Partnership” area is taken, there is clear and compelling evidence that the past opposition of electors within the local area to governance changes in that area does not continue to any new proposal for a combined authority. Accordingly, it will be important that this consultation yields the evidence necessary for Government to reach a conclusion on this issue.

Before making such an Order the Secretary of State must consult:

• Each appropriate authority; and • Such other persons if any, as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

The statute also requires that the Secretary of State in making the Order must have regard to the need:

• To reflect the identities and interests of local communities; and • To secure effective and convenient local government.

Who we are consulting

7. The appropriate authorities that the statute requires the Secretary of State to consult are:

• A county council if the area of the county council, or part of that area, is within the area for which the combined authority is to be established;

5 78

• A district council if the area of the district council is within the area for which the combined authority is to be established; • An economic prosperity board, if its area or part of its area, is within the area for which the combined authority is to be established; and • An Integrated Transport Authority, if its integrated transport area, or part of that area, is within the area for which the combined authority is to be established.

9. In addition the Secretary of State considers in this case it is also appropriate to consult:

• The local enterprise partnership concerned – the “North East Local Enterprise Partnership”; and

We also welcome comments from members of the public, local businesses and their representative bodies and representatives of the voluntary sector.

How to respond

11. Your response must be received by 2 January 2014. It can be sent by email to [email protected] or in writing to:

Ruth Miller Department for Communities and Local Government Zone 3/J1 Eland House Bressenden Place London, SW1E 5DU

Please title your response ‘Response to proposal to establish a combined authority for the area of Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear.’

6 79

Confidentiality and data protection

7 80

Chapter 2 – The Councils’ Scheme

The scheme

The governance review

• Whether the existing governance arrangements for economic development, regeneration and transport in the area are effective or would benefit from changes; and

2 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009

8 81

Existing governance arrangements

9 82

22. The “North East Local Enterprise Partnership“ covers the same area as the seven local authorities. The Board of the “North East Local Enterprise Partnership“ is chaired by a business leader and consists of 18 members – nine from the business sector, two from the education sector and the Leaders/Elected Mayor from the seven local authorities. Sunderland City Council acts as the accountable body and all “North East Local Enterprise Partnership“ employees are employed through Sunderland City Council, with other support coming from staff seconded from other local authorities.

Case for a combined authority

10 83

27. Strategic transport functions are currently delivered by:

• Nexus, the Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive that delivers services on behalf of the Tyne and Wear Integrated Transport Authority; and

• Durham County Council and Northumberland County Council, unitary authorities with responsibility for transport strategy and policy and the delivery of transport services in their areas.

31. Accordingly, the review’s conclusions on the five options were as follows:

11 84

rather than remove, a layer of bureaucracy and again the ambitions of the area would not be realised.

• The business sector needs to have the influence and opportunity to input knowledge and expertise in to designing the solutions and how they are implemented on the ground.

12 85

Chapter 3 – Issues for consultation

38. In short, comments are invited on the proposal to establish a combined authority for the area of Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear, and in particular:

• On whether you support changing the governance institutions for the area of the “North East Local Enterprise Partnership” area by the creation of a combined authority;

13 86

• On how establishing such an authority may impact on the identities and interests of local communities and on securing effective and convenient local government;

• On the proposed constitutional arrangements (including the formal name of the combined authority) and functions for a combined authority as set out in the Annex to this consultation paper; and

14 87

Annex

The proposed constitution and functions for the combined authority

Establishment

Constitution

15 88

expectation is that the Chairman would be appointed. This provides for decision making at the highest level and sets the strategic direction of the authority.

Voting

9. The constituent council members of the combined authority will have one vote each. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman would not have a second or casting vote.

10. Non-constituent members would be non-voting members but may be given voting rights on certain issues should the constituent council members of the combined authority resolve to grant these.

12. The following matters will require the unanimous support of members of the combined authority for approval:

16 89

Funding

Economic development

Transport

Functions

Economic development

17. The authority would have powers that would allow it to drive strategic economic growth across the functional economic area. It will focus on strategic issues such as:

• Setting the growth plan for the area; • Setting the investment strategy for the area;

5 The Transport Levying Bodies Regulations 1992

17 90

• Collecting economic intelligence and analysis as a basis for strategic planning and coordination; • Acting as the accountable body for a range of devolved funding; • Setting a strategy and making decisions on the skills agenda across the area; and • A co-ordinated approach to inward investment.

Transport

General power of combined authority

20. The combined authority would have a ‘function related general power of competence’ provided to them under Chapter 3 of Part 1 of the Localism Act 2011.

Scrutiny arrangements

18 91

Substructures and internal scheme of delegation

North East Local Enterprise Partnership

25. The combined authority would act as the accountable body for the “North East Local Enterprise Partnership”.

Joint Committee

Executive arrangements

• Information provision; • Infrastructure delivery;

19 92

• Commissioning and procurement of subsidised bus services; and • Concessionary travel.

Following the transitional phase, the combined authority would establish consistent delivery arrangements to operate across the geography of the combined authority as a whole.

Other Arrangements

20 93 Draft Order laid before Parliament under section 94 of the Local Transport Act 2008 and section 117 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, for approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.

DRAFT STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

2014 No.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT, ENGLAND

TRANSPORT, ENGLAND

Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear Combined Authority Order 2014

Made - - - - ***** Coming into force - - *****

The Secretary of State is satisfied that the area to which this Order relates meets the conditions set out in section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

(a) 2008 c.26. (b) 2009 c.20.

21 94 (d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considered appropriate.

The councils whose areas are comprised in the Tyne and Wear integrated transport area have consented to the making of this Order.

In making this Order, the Secretary of State has had regard to the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities, and to secure effective and convenient local government.

Accordingly, the Secretary of State makes the following Order:

PART 1 General

Citation and commencement 1. This Order may be cited as the Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear Combined Authority Order 2014 and shall come into force on 1 April 2014.

PART 2 Establishment of a combined authority for Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear

22 95 (3) The functions of the Combined Authority are those functions conferred or imposed upon it by this Order or by any other enactment (whenever passed or made), or as may be delegated to it by or under this Order or any other enactment (whenever passed or made).

Constitution 4. Schedule 1 (which makes provision about the constitution of the Combined Authority) has effect.

PART 3 Transport

Transfer of functions — county councils 8. There are transferred to the Combined Authority—

23 96 (a) the functions of the county councils under Parts IV and V of the Transport Act 1985(a); and (b) the functions of the county councils as local transport authorities under Part II of the Transport Act 2000(b).

(a) 1985 c..67 (b) 2000 c.38

24 97 (6) Without prejudice to the generality of this article a levy issued by the ITA under section 74 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and in accordance with the Transport Levying Bodies Regulations 1992 to the constituent councils in respect of the financial year beginning 1st April 2014 is to have effect for that year as if it had been so issued by the Combined Authority.

PART 4 Additional functions

25 98 Signed on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Name Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Date Department for Communities and Local Government

SCHEDULE 1 Article 4 Constitution

26 99 (11) The Combined Authority shall appoint a member nominated under sub-paragraph (10)(b) at the next meeting of the Combined Authority. (12) A constituent council may at any time terminate the appointment of a member or substitute member appointed by it to the Combined Authority and appoint another member of it’s executive in that person’s place. (13) Where a constituent council exercises its power under sub-paragraph (12), it must give written notice of the new appointment and the termination of the previous appointment to the Combined Authority and the new appointment shall take effect and the previous appointment terminate at the end of one week from the date on which the notice is given or such longer period not exceeding one month as is specified in the notice. (14) The Local Enterprise Partnership may at any time terminate the appointment of a member or substitute member nominated by it to the Combined Authority and nominate another of its members in that person’s place. (15) Where the Local Enterprise Partnership exercises its power under sub-paragraph (14), it must give written notice of the new nomination and the termination of the previous appointment to the Combined Authority. (16) The Combined Authority shall appoint a member nominated under sub-paragraph (15) and the new appointment shall take effect and the previous appointment terminate at the end of one week from the date on which the notice is given or such longer period not exceeding one month as is specified in the notice. (17) For the purposes of this paragraph, an elected mayor of a constituent council is to be treated as a member of the constituent council.

27 100 (g) approval of borrowing limits, treasury management strategy including reserves, investment strategy and capital budget of the Combined Authority; and (h) such other plans and strategies as determined by the Combined Authority. (5) The proceedings of the Combined Authority are not invalidated by any vacancy among its members or substitute members or by any defect in the appointment or qualifications of any member or substitute member.

28 101 (3) Any such minutes are to be signed at the same or next suitable meeting of the Combined Authority by the person presiding at that meeting. (4) Any minute purporting to be signed as mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) shall be received in evidence without further proof. (5) Until the contrary is provided, a meeting of the Combined Authority a minute of whose proceedings has been signed in accordance with this paragraph is deemed to have been duly convened and held, and all the members and substitute members present at the meeting are deemed to have been duly qualified. (6) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3) the next suitable meeting is the next following meeting or, where standing orders made by the Combined Authority provide for another meeting of the authority to be regarded as suitable, either the next following meeting or that other meeting.

Standing orders 6. The Combined Authority may make standing orders for the regulation of its proceedings and business and may vary or revoke any such orders.

29 102 5. In subsection (5) after “or the area of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority” there is inserted “or of the Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear Combined Authority”. 6. In subsection (5A) after “2011” there is inserted “and the Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear Combined Authority means the authority of that name constituted by the Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear Combined Authority Order 2014”.

30 103 Part 3 concerns the transport functions of the combined authority. Article 6 abolishes the Tyne and Wear integrated transport area and its integrated transport authority and transfers the authority’s functions, property, rights and liabilities to the combined authority. Article 7 makes adaptations to enactments consequential upon article 6. Article 8 transfers specified transport functions of the Durham and Northumberland county councils to the Combined Authority. Article 9 makes adaptations to enactments consequential upon article 8. Article 10 makes the Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive an executive body of the Combined Authority and article 11 contains general continuity provisions. Part 4 confers additional functions on the Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear Combined Authority. Article 12 confers functions of the constituent councils relating to economic development and regeneration. These are set out in Schedule 3 to the Order and are to be exercised concurrently with the constituent councils. Articles 13 to 16 make some general, incidental provisions relating to the Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear Combined Authority to enable it to carry out its functions more effectively. A full regulatory impact assessment has not been prepared as this instrument will have no impact on the costs of business and the voluntary sector.

31 104 Appendix 3

North East Leadership Board – Joint response to consultation on the proposal to establish a combined authority for the area of Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear

105 bear on advancing the interests of the area and its people. The seamless nature of the relationship is underlined by the integration at board level and the position of the combined authority as the accountable body for the LEP. The leaders and elected mayor of all seven local authorities are members of the NELEP Board, one of the few LEP boards with full local political representation, and the North East Local Enterprise Partnership will be a non- constituent member of the Combined Authority. The business board members of the North East LEP Board view the Combined Authority as an exciting step forward for the North East. The North East LEP supports the view that the formation of a contiguous Combined Authority should lead to improved outcomes in public service delivery and will be fundamental to the economic success of the area.

106  The evidence review of the economy sets out a rationale to work collaboratively across the LA7 area, recognising strong and increasing integration across labour markets, housing markets and key sectors.  There is scope for a joint approach to enable economic growth based on key sectors and place.  Real opportunities exist for policy coordination and integration across different policy themes.  There is a need for ‘institutional capacity’ across the area to: . take on devolved powers and responsibilities; . provide the governance framework for a single approach to investment across the area; and . raise the profile of the area.  There is a clear impetus to ensure the North East is maximising the use of new funds alongside local resources.  There is a need to simplify and strategically coordinate the skills system for employers, providers and learners.  The seven local authorities have been successful at attracting inward investment and there is further untapped potential, but the current approach lacks coordination.  There is a significant opportunity to take a joint and prioritised approach to transport investment within a coordinated strategic approach that is integrated with wider economic development objectives.

The Governance Review and Draft scheme to establish a combined authority was submitted to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government at the end of July 2013

107 after each Local Authority endorsed the proposal through their executive arrangements and also full Council.

Comments on the Annex to the Consultation Document

The North East Leadership Board has reviewed the Annex to the consultation document and would make the following comments.

Paragraph 1

Paragraph 2.

108

Paragraph 3

Paragraph 4

As with paragraph 3 above reference to an elected member being appointed as a substitute member we take to mean that a member of the Executive will be appointed as a substitute member.

Paragraph 5

Paragraph 13

Paragraph 14

Paragraph 27

109 Appendix 4 DRAFT

Response to Government consultation on Proposal to establish a combined authority

Local Consultation Report

1. Introduction

110

2. Summary of Responses

3. Summary of process

The partners engaged with as part of this consultation exercise included1:

1 A full list of the partners who were consulted is included at Appendix A

111

 FE Colleges  The Skills Funding Agency  SEMTA  Trade Unions  Relevant Government departments and agencies  MPs, MEPs and Lords  Regional Newspaper Editors

4. Responses

4.1 Governance Review Consultation – May/June 2013

2 A copy of the online consultation is included at Appendix B

112

4.2 North East Independent Economic Review (NEIER)

4.3 MPs, MEPs and Lords Event – 29 October 2013

113

proposals. MPs and Lords also offered their support with any issues regarding the process and timetable.

4.4 Public Consultation – November/December 2013

Overall Proposal to strengthen coordination through a Combined Authority

114

 Opportunities may be being missed as things currently stand which a Combined Authority could take advantage of.

115

Proposed Scope of the Combined Authority - Initial focus on transport, skills and economic growth

116

117

5. Conclusions

With regard to the overall proposal to establish a more coordinated approach across the area for important issues such transport, skills and inward investment the vast majority of responses were positive. The key themes of the responses centred on efficiency of service delivery, the value of coordination across a larger area, the need for a single, coordinated and strong voice for the North East and the benefits that such an approach would bring for the area, its people and businesses.

118

Annex A

Key stakeholders consulted in May/June 2013.

119

120

121

Annex B

Online consultation – Introductory context and questions

The combined authority will not replace individual councils, who will continue to deliver the vast majority of their services to local people.

Questions

1. Thinking about the seven local authority areas, do you agree that a more co- ordinated approach will help to improve…

…the provision of economic development and regeneration

…the effectiveness and efficiency of transport

…the overall economic conditions?

2. Do you support the proposal to establish a more co-ordinated approach to important issues such as transport, skills and attracting investment?

3. Do you agree that the local authority areas involved in this approach should be made up of Durham, Gateshead, Newcastle, Northumberland, North Tyneside, South Tyneside and Sunderland?

4. Do you agree that the focus of a more co-ordinated approach should initially be transport, skills and economic growth only?

122

Annex C

Improving economic Governance in the North East Local Enterprise Area Summary of Consultation Responses – June 2013

1. Consultation Process

123

124

2.5 Partnership working and practical arrangements

125

126

Key stakeholders consulted in November/December 2013 Annex D

North East FSB Trade Unions TUC Northern Unison (Northern Region) GMB Unite Ports Berwick Blyth Seaham Sunderland

127

Tyne Local Stakeholdersi

128

i A list of local stakeholders is currently being compiled and will be added to the final draft of this report before submission.

129

4 REPORT TO CABINET 17 December 2013

TITLE OF REPORT: Local Council Tax Support Scheme for 2014/15

REPORT OF: Darren Collins, Strategic Director, Finance and ICT

Purpose of the Report

1. Cabinet is requested to consider the outcome of the consultation on the draft scheme for 2014/15 and to recommend to Council the approval of a Local Council Tax Support Scheme.

Background

1. The Local Government Finance Act 2012, paragraph 5 of Schedule 1A, established a framework for Local Council Tax Support that requires the Council for each financial year, to revise its scheme, or replace it with another scheme and to do so before 31 January in the financial year preceding that for which the revision or replacement scheme is to have effect.

2. The Council is provided with a fixed grant to deliver its own Local Council Tax Support scheme with funding reducing compared to previous years. However, the Government has also stated that pensioner households must be protected therefore any shortfall in funding will fall to working age households.

3. The Government’s national policy statement on council tax reduction also stated that the council must carry out consultation on the development of the scheme by:

a) Consulting with any major precepting authority b) Publishing a draft scheme c) Consulting such other persons as considered likely to be affected

4. When designing a scheme the Council additionally must also consider its responsibilities under:

• The Child Poverty Act 2010 • The Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, and Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 • The Housing Act 1996 which gives local authorities a duty to prevent homelessness with special regard to vulnerable groups

5. Under legislation, the Council’s own Local Council Tax Support scheme must be approved each year by Council by 31st January at the latest. Failure to meet this deadline will mean a default scheme must be adopted by the Council which will be based on the current Council Tax Support scheme. The proposed council tax support scheme within this report is therefore a scheme for 2014/15.

1 of 10 130

6. A report to Cabinet on 15 October 2013 proposed that the Council adopt for 2014/15 the same scheme as in 2013/14 and agreed to consultation taking place on that proposal. The consultation undertaken was supportive of the proposed scheme.

Proposal

7. The proposed Local Council Tax Support scheme for Gateshead has been established with due regard to the Council’s statutory obligations, consultation and engagement responses and in order to attempt to distribute the reduced funding available amongst those claimants most in need of financial assistance, while still achieving the necessary financial savings to meet the funding deficit.

8. The outline proposed scheme for 2014/15 will remain the same as the scheme that was in place for 2013/14 and this will retain the same provision for pensioners and the original 8 underlying principles outlined below;

• Protection should be given to certain groups – all working age claimants to pay at least 8.5% of their council tax liability • The scheme should encourage people to work • Everyone in the household should contribute • Capital or Savings – threshold should be maintained at £16,000 • War Pensions should be disregarded • Minimum level of support should be £1 • Child benefit should be disregarded as income. • A discretionary fund should be established.

Recommendations

9. Cabinet are asked to recommend that Council:

I. Approve the proposed scheme as set out in paragraph 8 of the report II. Delegate powers to the Strategic Director, Finance and ICT, to provide regulations to give effect to the scheme.

For the following reasons: (i) To meet the statutory requirements of the Local Government Finance Act 2012 in relation the establishment of a framework for Localised Council Tax Support (ii) To mitigate the impact of budget cuts on Council Tax support claimants (iii) To mitigate the impact of funding reductions on Council finances

CONTACT: John Jopling extension: 3587 PLAN REF:

2 of 10 131

APPENDIX 1

Policy Context

1. The proposal in this report will support the vision for Gateshead as outlined in the Council’s Corporate plan in particular the key Council priority of ensuring a sustainable Gateshead through best use of resources.

Background

2. The Welfare Reform Act 2012 included the abolition of the Council Tax Benefit scheme with effect from 1st April 2013.

3. The Act created the need for each billing authority in England to develop a scheme that ‘states the classes of person who are to be entitled to a reduction under the scheme’. The Council must before developing a scheme consult any major precepting authority which has power to issue a precept, publish a draft scheme in such a manner as it sees fit, and then consult such other persons as it considers are likely to have an interest in the operation of the scheme.

4. The funding that the Council is provided with to deliver its own Local Council Tax Support scheme is expected to be subject to significant reductions over the next two years. The potential reduction in funding takes no account of future demand changes. Indicative figures show this reduction to be around £2.2 million less than was required to deliver the previous demand driven Council Tax Benefit Scheme but is likely to change as data is updated.

5. The introduction of a Local Council Tax Support Scheme from April 2013 has impacted on the Council in terms of an increase in customer contact. Personal counter visits have increased by over 6% from 23980 visits in the period of April- October 2012 to 25371 visits in April-October 2013; telephone contact has increased by 26% from 53988 telephone calls in the period of April-October 2012 to 67867 telephone calls in the period of April-October 2013.

6. The scheme for 2013/14 contained 8 underlying principles:

. Principle 1 – Protection should be given to certain groups – All working age claimants to pay at least 8.5% of their council tax liability.

. Principle 2 – The scheme should encourage people to work – The earnings taper will not be increased and the earnings disregard will not be decreased.

. Principle 3a – Everyone in the household should contribute: Non- Dependants - Non dependant deductions will increase in line with government recommendations and be on a sliding scale according to income.

. Principle 3b – Everyone in the household should contribute: Second Adult Rebate – there will be no second adult rebate.

. Principle 4 – Benefit should not be paid to those with relatively large capital or savings – The level of savings a claimant can have will be £16,000. A tariff will be applied for savings held between £6k - £16k.

3 of 10 132

. Principle 5 – War pensions should not be included as income – In recognition of the sacrifices made by war pensioners, war pension income will be excluded as income.

. Principle 6 – There should be a minimum level of support – The minimum award of council tax support will remain at £1 per week.

. Principle 7 – A Child benefit will not be included as income – All child benefit income will continue to be disregarded in the calculation.

. Principle 8 – Establishment of a discretionary fund – A discretionary fund will allow for additional support to be provided to the most vulnerable in exceptional circumstances.

Proposal

7. The proposed scheme for 2014/15 will retain the same 8 underlying principles and remain the same as the scheme in place in 2013/14.

Consultation

8. Where the draft scheme for a year remains the same as in previous years, no formal consultation is required to be undertaken. However, it was recommended that the Council did consult on the scheme to obtain views and to increase awareness and understanding amongst residents and claimants.

9. Following Cabinet approval, consultation and engagement on the proposed draft council tax support scheme for 2014/15 was carried out between 16 October 2013 and 4 December 2013 and had three stated aims:

• Increase awareness and understanding of the Local Council Tax Support Scheme amongst residents, claimants and other organisations • Seek stakeholders views on the proposed scheme • Use feedback to support the Comprehensive Impact Assessment process.

10. The approach to consultation was to engage with:

• Councillors via Corporate Vitality Advisory Group • Precepting bodies • Gateshead Residents via viewpoint • The community and voluntary sector • Advice agencies • Housing Associations and private landlords

11. A number of different methods were used to ensure people had a wide range of opportunities to be involved in the consultation. These included . • Website information with on-line questionnaire. • Awareness article in Council News.

4 of 10 133

• Dedicated e-mail address. • Meetings with Stakeholders and minority groups • View point direct questionnaire

12. The views of the councils Corporate Vitality Advisory Group have been sought and these are detailed at appendix 2 to this report.

13. Further information on the responses from the engagement process is detailed at appendix 3.

Alternative Options

14. Alternative options may involve the adoption of a scheme which offers more protection to a wider number of residents. However this would require the Council to fund the shortfall of around £2.2m from other resources. Alternatively the council could pass on the funding shortfall to all working age claimants resulting in an increased financial impact on these claimants. Neither of these options are considered appropriate due to the affordability and the impact on claimants.

Implications of Recommended Option

15. Resources:

a) Financial Implications – The proposed approach enables the Council to operate a support scheme within the funding available and to mitigate the impact on working age claimants by utilising council resources.

Adopting the scheme means that approximately 11,000 council tax payers will continue to pay no more than 8.5% of their council tax ( around £90 per year/ £1.73 per week). Under this scheme the Council would be able to raise a maximum of £1.1 million from working age claimants with the Council responsible for the impact of non-collection. A £1.1m contribution will continue to be required from council resources.

The full impact on the Collection Fund continues to be monitored and the behaviour of those claimants who are required to pay has been analysed during the current year. Full monitoring and the impact on the collection fund is continuing to be assessed but collection from this client group is currently expected to exceed previous assumptions within the first year of the scheme.

There remains the potential for Government funding reductions to be in excess of initial indications.

b) Human Resources Implications – There are no human resource implications directly arising from this report

c) Property Implications - There are no property implications directly arising from this report

16. Risk Management Implication - Retaining the same scheme eliminates the risk of an amended local scheme not being supported from a technology perspective.

5 of 10 134

17. Equality and Diversity Implications - A Comprehensive Impact Assessment has been carried out.

18. Crime and Disorder Implications – No impact.

19. Health Implications – Financial concerns arising from the Governments Welfare Reforms may adversely affect the mental and physical health of some residents.

20. Sustainability Implications - There are no sustainability implications arising from this report.

21. Human Rights Implications – There are no Human Rights implications arising from this report.

22. Area and Ward Implications – This scheme affects all current and future benefit recipients across all Areas and Wards within the borough.

Background Information

Welfare Reform Act 2012 Local Government Finance Bill Communities and Local Government - Statement of intent Communities and Local Government - Vulnerable people –key local authority duties

6 of 10 135

APPENDIX 2

Corporate Vitality Advisory Group

7 October 2013

Report to Cabinet

Purpose of the Meeting

The purpose of the meeting was to obtain views on the proposed localised Council Tax support scheme and proposals for reforms to Council Tax discounts and exemptions.

Advice provided

The Advisory Group made the following comments: • Concerns were raised about the Council’s ability to maintain collection rates and the cost to the Council of collection, particularly as the introduction of the scheme will mean that the Council has to bill some tax payers for relatively small amounts of council tax. • It was requested that the Council monitors the full impact of the scheme, following implementation. • The group were concerned that the transitional grant scheme funding of £486,000 would not be available. • The group acknowledged that while the scheme will enable the Council to collect council tax, actual income collected will be dependent on collection levels and that this may leave an amount to be met from other resources. • The group supported the retention of the scheme in place currently reflecting the 8 underlying principles. • The group supported working age claimants to pay minimum of 8.5% council tax. • The group requested an annual review of the scheme. • The group supported the ending of the 2 month discount period for empty properties. • The group requested further information on the impacts on increased administration costs, increased charges for The Gateshead Housing Company and increased charges for private landlords. • The group supported the introduction of a premium charge for empty properties and requested updates be provided as the scheme progresses.

7 of 10 136

Chair: Councillor M Gannon

Members Present: Councillors L Caffrey, P Dillon, J Hamilton, J Mitchinson, B Oliphant and J Wallace

Also Present: Councillors F Hindle, J Turnbull, D Davidson, J Lee, G Haley, B Clelland, J Simpson, S Ronchetti .

Officer Attendance : John Jopling (Finance and ICT) Pam Richardson (Finance and ICT) Graeme Moffitt (Finance and ICT) Helen Conway (Legal and Corporate Services)

8 of 10 137

APPENDIX 3 Outcome of consultation and engagement

• The approach to consultation was to engage with:

- Councillors via Corporate Vitality Advisory Group - Precepting bodies - Gateshead Residents via viewpoint - The community and voluntary sector - Advice agencies - Housing Associations and private landlords

• Those consulted were asked:

“In April 2013 we introduced a Local Council Tax Support Scheme to give people on a low income help towards paying their council tax. We have been considering how our Local Council Tax Support Scheme will look from 1st April 2014 and the council is currently proposing that there will be no change to the scheme. This means that anyone of working age will continue to get help up to a maximum of 91.5% of their council tax bill, but will be required to pay at least 8.5%. Pensioners will continue to receive the same level of help they get at the moment. This means that those of pension age will continue to get up to 100% help towards paying their council tax. Although there is no requirement to formally consult, we would like the views of Gateshead residents, before the council decide what the final scheme for 2014-15 will be.”

• The unanimous response from all those consulted was in agreement with the proposal for the scheme remaining the same.

Responses from Advice Agencies

(i) Of the 30 advice workers consulted, the response was ‘Unanimous view that everyone is happy with the decision to leave the CTS scheme as it currently is. Many clients are very aware of the arrangements in other boroughs and feel fortunate to be paying the small amount demanded by Gateshead’.

Response from the Community and Voluntary Sector

(ii) Of the 124 attendees at meetings, ‘Thought the scheme was reasonable’ and ‘it was fair to spread the cost of the scheme as long as it contained some provision for those with disabilities’

Response from Housing Associations and Private Landlords

(iii) Of the two who responded ‘‘The decision to keep the current system and not increase contributions will be welcomed’

9 of 10 138

Other Comments received

Additional responses were received from Viewpoint and although the number of responses from Viewpoint members was very low, the responses received agreed with the principle of retaining the current scheme.

10 of 10 139

5 REPORT TO CABINET 17 December 2013

TITLE OF REPORT: Mitigating the Impact of Welfare Reform on Council Tenants

REPORT OF: David Bunce, Strategic Director of Community Based Services

Purpose of the Report

1. To seek Cabinet and Council approval for further actions to help mitigate the impact of welfare reform on Council tenants.

Background

2. Prior to the summer recess, a Notice of Motion to Council recognising the ‘devastating effects’ of welfare reform and ‘in particular, the bedroom tax is having on social housing tenants throughout Gateshead’ was carried. A report to Cabinet on 5 November set out a series of measures which were being considered. This report will provide further information on impact, progress and recommendations.

Proposal

3. Since April 2013, working age households who under-occupy social housing no longer receive the full Housing Benefit (HB) entitlement. The amount they receive is reduced 14% if they under-occupy by one bedroom and 25% if they under-occupy by two or more rooms.

4. The initial response in preparation for this HB change, was to visit and advise the 2,838 Council tenants who would be affected. 2,319 faced a 14 percent reduction in the Housing Benefit they would otherwise have received and 519 a 25 percent reduction.

5. Cabinet responded by offering Council tenants who wished to move, additional priority for rehousing and also help with removal costs. Advice was given was to take in a lodger, advertise for a mutual exchange or move into the private sector. In addition, some properties were redesignated as being a smaller size, as the installation of a through floor lift or level access shower had made one of the bedrooms unusable for sleeping purposes.

6. Through work with Sustainable Communities Place Advisory Group on 3 July 2013, additional mitigations were identified:

1 of 11 140

• Increase the supply of one bed accommodation for working age households by lower the eligible age limit for some of the accommodation for the elderly • Redesignation of the size of accommodation to increase the sustainability of stock • Use housing revenue account (HRA) resources to fund discretionary housing payments (DHP).

7. Cabinet on 5 November agreed to consultation on policy changes to increase the supply of accommodation for working age Council tenants who were affected. Following further discussion with Advisory Group on 18 November, members were of the view an additional £300k should be provided from the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) during 2013/14 to top up the Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP) pot. This action would require approval from DCLG. Given concerns from Advisory Group that this amount may not be enough, it is proposed that £500k per annum is made available in subsequent years and delegated powers are granted to vary this amount if required. Further changes in relation to welfare reform and low demand stock will be incorporated in a subsequent report on the HRA Business Plan.

Recommendations

8. It is recommended that Cabinet:

(i) Endorses the actions being taken by officers.

(ii) Agrees subject to Council and DCLG approval to provide £300k from the HRA in 2013/14 to help Council tenants by topping up the DHP pot.

(iii) Agrees to recommend Council to provide £500k per annum into the DHP pot in subsequent years from the HRA to assist Council tenants.

(iv) Agrees to recommend Council to approve an amendment to the Constitution by giving delegated powers to the Strategic Director, Finance and ICT in conjunction with the Strategic Director of Community Based Services to vary this amount if deemed necessary.

For the following reason:

To mitigate the impact of welfare reform on Council Tenants.

CONTACT: Jackie Park extension: 3482

2 of 11 141

APPENDIX 1 Policy Context

1. The proposals support the following aims of Vision 2030:

• City of Gateshead - Building the homes we need for our growing population • Sustainable Gateshead - Providing good quality, affordable and energy efficient homes. Helping to grow the local economy and provide local jobs through housing investment • Active and Healthy Gateshead – Support the health and well-being of residents. Good quality affordable housing will reduce, and prevent, demand for more expensive critical health and social care services

2. The proposals are also set in the context of the Welfare Reform Act 2012

Background

3. From April 2013 onwards, working age households who under occupy social housing no longer receive the full Housing Benefit entitlement. The Government’s Occupancy Standard requires a bedroom to accommodate a couple, an adult aged 16 years or older; two children aged 0-16 of the same sex or two children of any sex less than ten years of age. Prior to the introduction of the change, efforts were made to visit the 2,838 tenants due to be affected. Of these 2,319 faced a 14 percent reduction in the Housing Benefit they would otherwise have received (due to under-occupancy by one bedroom) and 519 a 25 percent reduction (as under- occupying two or more rooms).

4. Following policy changes, the Council was able to offer Council tenants who wished to move additional priority for rehousing and also help with removal costs. Other advice given was to take in a lodger, advertise for a mutual exchange or move into the private sector. Some properties were redesignated as being a smaller size, as the installation of a through floor lift or level access shower had made one of the bedrooms unusable for sleeping purposes.

5. Cabinet on 5 November were informed of further mitigations and agreed to consultation on changes in the lettings policy to increase the supply of accommodation for working age tenants.

6. In the first six months since the changes were implemented, there has been a reduction in Council tenants affected by 342 to 2,496; with 111 tenants moving since the policy change gave them increased priority. Rent arrears have risen £152k due to the changes in Housing Benefit; but the biggest impact of the benefit changes has been an increase in tenancy terminations and vacant properties. This is due to an increase by a third in terminations and less demand for some stock. It is estimated that over a year there will be over £1m additional repairs expenditure to void properties and an additional £185k vacant property rent loss. It is projected that the cost to housing management will be in excess of £1.5m.

7. Officers have been working with Sustainable Communities Place Advisory Group on additional mitigations to help support Council tenants. Seven further mitigations were identified on 3 July 2013:

3 of 11 142

• Provision of additional new accommodation • Increased flexibility in the application of the rent arrears policy • Conversion of flats and maisonettes into smaller units of accommodation • Change the eligibility criteria to allow flats and maisonettes with shared entrances to be let to families with older children • Increase the supply of one bed accommodation for working age households by lower the eligible age limit for some of the accommodation for the elderly • Redesignation of the size of accommodation to increase the sustainability of stock • Use of the housing revenue account to fund discretionary housing payments

8. It has become apparent that no single mitigation can help Council tenants affected; but by application of a number of measures, the Council can maximise the number of Council tenants we help out of their current untenable predicament. Further details of the proposed mitigations and progress to date are as follows:

• New Build - This work is in hand and it is expected this measures will help a some Council tenants affected by the changes in HB.

• Increased Flexibility in the Application of the Rent Arrears Policy – The proposal will help Council tenants where in a relatively short period of time, due to an increase in the ages of children in the household or the tenants themselves will become pensioners, the restriction will nolonger apply.

• Conversion of Flats and Maisonettes to smaller units of accommodation - The Council has 5,133 flats and maisonettes, of which 3,123 are larger than one bedroom. The viability of converting some of the larger flats or maisonettes into one bedroom flats is being explored.

• Change the Eligibility Criteria to allow Flats and Maisonettes with Shared Entrances to be let to Families with Older Children – In line with the decision of Cabinet on 5 November consultation on changes in the Lettings policy has been agreed pending a further report on the outcome.

• Lower the Eligibility Age limit for One bedroom Bungalows and Flats – In line with the decision of Cabinet, an individual lettings and assessment for each identified scheme is being developed, which will inform the consultation programme.

• Redesignate Stock The Council could consider redesignation of the size of existing accommodation, but only so if we have a valid reason to do so. This would need to be carried out as part of a whole stock review based upon sustainability of stock and include a reduction in rent charged. Some authorities who carried out redesignation without changes in rents, faced criticism from DCLG and the threat of withdrawal of Housing Benefit subsidy. There are currently 1,288 Council dwellings which have become increasingly hard to let. Actions to address this issue will be incorporated in a forthcoming report on the HRA Business Plan

4 of 11 143

• Use of the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) to fund Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP) The Council was initially awarded £373k and recently a further £55k to provide temporary financial support to tenants in receipt of Housing Benefit facing hardship. The Council is permitted, subject to DCLG approval, to increase this pot by up to two and a half times using the HRA, provided these additional resources are used solely for the benefit of Council tenants. Following support from Advisory Group on 18 November, it is suggested that an additional £300k is made available in 2013/14 from the HRA to help Council tenants and £500k in subsequent years. Given concerns at Advisory Group that this may not be sufficient, it is suggested delegated powers are granted to officers to vary this amount if it is deemed necessary.

Further Mitigations

9. Alternative approaches to offset the Housing Benefit reduction for any tenant affected or provide incentive grants to take low demand properties are also being considered from a legal perspective.

Consultation

10. Consultation on the proposals has taken place with the Cabinet member for Housing

Alternative Options

11. The alternative option is to do nothing

Implications of Recommended Option

12. Resources: a) Financial Implications – The Strategic Director Finance and ICT confirms any transfer from HRA to DHP would be supported by a clear business case and justification for the transfer and also necessary DCLG approval sought

b) Human Resources Implications – There are no human resource implications arising from this report.

c) Property Implications - The report may lead to an increase in dwellings built by Keelman Homes.

13. Risk Management Implication - The actions proposed will assist the Council in its well-being duty. It is important care is taken consulting DCLG and on the legal and financial implications to prevent placing the Council in undue risk.

14. Equality and Diversity Implications - The report aims to increase sustainability of stock and equality for Council tenants.

15. Crime and Disorder Implications – The actions proposed may indirectly prevent an increase in crime and disorder.

5 of 11 144

16. Health Implications – The proposals may provide beneficial in terms of physical and mental health of Council tenants.

17. Sustainability Implications - The proposals aim to increase the sustainability of Council stock. Some churning in estates may be required if tenants relocate to find more affordable accommodation.

18. Human Rights Implications - There are no human rights implications arising out of the report.

19. Area and Ward Implications - All

Background Information

Notes of Sustainable Communities Place Advisory Group 3 May 2013 Notes of Sustainable Communities Place Advisory Group 18 November 2013

6 of 11 145

APPENDIX 2

Notes of Place Advisory Group 3 May 2013

Purpose of the Meeting The views of the Advisory Group were sought on mitigating the impact of Welfare Reform on Council Tenants where under occupation occurs.

The Advisory Group raised the following issues: Building New Dwellings The Advisory Group were supportive of new build properties.

It was suggested that the new builds include properties for older people. This may help with Re-housing in an older persons existing community and help to free up properties which are currently under-occupied.

• The Group recognised that it can be difficult to influence the type of new build properties coming forward as landlords/builders may have different approaches to that of a local authority.

• It was noted that any new build properties are not just to cater for those affected by welfare reform but there could be scope to look at this further within future phases of developments

Increased Flexibility in Application of Rent Arrears Policy • It was suggested that there could be scope to balance rent arrears with a tenants individual circumstances with the potential for the Council to write off irrecoverable debt

• If rent arrears applied (in line with the above) it was suggested that this could be time limited, taking in to account individual circumstances

• It was suggested that the rent arrears policy be linked to DHP as a means of mitigation

• There were concerns raised if rent arrears were allowed to be accrued as there could be factors which could change in a person(s) circumstances and then they may not be in a position to repay

7 of 11 146

• The Group advised that there needs to be a pragmatic approach to this option of mitigation and there is a need to revise current protocols

Conversion of Flats and Maisonettes • There was support for this option if demands can be met based on cost effectiveness

• It was suggested that current policies of allowing pets in maisonettes be looked at

Change of Eligibility Criteria to Allow Flats and Maisonettes with Shared Entrances to Families with Oder Children • The Group were supportive of allowing families, particularly with older children to reside in maisonettes.

• The Group recognised that the sustainability of flats would need to be taken into account and that consultation would need to be undertaken with existing residents and ward councillors.

Lower the Eligible Age Limit for One Bed Bungalows Flats • The Group agreed that there would be a need to balance the needs of those people over the age of 60/65 years and those who would be newly eligible.

• There is also the need to be mindful of potential right to buy options that could impact on bungalows/flats

Redesignate Stock • The Group recommended that this is an area that should be explored to the maximum and should be done in the context of meeting the needs of people within Gateshead and through a business planning process

Use HRA Funded Discretionary Housing Payments • There was support from the group to further explore this option

General Comments • The Group recommended that a further Advisory Group meeting be held to look further at the impact of Welfare Reform through case studies, the impact of Direct Payments and how Discretionary Housing Payments are allocated.

• A longer term view of the impact, increased costs to the Council and multi-agency work is need

• Can national statistics be provided on how much housing benefit is paid to private sector landlords and it was queried if there would be a positive impact if there was a national fair rent policy

• It was suggested that the impact on health, particularly mental health be considered when looking at Welfare Reform

Chair: Councillor B Goldsworthy Members present: Councillors C Bradley, J Lee, P Ronan and S Ronchetti Also Present: Councillors J Wallace, P Foy, L Caffrey, D Davidson, T Graham, L Twist and M Foy

8 of 11 147

Officer Attendance Michael Laing, Jackie Park, Neil Bouch, Kevin Johnson, Pam Richardson and Clare Morton

9 of 11 148

APPENDIX 3

Notes of Place Advisory Group 18 November 2013

Sustainable Communities Place Advisory Group

18 November 2013

Report to Cabinet

Purpose of the Meeting

On 3 July 2013 the group considered the implications for Council tenants of restricting Housing Benefit where under-occupation occurs and provided views on the ways the impact could be mitigated.

The purpose of this meeting was to provide an update on impact, progress with mitigations and case studies of households in Gateshead.

The views of the group were sought in order to inform a report to Cabinet on 17 December 2013.

Advice provided:

The Advisory Group made the following comments: • With regard to the impact on the Housing Revenue Account (HRA), the group noted the projection of over £1m in additional relet expenditure. It was recognised that some funds have been identified to mitigate the impact on the HRA. • There were queries in relation to entitlement for Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP). The group noted that whilst there is a DHP policy, officers assess each application individually. • The group was keen that opportunities to bid for more resources are taken. • It was commented that many young tenants (under 25s) will be unaware of DHPs. The group welcomed the suggestion that all who would benefit from DHPs be proactively targeted. • It was queried whether the resources allocated for DHPs is sufficient. • As the resources allocated for DHPs are limited, it is essential that those who are most in need receive the payments. It was noted that tenants are assessed on their ability to pay rent and as part of this assessment their spending on non-essentials is taken into account.

10 of 11 149

• The group welcomed the case studies as a means of understanding the issues being faced by tenants. • It was noted that the reduction in rents by Housing Associations is reducing their ability to build. • The priority lettings to those affected by the under occupancy rules was praised, however, it was queried whether the properties they have vacated have since become hard to let. In which case it was said that it may be more viable to encourage tenants to remain in their properties but support them using DHPs. It was suggested that this be an area for further monitoring. • The group agreed that redesignation be incorporated into the HRA Business Plan. • The group agreed that a report be submitted to Cabinet at its meeting on 17 December 2013.

Chair: Councillor J Eagle

Members Present: Councillors C Bradley, J Lee and P Ronan.

Also Present: Councillors M Brain, L Caffrey, D Davidson, P Dillon H Hughes, K McCartney and J Turnbull.

Officer Attendance: Jackie Park (Community Based Services) Michael Laing (Community Based Services) Lisa Philliskirk (Community Based Services) Neil Bouch (The Gateshead Housing Company) Kevin Johnson (The Gateshead Housing Company) Jonathan Graham (The Gateshead Housing Company) Pam Richardson (Finance and ICT) Neil Porteous (Legal and Corporate Services)

11 of 11 150

6 REPORT TO CABINET 17 December 2013

TITLE OF REPORT: Gateshead Local Plan – Planning for the Future Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan Submission Document for Gateshead and Newcastle upon Tyne

REPORT OF: Paul Dowling, Strategic Director, Development and Enterprise

Purpose of the Report

1. This report advises Cabinet on the comments received following the final statutory consultation on the Submission Draft version of the Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan (the Plan). It proposes that Cabinet recommends that Council approves the amended Plan for submission to the Secretary of State.

2. A report is also being presented to Newcastle City Council’s Cabinet in December recommending that they note the consultation feedback report, schedule of changes endorse the submission draft Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan and note that the submission draft Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan is to be reported to their full Council for its approval.

Background

3. Work on producing a local plan for Gateshead that meets the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) guidance is ongoing. The first stage of the local plan is the Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan which we are jointly preparing with Newcastle City Council. The Plan will ensure that Gateshead has the tools to shape how land use and places will change and develop in the future to deliver the Council’s strategic ambitions. It will help to create and sustain thriving communities and a more prosperous economy. Development, including provision for new homes, jobs growth and a portfolio of employment land, will be directed to sustainable locations. This will be achieved by: • Focusing the majority of development in the existing built up areas;

• Prioritising the Urban Core as the location for major office, retail, higher and further education, leisure, culture, tourism and housing development;

• Supporting economic development outside the Urban Core at Team Valley (advanced manufacturing and engineering) and Follingsby (distribution and logistics);

• Enhancing Neighbourhoods and re-balancing housing stock by delivering new homes supported by jobs, local facilities and services;

• Sustaining Villages and the rural economy through a balance of housing provision, employment and local services; and

• Revisions to the boundary of the Green Belt to allow for new development to accommodate our objectively identified need for employment and homes.

1 of 11 151

4. The Council has a statutory duty to complete a local plan. The provisions of the Localism Act 2011 and the NPPF (March 2012) make the Plan’s timely completion all the more important. The onus is now on Local Authorities through their local plans to set appropriate targets based on objectively produced evidence. The Localism Act also introduced provisions allowing communities and local businesses to develop Neighbourhood Plans and it is important that these are based on and accord with recent and up to date statutory plans rather than the saved Unitary Development Plan policies. The NPPF encourages the timely development of local plans and contains a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

5. If Gateshead did not have an up-to-date Plan, planning applications would be assessed in accordance with the NPPF. This would increase the likelihood of new developments being assessed and decided in an unplanned way and reduce the ability of Gateshead to resist inappropriate development. The Plan will reduce the likelihood of developers being successful at appeal for development of Green Belt sites which have not been identified as appropriate for development by the Council in its Plan. .

6. This report is a follow up to that brought to Cabinet on 16 July 2013 where Cabinet approved for final statutory consultation the Submission Draft of Planning for the Future - Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan for Gateshead and Newcastle upon Tyne [minute number C56]. The final six week statutory consultation period expired on the 21 October 2013. Having carefully considered the representations received, and following legal advice, it is considered that the Plan is sound and that the Plan has been prepared in accordance with the duty to co-operate, legal and procedural requirements. No significant changes to the Plan are considered to be necessary. The Plan if agreed provides an appropriate basis for the planning of the Borough of Gateshead until 2030. The Cabinet is now in a position to request approval from Full Council to submit the Plan to the Secretary of State for its examination by an independent inspector.

7. During the final consultation, 92 organisations and 169 individuals submitted representations. This resulted in 967 representations. In addition 31 group representation forms were signed by 3,330 individuals, equating to 32,416 representations. In total there were 33,383 representations from 3567 unique individuals. All representations made have been reviewed and carefully considered and it has been concluded that, subject to minor text and formatting changes which need to be made, there are no matters arising from the representations that call into question the soundness of the Plan or the legality of its preparation that would prevent it being submitted to the Secretary of State in its current form. The Consultation Feedback Report November 2013 (Appendix 2) sets out the consultation approach, and an analysis of the representations received. The Schedule of Changes (Appendix 3) sets out the changes to the Plan in response to the consultation. As it has not been necessary to substantially change the Submission Draft version of the Plan it is not necessary to carry out any further consultation before submission of the Plan to the Secretary of State. Appendices 2 and 3 can be viewed online in the agenda folder for this meeting and copies are available in the Members’ Room.

8. Notwithstanding this position and in the interest of good practice the Council will continue to discuss issues raised during the consultation period with stakeholders

2 of 11 152

in the run up to the examination in order to further focus debate and minimise their areas of concern.

9. Once submitted to the Government, the Plan will be passed to the Planning Inspectorate who will run an independent examination. The timetable for this will be set by the Inspector but it is anticipated that the examination itself will take place in summer 2014.

10. The Inspector may conclude that modifications are required to the Plan. The Inspector will not be able to recommend these modifications unless the Council makes a specific request for them. These modifications are normally subject to further consultation and/or sustainability appraisal by the Council. The Inspector will take into account the further representations received as part of this consultation.

Proposal

11. It is proposed that Cabinet recommend that Council approves the Planning for the Future Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan Submission Document for Gateshead and Newcastle upon Tyne (Appendix 4) for submission to the Secretary of State. Appendix 4 can be viewed online in the agenda folder for this meeting and a copy is available in the Members’ Room.

12. If approval is obtained to submit the Plan, it together with its Sustainably Appraisal, Proposals Map, Evidence Base, Reports of all Consultation and all the Representations made during the final stage of consultation will be submitted to the Secretary of State in the New Year.

13. Delegated authority to the Strategic Director of Development & Enterprise and Strategic Director of Legal and Corporate Services in consultation with the relevant Cabinet Member is being requested in order to manage the actual process of submission and preparing evidence for examination.

Recommendations

14. It is recommended that Cabinet recommends that Council:

(i) Notes the Consultation Feedback Report November 2013 as set out in Appendix 2;

(ii) Notes the amendments identified in “Schedule of changes” to the Planning for the Future Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan Submission Document, none of which alter the meaning of the Plan as set out in Appendix 3;

(iii) Authorises formal submission of the Planning for the Future Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan Submission Document as set out in Appendix 4 and associated submission documentation to the Secretary of State pursuant to Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012;

(iv) Delegates authority to the Strategic Director of Development & Enterprise and Strategic Director of Legal and Corporate Services in consultation with the relevant Cabinet Member to:

3 of 11 153

a. approve the submission documents required to be submitted alongside the Plan to the Secretary of State as required by Regulation 22 of The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 for consideration at public examination; b. continue discussions with key parties and suggest to the Inspector any edits and consequential changes necessary to Planning for the Future Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan Submission Document, following Council approval up to and during the Examination and c. prepare and give evidence in support of the Planning for the Future Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan Submission Document in support of that examination;

(v) Grant authority to the Inspector appointed to hold the public examination to make modifications to the Planning for the Future Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan Submission Document under Section 20 (7C) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 as amended;

For the following reasons:

To progress the development of the Gateshead Local Plan in line with the timescales set out in our adopted Local Development Scheme and as required by government policy and our statutory obligations under the Town and Country Planning Act 2004, Localism Act 2011 and Town and Country Planning (Local Plans) Regulations 2012.

CONTACT: Anneliese Hutchinson extension: 3881

4 of 11 154

APPENDIX 1

Policy Context

1. Work on producing a Local Plan for Gateshead that meets the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) guidance is ongoing. This includes the Core Strategy (formerly known as the One Core Strategy) and Urban Core Plan (formerly known as the Urban Core Area Action Plan) which we are working on in partnership with Newcastle City Council. The Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan (the Plan) will form part of the Gateshead Local Plan and will help deliver Vision 2030, the Sustainable Community Strategy, addressing key spatial issues. To achieve Gateshead’s ambition, it is necessary to plan for economic and population growth and to support health and wellbeing including new development of employment and housing (particularly family homes), and all related facilities in ways that will ensure a sustainable and positive future for Gateshead. This means directing development to accessible, sustainable locations (within the Urban Core, on previously developed land or along transport routes) bringing benefits and sustaining our villages and neighbourhoods, the wider economy and the environment. Gateshead Council’s shared ambition with Newcastle City Council is for a range of housing types in different locations to ensure that there is a competitive housing market in Gateshead and Newcastle, addressing the potential of out-migration and in- commuting. This will involve development on undeveloped land.

Background

2. With regard to the Core Strategy, the decision to undertake the development of a joint Core Strategy with Newcastle City Council was agreed by Cabinet and Full Council in April 2009 [minute numbers C323 and CL111]. Informal consultation on the development of the Plan was initially undertaken with Gateshead Strategic Partnership and Newcastle’s Local Strategic Partnership plus a series of meetings with key stakeholders in May/June 2010. Cabinet at its 14th December 2010 meeting agreed an early draft Core Strategy [minute number C189]. The first round of formal consultation was undertaken in January and February 2011 with a further round of consultation undertaken in September 2011 – January 2012. Initial consultation was also undertaken in October/November 2011 on the Strategic Land Review and Green Belt Assessment that has supported the development of the Core Strategy. Cabinet at its February 2012 meeting approved [minute number C203] for publication the Consultation Feedback Report on the preceding consultation, the method for refining the selection of Strategic Land Review and Green Belt Assessment sites for consultation, and the publication of the population and economic growth projections for Gateshead and Newcastle for publication. Cabinet also approved for consultation the Scoping Report on the Land Allocations and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (“Making Spaces for Growing Places”), which it is intended to progress separately. On 17 July 2012 Cabinet agreed [minute number C37] publication of the revised population and economic growth projections, and for consultation the Strategic Land Review – Green Belt Assessment (stage 2 report) and the proposed major changes to the re-draft of the joint Core Strategy and Draft Urban Core Area Action Plan. At the same meeting Cabinet also approved [minute number C37] for consultation the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule, Maps and Evidence Base for the Community Infrastructure Levy and to publish revised Employment Land

5 of 11 155

Review and Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. In June 2013 Cabinet [minute number C24] agreed the publication of the Development of Long Term Economic and Demographic Projections and Assessment of Projection Robustness: Update for Release of Household Projections Data prepared by the Policy Research Group, Durham Business School / St Chad’s College.

3. With regard to the Urban Core Plan, Cabinet made the decision on joint working on the joint Urban Core Area Action Plan (AAP) on 14th December 2010 (minute C189) and this was approved by full Council on 20th January 2011 (minute CL96). The Preferred Options for the Urban Core Area Action Plan were consulted on from January to March 2011. The joint Urban Core Plan built upon the extensive consultation undertaken by the Council through “Fit for a City”, Gateshead Quays Masterplan and other planning documents aimed at taking Gateshead Town Centre forward. These each had their own, non-statutory consultation processes. A further round of consultation was undertaken in September 2011 – January 2012. On 17 July 2012 Cabinet agreed the proposed major changes to the Draft Urban Core Area Action Plan (now called Urban Core Plan).

4. On 16 July 2013 Cabinet approved for final statutory consultation the Submission Draft Planning for the Future - Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan for Gateshead and Newcastle upon Tyne.

The Plan

5. The Plan will assist in guiding development in Gateshead to 2030 and beyond, helping to deliver our ambitions. It provides an overarching spatial plan to ensure that the role of Gateshead Centre - the Urban Core - is strengthened, at the heart of the local and regional economy, and that our development needs are accommodated in the most appropriate locations.

6. This Plan responds to the needs and ambitions of our residents and businesses. Our overall shared vision as expressed in our Bridging Document - Developing Sustainable Cities - NewcastleGateshead 2030 is that:

By 2030 Gateshead and Newcastle will be prosperous and sustainable cities that are unique and distinctive places - where people choose to live, work and visit because everyone can realise their full potential and enjoy a high-quality lifestyle.

7. There will be a presumption in favour of sustainable development which means all development will be expected to be: • fully inclusive, irrespective of cultural background, ethnicity and age, to meet the diverse needs of all residents and communities;

• well connected and accessible by sustainable modes of transport;

• well designed to promote community cohesion, and wellbeing, and to reflect and enhance the area’s character and natural environment; and

• contributing towards the reduction of carbon emissions and adapted to the effects of climate change

6 of 11 156

Consultation

8. All Cabinet Members have been consulted. On 16 July 2013 Cabinet approved the final statutory consultation on the Submission Draft Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan. Consultation expired on the 21 October 2013.

9. The main issues raised by representation that were duly made include:

i. Preparation of the Plan The preparation of the Plan is generally considered sound. Some developers and house builders consider that the Plan period should be extended to 2034. There is concern that the evidence has not been positively prepared, is inaccurate and was not available during consultation. The approach to the Duty to Co-operate was welcomed, however organisations requested further clarification on the level of cooperation and how this has influenced the Plan.

ii. Vision and strategic objectives The vision and strategic objectives are generally considered to be sound. Generally residents consider the expected level of population and economic growth to be unnecessary and unsustainable.

iii. Spatial Strategy There is general support for the positive approach in CS1. In terms of the proposed level of growth, developers consider that the housing target of 30,000 should not be a limit, whereas residents and groups consider this level of growth to be unnecessary and unsustainable. There is particular support for the presumption in favour of sustainable development, the prioritisation of the Urban Core for major development and the promotion of sustainable neighbourhoods and villages. Some developers have questioned the deliverability of sites in the Urban Core.

The approach to redefining the Green Belt Boundary was broadly supported by developers and landowners. However they argue that land should be safeguarded and additional land should be allocated. Residents, community groups and campaigners fundamentally object to the revisions to the Green Belt and the allocation of Neighbourhood and Village Growth Areas. Organisations broadly support CS3 and CS4, however are concerned about the requirement to undertake a masterplan and Growth Areas being subject to a 5 year land supply test.

The Highways Agency has advised that they need to discuss the adequacies of the evidence base to ensure the cumulative impact of development on the Strategic Road Network has been adequately considered at this stage.

iv. Strategic Policies The policies for Economic Prosperity are generally considered sound.

The policies for homes are generally considered sound by organisations and residents. However there is concern from residents regarding the reliability of the population projection and the need for additional homes. The developers and landowners challenge the Plan provision for 30,000 homes, which they consider to be a minimum. They are also concerned about the burden the policies for Lifetime Homes and affordable homes will have on viability.

7 of 11 157

Policies for Transport are generally supported by organisations. However residents and some organisations are concerned about the cumulative impact of the proposed development on the existing road network. Community groups request a more sustainable approach to transport and a stronger emphasis on cycling.

Although there was less representation made on the policies for People and Place they are generally considered to be sound. Residents are concerned about the overall level of growth and the impact this will have on health and wellbeing, climate change, flood risk, the future Green Belt and green infrastructure. Organisations have challenged the policies for quality and place, climate change and flood and the financial impact this could have on viability.

Residents are concerned by the future impact waste and minerals sites will have on communities. Organisations have questioned the threshold for prior extraction, provision for minerals and the inclusion of energy minerals.

v. Urban Core Policies The Urban Core received limited representations. Broadly, the majority of representations support the approach to the Urban Core. Developer and landowners support the identification and allocation to development sites.

vi. Site Policies The majority of representations made were against the site specific policies, especially the Neighbourhood and Village Growth Area sites. Residents strongly oppose development in these locations, and challenge the need for this development and the approach to mitigating the impacts. Developers support the allocation of these sites but consider the policy requirement to be onerous.

Soundness of the Plan

10. The focus of the recent six week statutory consultation was on soundness and legal compliance with the statutory procedure that must be followed when preparing the Plan. It was also an opportunity for the public to suggest alternative policies for consideration by the Inspector rather than the Council. The tests of soundness are • Positively prepared – Does the Plan meet development and infrastructure requirements and will it achieve sustainable development? Is the Plan the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives? Is it based on balanced evidence? • Justified - Is the Plan the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives, based on appropriate evidence? • Effective – Can the Plan be delivered during the period set out? Is it based on effective joint working between neighbouring local authorities to make sure regional strategic priorities are met? • Consistent – Is the Plan consistent with national policy? Will it enable sustainable development in accordance with the policies set out in the NPPF?

11. Considering carefully the representations received, and following legal advice, it is considered that the Plan is sound and that the Plan has been prepared in accordance with the duty to co-operate, legal and procedural requirements. It is considered that no significant changes to the Plan are necessary prior to its submission and approval to submit the Plan to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for

8 of 11 158

independent examination is proposed. The Plan provides an appropriate basis for the planning of the Borough of Gateshead until 2030.

12. Minor changes to the Plan can be made without further consultation but changes that may affect the interests of third parties or aggrieve other objectors will require further consultation. The changes identified in the “Schedule of changes” document will not alter the meaning of the Plan. Notwithstanding this position and in the interest of good practice it is proposed that officers continue to discuss issues raised during the consultation period with stakeholders in the run up to the examination to further minimise their areas of concern. It is proposed that authority is delegated to the Strategic Director of Development & Enterprise and Strategic Director of Legal and Corporate Services in consultation with the relevant Cabinet Member to continue discussions, prepare and present evidence and suggest to the Inspector any edits and consequential changes necessary to the Plan.

Planning Inspector to make modifications

13. The Inspector, in examining the Plan and in light of representation made, may conclude that “modifications” are required to make it sound and capable of adoption. Any “main modifications” made in relation to soundness will in almost all cases need to be the subject of further consultation. It is accordingly proposed that Council agrees to give the Inspector authority under section 20(7C) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to make modifications to the Plan, to ensure that modification, if required, can be made to make it sound.

Next Steps

14. Subject to Full Council approval which is being considered on the 19 December 2013 the Plan will be submitted to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in February 2014 for independent examination. The pre hearing meeting is likely to be held in March and the examination hearing is likely to take place in summer 2014. After examination and following consultation on any modifications Council should be asked to adopt the Plan. This should take place by the end of 2014 or early 2015. However the timescale for adoption of the Plan is dependent on the issues and matters to be identified by the Inspector following submission and any modifications proposed.

15. It should also be noted that as the Plan progresses towards adoption, greater weight can be attached to the emerging policies for development management purposes.

Alternative Options

16. There are a number of options which could apply to the detail of the recommended approach. However, because of Cabinet's previous approval for joint working with Newcastle on 21st April 2009, the recommended option is as outlined in this report.

9 of 11 159

Implications of Recommended Option

17. Resources:

a) Financial Implications – The Strategic Director, Finance and ICT confirms that the costs of dissemination of the document will be accommodated from within existing resources. b) Human Resources Implications – There are no human resource implications arising from this report. c) Property Implications - There are no property implications arising from this report.

18. Risk Management Implication - It is important that momentum in this process is maintained in order to facilitate the timely adoption of the Plan in line with national policy. The risks relate to slippage in the timetable for the completion of the Plan. A key risk is not having an adopted Plan in place and the potential for planning applications for development to be submitted which cannot be robustly resisted. Timely approvals are essential if the Council is to be in a position to have the Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan approved for submission to the Secretary of State (and subsequent Examination in Public) in early 2014.

19. Human Resources Implications - There are no human resource implications arising from this report.

20. Equality and Diversity Implications – The Sustainability Appraisal for the Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan incorporates an Equality Impact Assessment.

21. Crime and Disorder Implications – There are no crime and disorder implications arising from this report.

22. Health Implications - The Sustainability Appraisal for the Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan incorporates a Health Impact Assessment. The Plan contains proposals designed to improve health and wellbeing.

23. Sustainability Implications - The Sustainability Appraisal for the Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan assesses the sustainability implications.

24. Human Rights Implications - There are no human rights implications arising from this report. As part of the Local Plan process the Council has a Statement of Community Involvement in place and will engage in extensive public consultation throughout the preparation period in accordance with that Statement of Community Involvement.

25. Area and Ward Implications - All

Appendix Copies of the Appendices will be available in the Members’ room and will be accessible on-line.

10 of 11 160

2) Planning for the Future Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan Feedback Report November 2013 3) Planning for the Future Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan Submission Document – Schedule of Changes 4) Planning for the Future Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan Submission Document & Proposal Map(Gateshead)

Background Information Further supporting information is available online. This includes access to the representations made on the Plan and the Evidence Library http://onecorestrategyng-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal http://www.gateshead.gov.uk/DocumentLibrary/Building/PlanningPolicy/Evidence/G reen-Belt-Changes-July-2013.pdf http://www.gateshead.gov.uk/DocumentLibrary/Building/PlanningPolicy/Evidence/C ore-Strategy-Proposals-Map-July-2013.pdf http://www.gateshead.gov.uk/DocumentLibrary/Building/PlanningPolicy/Evidence/Ur ban-Core-July-2013.pdf

11 of 11 161

1 | Page

162

Executive Summary

Statutory consultation was undertaken by Gateshead and Newcastle Council on the Proposed Submission Draft of Planning for the Future Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan (the Plan) for six weeks from the 9th September 2013 to 21st October 2013. In total, 92 organisations and 169 individuals submitted representations. This resulted in 967 representations. In addition 31 group representation forms were signed by 3,330 individuals, equating to 32,416 representations. In total there were 33,383 representations from 3567 unique individuals.

The majority of representations received did not lead to any changes being proposed to the Plan. The consultation has raised no issues that merit delay in progressing to submission of the Plan to the Secretary of State for its examination.

The main issues raised by representation that were duly made include:

Preparation of the Plan

The preparation of the Plan is generally considered sound. Some developers and house builders consider that the Plan period should be extended to 2034. There is concern that the evidence has not been positively prepared, is inaccurate and was not available during consultation. The approach to the Duty to Co-operate was welcomed, however organisations requested further clarification on the level of cooperation and how this has influenced the Plan.

Vision and strategic objectives

The vision and strategic objectives are generally considered to be sound. Generally residents consider the expected level of population and economic growth to be unnecessary and unsustainable.

Spatial Strategy

There is general support for the positive approach in CS1 which is considered to be positively prepared, justified and effective. In terms of the proposed level of growth, developers consider that the housing target of 30,000 should not be a limit, whereas residents and groups consider this level of growth to be unnecessary and unsustainable. The approach to allocating 60% of Newcastle’s employment land supply at Newcastle Airport Key Employment Area has been questioned. There is particular support for the presumption in favour of sustainable development, the prioritisation of the Urban Core for major development and the promotion of sustainable neighbourhoods and villages. Some developers have questioned the deliverability of sites in the Urban Core and the figure for 50,000 sqm of retail development in the Newcastle City Centre.

2 | Page

163 The Highways Agency has advised that the plan is unsound, not effective or sufficiently justified and they need to discuss the adequacies of the evidence base with the Councils to assess the cumulative impact of development on the Strategic Road Network.

Strategic Policies

The policies for Economic Prosperity are generally considered sound by organisations and groups. Although the projections and the approach to allocating land at the Airport is questioned. Organisations are concerned by the threshold of 280 square metres for assessing impacts on existing centres as there is no evidence to support the restrictive approach.

Policies for Transport are generally supported by organisations. However residents and some organsiations are concerned about the cumulative impact of the proposed development on the existing road network. Community groups request a more sustainable approach to transport and a stronger emphasis on cycling.

Urban Core Policies

The Urban Core received limited representations. Broadly, the majority of representations support the approach to the Urban Core. Developer and landowners support the identification and allocation to development sites. There was some concern regarding the provision for additional retail development and the impact this could have on the existing city centre.

Site Policies

The majority of representation made were against the site specific policies, especially the Neighbourhood and Village Growth Area sites. Residents strongly oppose development in these locations, and challenge the need for this development and the approach to mitigating the impacts. Developers support the allocation of these sites but consider the policy requirement to be onerous.

3 | Page

164 Contents Page

Introduction ...... 5

Statutory Consultation Process ...... 7

Representations ...... 13

Summary of Representations made by Policy ...... 15

Appendices ...... 61

4 | Page

165 Introduction

This report demonstrates how the Councils engaged with communities and stakeholders, in accordance with the regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Act1 which states that:

Before submitting a local plan to the Secretary of State under section 20 of the Act, the local planning authority must: (a) make a copy of each of the proposed submission documents and a statement of the representations procedure available in accordance with regulation 35, and (b) ensure that a statement of the representations procedure and a statement of the fact that the proposed submission documents are available for inspection and of the places and times at which they can be inspected, is sent to each of the general consultation bodies and each of the specific consultation bodies invited to make representations under regulation 18(1).

In addition to the legislative requirements, the Councils, in-line with their Statement of Community Involvements2 undertook a proactive approach to inform and involve residents and stakeholders. Following consultation, all representations duly made have been summarised according to the most relevant section of the Plan.

This report includes:

o an overview of the process undertaken (chapter 2); o an overview of the level of representations made (Chapter 3); and o a summary of the main issues raised by the representations. (Chapter 4)

Planning for the Future Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan - On-going engagement

Gateshead and Newcastle Councils have been working together since 2009 to prepare a shared Plan for Gateshead and Newcastle. The decision to prepare a joint Plan is in recognition of the economic advantage to both Local Authority areas. This includes expansion of employment areas, science and research, retail-led development, housing growth and improving infrastructure to support growth at the heart of the region.

The Plan started life as two separate Plans within Gateshead’s and Newcastle’s respective Local Development Frameworks (LDFs): the One Core Strategy Development Plan and the Urban Core Area Action Plan. The purpose of the Plan is to set out a clear framework for growth in Gateshead and Newcastle until 2030. The strategy sets the quantity and location of new housing, employment provision, shops, facilities and other services together with transport and other infrastructure provision.

1 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/767/contents/made 2 Newcastle Statement of Community Involvement http://onecorestrategyng.limehouse.co.uk/ Gateshead Statement of Community Involvement http://onecorestrategyng.limehouse.co.uk/

5 | Page

166

Throughout the plan preparation process, the Councils have made extensive efforts to engage relevant agencies, stakeholders and the local community in the formulation and refinement of the policies and proposals in the Plan. At each stage, the Councils have adhered to the standards for consultation set out in their Statement of Community Involvements (SCI)3, as well as those set by legislation and national guidance. Prior to Statutory Consultation there have been five stages of consultation: o Issues and Options - Prior to the commencement of joint working, each Council undertook - consultation on issues and options for their original separate Core Strategies; Newcastle Area Action Plan Key Issues and Development of Option Report (2006)4; and, Gateshead Fit for a City Regeneration Delivery Strategy (2008)5.

o Decision to collaborate, alignment of visions (2009) - Following the decision to work together in 2009, work was undertaken to assess previous consultation responses on Issues and Options and align Gateshead and Newcastle’s individual visions. Following a series of workshops and a joint Strategic Partnership event in October 2009, the Councils published the Gateshead and Newcastle Bridging6 Document and Topic Papers which established our shared vision, objectives and initial evidence base.

7 o One Core Strategy Consultation Draft and Urban Core Preferred Options (January 2011)8 - Following agreement to work jointly on the Core Strategy it was also agreed that the Councils would collaborate on a joint Plan for the Urban Core. The Councils published the One Core Strategy Consultation Draft and Urban Core Area Action Plan Preferred Option Report in January 2011.

9 10 o One Core Strategy Draft Plan and Urban Core Draft Plan (October 2011) - The fourth stage was to consult on the revised plans following the completion of the Strategic Land Review (Part 1), receipt of comments from previous consultation, and the preparation of updated and new evidence.

o Proposed Major Changes Consultation (June 2012) - The fifth stage of consultation was on the Proposed Major Changes Reports11.

It is important to emphasise that consultation was not restricted to these 5 periods; it has been continuous and ongoing since 2009. During and between the consultation periods the Councils’ have undertaken continuous consultation with individuals, communities groups and stakeholders through meetings, conversation and general publications and surveys.

3 Newcastle Statement of Community Involvement http://onecorestrategyng.limehouse.co.uk/ Gateshead Statement of Community Involvement http://onecorestrategyng.limehouse.co.uk/ 4 Newcastle Area Action Plan Key Issues and Development of Option Report (2006) http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/wwwfileroot/legacy/regen/plantrans/ccaaakeyis.pdf 5 Gateshead Fit for a City Regeneration Delivery Strategy (2008) http://onecorestrategyng.limehouse.co.uk/ 6 Bridging Document http://onecorestrategyng.limehouse.co.uk/ 7 One Core Strategy Consultation Draft http://onecorestrategyng.limehouse.co.uk/ 8 Urban Core Preferred Options Report http://onecorestrategyng.limehouse.co.uk/ 9 One Core Strategy Draft Plan http://onecorestrategyng.limehouse.co.uk/ 10 Urban Core Draft Plan http://onecorestrategyng.limehouse.co.uk/ 11 Newcastle Proposed Major Changes Reports http://onecorestrategyng.limehouse.co.uk/Gateshead Proposed Major Changes Report http://onecorestrategyng.limehouse.co.uk/

6 | Page

167 Statutory Consultation Process

During the Statutory Consultation period (9th September to 21st October 2013) the Councils sought representations on the soundness and legal compliance of the Plan. Representations were to be made in using the ‘Representation Form’ (Appendix 1) which was available online, in customer service centres and libraries. Representations could be submitted using the online portal http://onecorestrategyng.limehouse.co.uk/portal or via post or email.

In accordance with Regulations 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) a Statement of Representations Procedure (Appendix 2) was published which specified how and when interested parties could view the Plan and its supporting documents and submit representation. This and the proposed submission documents (Appendix 3) were made available in both Councils principal offices (Figure 1) and websites12 (Appendix 4) from 9th September 2013.

Location/Address Opening Time Gateshead Civic Centre Customer Service Monday to Friday 8.30am to 4.30pm Centre Monday to Friday Newcastle Civic Centre Customer Service Monday to Friday 8.30am to 4.30pm Centre Barras Bridge, Newcastle, NE18QH Figure 1 Principal office locations

In addition, the proposed Plan13, policies maps14, Sustainability Appraisal Report 15 and Consultation Statement 16 were available in the following locations for inspection during the consultation period:

Newcastle Gateshead Kenton Customer Service Centre Gateshead Civic Centre Outer West Customer Service Centre Gateshead Central Library West End Customer Service Centre & Library Birtley Library East End Customer Service Centre Blaydon Library End Library Chopwell Library Blakelaw Library Crawcrook Library Newbiggin Hall Library Dunston Library Outer West Library Felling Library Scotswood Regen Centre Leam Lane Library Fawdon Library Lobley Hill Library Kenton Library Low Fell Library Newburn Library Pelaw Library Walker (Lightfoot) Library Ryton Library

12 www.newcastle.gov.uk and www.gateshead.gov.uk 13 http://onecorestrategyng.limehouse.co.uk/portal/core_strategy_and_urban_core_plan_proposed_submission_draft 14 http://onecorestrategyng.limehouse.co.uk/file/2621185 http://onecorestrategyng.limehouse.co.uk/file/2613971 15 http://onecorestrategyng.limehouse.co.uk/file/2614597 16 http://onecorestrategyng.limehouse.co.uk/file/2621338

7 | Page

168 Newcastle Gateshead City Library Sunderland Road Library Gosforth Library Whickham Library Ouseburn Community Centre Winlaton Library Lemington Centre Wrekenton Library Figure 2 Locations where Submission Document were available

Bodies invited to make Representation

In accordance with Regulation 19, a letter (Appendix 5) was sent to general consultation bodies and each of the specific consultation bodies on the joint Local Plan database inviting them to make representations on the Plan. The letter advised consultees of the representation procedure and where and when the Submission Document were available.

The Councils’ have a comprehensive consultation database including residents associations, parish councils, elected representatives, community and voluntary groups, developers and businesses, infrastructure providers, government agencies and individuals. This database has grown significantly as the Plan has developed. At the time of consultation this included over 21,135 consultees (Appendix 6).

In addition to the statutory requirements the Council promoted consultation and invited representation using a range of methods. This approach to consultation was approved by Newcastle Cabinet on 23rd April 2013 and is in line with Gateshead Statement of Community Involvement approved at January 2013 Cabinet.

Pre-Consultation approach

Before consultation began, the Councils through an extensive campaign raised awareness and promoted how people could make representations by: o Distributing 215,000 leaflet (Appendix 7) to all household in Gateshead and Newcastle and 1500 in North Tyneside. o Displaying posters across Gateshead and Newcastle (Appendix 8) including on community notice boards, in community centres. In addition posters were displayed in all 70 Newcastle City Council car parks, all Newcastle customer service centres and in 21 libraries and in Gateshead at all the Drop in venues.

Sending ‘member packs’ to all Newcastle Members (Appendix 9). o o Briefing Council Members and given a presentation on the consultation. Ward Councillors were also given the opportunity to discuss representations and received a report.

Sending a letter to all MPs, Parish Councils and surrounding Local Authorities. o o Briefing all Library’s customer service centres, and drop-in venues. o Featuring articles in Newcastle Business Brief and Newcastle Staff News (Appendix 10).

8 | Page

169 o Undertaking an extensive on-line campaign including Twitter and Facebook (Appendix 11). o Publishing press statements on Newcastle City Council homepage. Information on the Plan remained on the front page of the website throughout the consultation period with direct links to the more detailed information and consultation portal. o Inviting over 200 members of Royal Institution of Charter Surveyors to make representations. o Publishing articles in the June-August and September-November editions of Gateshead Council News (Appendix 12). o Images on Gateshead TV and Newcastle screens (Appendix 13), situated in leisure centres, libraries, SureStart centres and the Civic Centre. o Contacting 263 members of Gateshead Community Network and 811 ‘Our Gateshead’ groups. o Contacting schools to promote drop-in events by reminding parents of details of the events. o Information was included in the Gateshead Business newsletter and on the website.

During Consultation

During the consultation period the Councils promoted consultation and the programme of events by: o Updating both Councils websites frequently with event information and new documentation.

Updating the Councils’ Facebook and Twitter pages. o o Press releases including TV and radio

To assist resident and stakeholders in making representations, the Councils produced a number of supporting documentation including:

An Executive Summary of the Plan (Appendix 14). o A Policy Document (Appendix 15). o Copies of the Proposal Map (Appendix 16). o A user guide for completing the Representation Form (Appendix 17). o o User guide to for submitting representation online (Appendix 18).

This information was available online and in customer service centres and in libraries. In Gateshead, FAQs and site-specific FAQs were available at drop-in events.

9 | Page

170 Events

32 consultation events were held during the consultation period with approximately 934 people attending. To ensure that all individuals had an equal opportunity to have their say these events took different formats, at different locations, at different times and with different attendees. The events included:

Newcastle Drop in events

10 Drop-In sessions were held across Newcastle, with 286 people attending. The purpose of the Drop-In sessions was to invite residents and stakeholders to a forum where they had an opportunity to discuss the Plan and representation procedure with Planning Officers. These events lasted between 2 and 3 hours, at different times of the day and at different locations across the city.

Event Date Approx attendees Kingston Park Community Association 09/09/13 27 Outer West CSC and Library 09/09/13 10 Throckley Community Hall 10/09/13 25 Kingston Park Community Association 11/09/13 19 Throckley Community Hall 12/09/13 18 Outer West CSC and Library 12/09/13 115 Gosforth Library 16/09/13 36 East End Library 16/09/13 4 City Library 19/09/13 23 Kenton 19/09/13 9

Gateshead Drop in Events

19 Drop-In sessions were held across Gateshead, with 600 people attending.

Event Date Approx attendees Gateshead Civic Centre Atrium 23/09/13 20 Ryton Methodist Church 23/09/13 70 The Hub Resource Centre, Birtley 24/09/13 20 Chopwell Library 24/09/13 65 Pelaw Library 25/09/13 15 St. Barnabas Church Hall, Rowlands Gill 25/09/13 20 Gateshead Interchange Centre 26/09/13 5 High Spen Primary School 26/09/13 15 Leam Lane Library 30/09/13 10 Crawcrook Library 30/09/13 45 Blaydon Library 01/10/13 10

10 | Page

171 Event Date Approx attendees Sunniside Social Club 01/10/13 75 Dunston Leisure Centre 02/10/13 60 Lobley Hill Community Centre 03/10/13 50 Gateshead Central Library 04/10/13 10 Kibblesworth Village Millennium Centre 04/10/13 40 Gateshead Civic Centre Atrium 07/10/13 15 Felling Library 07/10/13 10 Stargate Community Hall, Ryton 07/10/13 45

Breakfast meetings

300 key stakeholders (Appendix 19) were invited to attend the breakfast meetings in total 35 attended. The event is structured around a pre-arranged agenda (Appendix 20), designed to brief stakeholders on the proposed changes (Appendix 21) to the plans and offer them an opportunity to ask technical questions (Appendix 22).

Event Date Approx attendees Breakfast Meeting 10/09/13 22 Breakfast Meeting 16/09/13 13

Royal Institute of Chartered Surveys Event

In partnership with RICS, stakeholders, landowners and developers were invited to attend an event. The event was structured around a pre-arranged agenda designed to brief stakeholders on the proposed changes to the Plans.

Event Date Approx attendees RICS Event 26/09/13 13

Stakeholder, Community and Thematic Groups and other organisations

A series of meetings took place during the consultation period to discuss the implication of the plans with:

The Elders Council. o The City Centre Business Forum. o The North East Chamber of Commerce. o Board of School Governors. o Older People’s Partnership. o Carer’s Partnership. o o Involvement Forum.

11 | Page

172

Gateshead Strategic Partnership Steering Group. o Gateshead Business Forum. o Disability Equality Service User Involvement Forum. o Physical Disability and Sensory Impairment Board. o Gateshead Youth Forum . o The Learning Disability Partnership Board. o o Diversity Forum.

12 | Page

173 Representations

Following the end of the consultation (under Regulation 19) on the Proposed Submission Document in October 2013, the Councils logged all representations that were duly made. For representations not made using the online consultation portal or Representation Form the Councils have identified, the relevant part of the Plan to which they relate. In some cases, this included breaking down submissions into a number of representations. As a consequence many representations have generated more than one representation. The Schedule of Representation Report includes summaries of all representations. This should be considered alongside this report.

The Number of Representations made under Regulation 22

In total, 92 organisations (Appendix 23) and 169 individuals (Appendix 24) submitted representations. This resulted in 967 representations. In addition, 31 group representation (Appendix 25) forms were signed by 3,330 individuals*17, equating to 32,416 representations.

Figure 3 below shows the breakdown of respondents by type. In total there were 33,383 representations from 3567 unique individuals:

Representations Individuals

Organisations 611 92 Residents 356 169 Groups 32,416 3330 (31 groups) Figure 3 Representations Please note: for the purpose of the Feedback Report an organisation includes statutory organisations, developers, community groups etc. Residents represent themselves and groups represent a number of individuals.

The local planning authority is also required, under regulation 22 (1) (d), to submit copies of any representations made during the pre-submission consultation to the Secretary of State. Copies of all representations received are published in a separate report: The Report of Representations. This will be submitted as part of the submission documentation. In addition, all representations have been made available to view on the council’s online consultation portal http://onecorestrategyng.limehouse.co.uk

The majority of representations received did not lead to any changes being proposed to the Plan. The consultation has raised no issues that merit delay in progressing to Submission. Following the consultation, a number of changes have been made to the Submission Document. These include minor changes to improve clarity and understanding of the document, and to improve consistency. These proposed changes are considered to be minor in nature and do not alter the overall substance of the Plan. The Schedule of Proposed Changes should be read alongside this report.

* 4035 signatures were received, however 705 of these were discounted as they were not duly made.

13 | Page

174 23 representations (Appendix 26) were not duly made, as they were submitted to Gateshead and Newcastle Council after the consultation period. The Councils have agreed that these will still be submitted to the Secretary of State but clearly identified as being received out with the statutory consultation period. It will therefore be a matter for the Inspector to decide whether these are considered.

14 | Page

175 Summary of Representations made by Policy

The following section of this report sets out a summary of the main issues raised by representation that were duly made. The summary is set out under the headings of the Plan.

Section 1 - Introduction

Plan period

Organisations

Developers and house builders questioned the Plan period. They consider that it is contrary to national policy and should be extended to 2034.

Consultation and Engagement

Residents

Some residents consider that the Plan has not been positively prepared as consultation has been inadequate. Residents comment that they were not aware of the Plan’s proposals and the terminology was difficult to understand. They consider that the views of the public have not been taken into account and they should have been consulted on the Strategic Land Review and Green Belt Assessment and detailed site and infrastructure plans. Some residents consider that there was insufficient time for comments to be submitted.

Groups

There was concern from residents groups that previous comments have been ignored or people have been unaware of the process, which in itself was considered to be overly complex. Residents of Aged Miners Homes, O’Leary Group, Smith Group consider there was a lack of notification regarding this and previous rounds of consultation and the format of the representation form was inadequate. There is concern that residents have not been adequately engaged, or consulted at the earliest opportunity. The Valley Dene Residents Group is concerned that residents in Chopwell were not aware of the consultation and have been misled. Newcastle West Green Belt Group considers that the Plan is unsound as the Green Belt Review was not consulted on prior to the statutory consultation stage.

Organisations

Barclays Bank expressed concern about the lack of notification regarding the statutory consultation.

Evidence

Residents

Residents consider that the Plan is unsound as it is not justified or positively prepared. Residents are concerned that some evidence was not available during the statutory consultation, and some has not yet been undertaken or completed, for example an

15 | Page

176 environmental assessment of the plan and the proposal to develop on Green Belt land West of Newcastle. They also consider that the population and economic projection are inaccurate and the Strategic Land Review and Green Belt Assessment is flawed.

Organisations

Sport England raised concern that the evidence base is incomplete, and that the plan is therefore not adequately informed regarding the need for additional sport facilities. Natural England noted that the Habitats Regulations Assessment has not been updated since 2011 and therefore the Plan is not compliant with Regulation 102 of the Habitats Regulations.

Duty to Co-Operate

Residents

It is considered that the population and migration assumptions are not aligned between the 7 Local Authorities and therefore the duty to cooperate has not been complied with.

Groups

Smith, Silence, Barwick-Bell and Crawcrook and Greenside Local Environment Groups consider the Plan is unsound as there are inaccuracies and inconsistencies with the evidence base. They consider that the methodology for assessing the sites and the population projections are flawed.

Organisations

There is support for the approach to Duty to Co-operate and the commitment from Newcastle and Gateshead Councils to engage with neighbouring authorities and organisations. However, further evidence and clarification is requested from house builders regarding the level of cooperation that has occurred and the issues which have been discussed. There is some concern from CPRE and Home Builders Federation that there is a lack of high level agreement on strategic issues, particularly population growth and the distribution of new housing, which could result in double counting. Northumbrian Water Ltd suggest that the Memorandum of Understanding should be extended to agree a catchment wide approach to surface water reduction to the Howdon Sewage Treatment Works system.

Section 2 - Spatial Vision and Strategy

Vision Statement

Residents

Residents consider that the vision statement should emphasise making better use of existing housing stock.

Organisations

The vision statement is generally supported and considered to be a sound approach, particularly the aim to increase population and build 30,000 new homes. The approach to

16 | Page

177 the Neighbourhoods and the Rural and Villages Area is supported generally. It is suggested that greater emphasis should be placed on the need to reduce out-migration to surrounding areas, and that perhaps a sub-regional vision would be more appropriate with regard to housing and employment land so as to avoid double counting.

English Heritage welcomes the recognition given to the historic environment at the beginning of the Plan. The Spatial Vision should more explicitly reflect the Vision as outlines in the Bridging Document.

Strategic Objective

Residents

No representations were made.

Organisations

There is support for the strategic objectives which are felt to be legally compliant and sound, with reference to SO1, SO2, SO6 and SO9 specifically. There is a concern that Village Growth Areas are not referred to and that a new objective should be included on this basis.

CS1 Spatial Strategy for Sustainable Growth

Residents

Residents generally do not support the Plans strategy for housing growth. There is some support for growth and utilisation of brownfield sites, but the majority of representations expressed concern with the revisions to the Green Belt.

Residents consider that the approach to revising the Green Belt (CS1 (7)) is inconsistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and unjustified. It is considered that the population and economic projections that justify the strategy are flawed and brownfield sites should be prioritised. There is concern that the proposed level of development will have an impact on wildlife, result in a loss of agricultural land and countryside, increase flood risk, result in congestion, increase CO2 emissions and change the character of the area. Residents deem the proposed boundaries are not defensible and will result in more development in the future.

Residents believe that the allocation of sites in the Green belt will stall regeneration and the reuse of empty properties. They question the process for identifying and assessing sites, as a number of underused green spaces have not been considered. It is argued that Green Belt sites should be identified as safeguarded and only brought forward after brownfield sites have been developed.

Residents are concerned regarding the proposed bridge and road proposal and seek further clarification. They consider there is no justification for a new road through the Green Belt.

17 | Page

178 Groups

Resident groups believe the policy and approach to be unsound due to the lack of justification for building in unsustainable locations in the Green Belt. They deem that there is no exceptional circumstance to alter the boundary and the evidence, specifically the population presumptions, is inaccurate and flawed. STOP group considers that the proposed housing supply represents an oversupply. Newcastle West Green Belt Campaign believe that the housing does not reflect the demand, brownfield development should be prioritised and the strategy doesn’t accord with NPPF.

Groups oppose development in Neighbourhood and Village Growth Area. Calpine considers the allocations conflicts with other policies. Barwick-Bell group believe development will impact on the historic character. Oliver and Taylor group consider development will have an impact on existing infrastructure and impact the health and wellbeing of residents.

Organisations

There is general support for the positive approach in CS1 which is considered to be positively prepared, justified and effective. There is particular support for the presumption in favour of sustainable development, the prioritisation of the Urban Core for major development and the promotion of sustainable neighbourhoods and villages.

Developers are concerned that the housing target of 30,000 should not be a limit. Taylor Wimpey request the policy is amended to make clear that provision is a target to be exceeded. Newcastle Great Park Consortium, Glade dale and Persimmon Homes and Charles Church consider that the proposed number of new dwellings is on the low end of acceptable and therefore it is critical that it can be demonstrated that all the sites are demonstrated to be deliverable and flexible. The House Builders Federation supports the strategy but request that the Councils demonstrate that the sites are deliverable.

Additional clarification is sought on the relationship between the St Chads Economic Projections report and the final housing numbers. Sunderland City Council considers the level of new housing to be appropriate.

Hammerson generally supports CS1 but is concerned that the policy criteria 3 seeks to promote retail within the Urban Core which comprises a greater area than the Primary Shopping Area. Dysart Developments is concerned that 60% of Newcastle’s employment supply is to be allocated at Newcastle Airport.

The approach to redefining the Green Belt boundary and the exceptional circumstance was broadly supported by developers and landowners. Northumbria University, Gladedale Estates, Miller Homes and Storey Homes however, requested that a full Green Belt review should be undertaken to identify additional land to be safeguarded for development beyond the plan period and to provide a buffer of sites to allow for under delivery. Miller and Storey Homes consider the policy is inflexible and should include allocation of safeguarded land and /or mechanisms for early review. David Wilson Homes object to Part 7 of the policy consider that it should be reworded to ensure that it is clear that Green Belt boundaries are being altered not only to allocate land but where it has been deemed no longer appropriate to keep permanently open.

18 | Page

179

Landowners including Trustees of Townley Estates, Mr Proud and Northumbria University consider that the strategy has not been positively prepared as their sites should also be removed from the Green Belt and allocated. David Wilson Homes support the removal of land south of Rotary Way in North Brunton from the Green Belt. Northumbria University consider the decision not to include any safeguarded land within the proposed Green Belt releases are insufficiently flexible in terms of enabling the policies of the Plan to respond to changing circumstances within and beyond the planning period.

Onsite, Katherine McConnell MP and CPRE are concerned that development in the Neighbourhood and Village Growth Areas will undermine urban regeneration and result in sprawl and coalescence in locations. They are concerned that the sites are too far removed from local facilities and development will result in a loss of open space, increased congestion and a reduced quality of life. The Garden Centre Group consider that brownfield land should be prioritised, and there should be targets for brownfield sites before other sites are developed. CPRE consider the presumption to be double counting due to lack of cross-authority co-operation.

The Highways Agency has advised that the plan is unsound, not effective or sufficiently justified and they need to discuss the adequacies of the evidence base with the Councils to assess the cumulative impact of development on the Strategic Road Network. English Heritage welcomes the recognition given to the historic environment at the beginning of the Plan. However, the specific reference in CS2 to the need for development to promote local distinctiveness which sustains and enhances the historic environment, should be included into the overarching policy CS1. Age Friendly Cities and the Elders Council request that the policy should contain more detail on age-friendly provision and the ageing population.

Community groups Cities for People and Save Gosforth Wildlife objects to Policy CS1 on the grounds that the level of housing growth is not justified or supported by evidence brownfield land should be prioritised and there will be an adverse impact on the environment.

UK Coal consider the policy to be inconsistent with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which states it is essential that there is a sufficient supply of material to provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy and goods that the country needs.

CS2 Spatial Strategy for the Urban Core

Residents

There is concern regarding the demand for new office accommodation, given the unused capacity currently available.

Groups

Ryton Green belt Protection Group states that more homes should be provided in the Urban Core, including the reuse of redundant spaces above shops.

19 | Page

180 Organisations

There is support for this policy which is considered to be generally sound. Persimmon Homes and Charles Church consider The Exemplar Neighbourhood to be a sustainable regeneration allocation. The House Builders Federation supports the strategy but request that the Councils demonstrate that the sites are deliverable.

Peer Group are concerned that the policy needs to maintain and enhance the vitality and viability of the existing retail centre in Newcastle, including Eldon Garden, prior to major new retail development coming forward. Intu question that the retail capacity figure of 50,000sqm, and the assumptions behind it, and believe the figure should be referred to in supporting text only to allow flexibility. Jomast Developments are concerned that Scottish Life House offices in Newcastle is not identified as a key site.

CPRE supports the commitment to develop East Pilgrim Street, but express concern regarding the proposed excessive provision of 380,000sqm of office development. The Theatres Trust while supportive point to a lack of clarity over whether existing leisure, culture and tourism facilities are to be protected and available for enhancement.

CS3 Spatial Strategy for the Neighbourhood Area

Residents

Many residents object to the identification of growth in Neighbourhood Growth Areas. They consider the approach to be unjustified and challenge the economic and population projections. They are concerned that development will result in neighbourhoods merging and will have a significant cumulative impact on the Neighbourhood Area.

Groups

Resident Groups object to the scale of housing provision not being objectively assessed which will undermine the areas character and distinctiveness. Newcastle West Green Belt Group believes the development in the Neighbourhood Area is unnecessary and the Masterplan will be prepared with commercial interests instead of communities.

Organisations

There is general support for the policy and the identification of Neighbourhood Growth Areas at Callerton, Dunston Hill, Kingston Park/Kenton Bank Foot and Newcastle Great Park, and Areas of Change at Newburn and Metrogreen. There is support for the requirements of the policy which will assist in prioritising regeneration in Opportunity Areas.

There is concern from house builders including Northumberland Estates, Barratt and Taylor Wimpey that the policy is too restrictive in terms of growth sites being subject to a masterplan (4(1)) and a 5 year land supply test (4(2)). This is considered not to be a sound approach as it does not accord with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development. Greater guidance is sought from landowners and developers including Newcastle Great Park Consortium and Persimmon-Charles Church on both these aspects of the policy.

20 | Page

181 Persimmon Homes and Charles Church challenge the justification for the removal of Salters Lane as a Neighbourhood Growth Area. They consider that there has been inconsistencies in the SLR in terms of scoring and how sites were assessed together. Onsite request that Areas of Change come forward before Neighbourhood Growth Areas. Shepherd Offshore are concerned that there are a number of issues that will need to be addressed in the later allocations documents, particularly roles, and infrastructure necessary to deliver the strategic aims.

Developer and landowners consider that the housing target should be increased. Several landowners including Gladedale Estates, Northumbrian Water Ltd, Mr Arthur, and Northumbria University, Trustees of the Townley, The Garden Centre Group and Commercial Estates argue that their sites should be allocated in the Plan. The House Builders Federation supports the strategy but request that the Councils demonstrate that the sites are deliverable.

CPRE state that there should be a commitment to developing previously developed land before development in the growth areas. The Elders Council request that the needs of an ageing population are adequately catered for. Cities for People Objects to Policy CS3 on the grounds that the provision of 21,900 new homes in Neighbourhood Areas is unnecessary and does not reflect an objective assessment of need, the negative impacts on place making and master plans should not be left to developers to prepare because they will be driven by commercial interests rather than the interests of the communities.

Sainsbury’s request that their site and land adjacent at Team Valley should be excluded from the Key Employment Area. The Highways Agency has advised that the plan is unsound, not effective or sufficiently justified and they need to discuss the adequacies of the evidence base with the Councils to assess the cumulative impact of development on the Strategic Road Network.

CS4 Spatial Strategy for the Rural and Village Area

Residents

Residents mainly object to the identification of Village Growth Areas for development. They are concerned that the scale of development will change the character of the villages and do not meet local needs. Residents believe that there is no exceptional circumstance and the evidence supporting the Green Belt assessment is flawed.

Groups

Newcastle West Green Belt Protection Campaign considers the sites are in unsustainable locations; the scale of development is excessive; does not reflect an objective assessment of need and does not reflect local needs or views and request that masterplans should be in accordance with Neighbourhood Plans and investment in infrastructure should be a priority. Crawcrook and Greenside Local Environment Group believes that development will diminish the rural setting and the SA fails to reflect this. Taylor Group and STOP Group believe that the strategy does not meet the local needs of the communities.

21 | Page

182 Organisations

There is general support from organisations. They consider the approach to be sound and support the allocation of Village Growth Area and the identification of the need for 4,350 homes in the Rural and Villages Area. The House Builders Federation supports the strategy but request that the Councils demonstrate that the sites are deliverable.

Developers including Greenwich Hospital Estate, Messers Willey and Avant Homes consider that the housing targets should be increased to support sustainability of villages. Miller Homes, Storey Homes and Taylor Wimpey consider that Bullet (ii) (Green Belt sites being subject to 5 year land supply shortfall) is unclear, inflexible and does not accord with the NPPF. There should be reference to a 5%/20% buffer. Persimmon Homes and Charles Church seek clarification on the approach to masterplans. CPRE believe that the proposals will spoil the countryside and bullet (ii) should be enforced.

Several landowners including Mr Proud, Trustees of the Townley, Ms Law, Banks Property Ltd and Northumberland Estates consider that their sites should be allocated in the Plan. Dysart Developments Ltd believe that Land south of Callerton Parkway has capacity for sustainable economic uses and should be preferred to the proposed sites at the airport.

Cities for People Objects to CS4 on the grounds that the provision of 4,350 new homes in Rural and Village Areas is unnecessary and does not reflect an objective assessment of need. Master plans should not be left to developers to prepare because they will be driven by commercial interests rather than the interests of the communities. Redscape objects to the spatial strategy for the village and rural area on the grounds of inadequate justification for Green Belt release in the locations proposed.

Section 3 - Strategic Policies

CS5 Employment and Economic Growth Priorities

Residents

No representations were made on the soundness of the policy, however a resident requested that recycling should be considered as an area for employment.

Organisations

Policy is broadly supported. Jomast Developers, Durham Country Council and Newcastle International Airport Ltd generally support the economic prioritises. Persimmon Homes and Charles Church support the airport being recognised as a key economic driver. In regards to locations for economic development, Dysart Developments Ltd consider that Callerton Parkway has capacity for sustainable economic uses and should be preferred to allocated sites at the airport.

Garden Centre Group welcome the recognition of the role of leisure and tourism in the rural area. Sainsbury’s consider that the policy fails to recognise that the employment opportunities which can be provided by a range of facilities in accessible locations, such as retail provision at Team Valley.

22 | Page

183 Hammerson request that Criterion (2ii) should be clarified as to where within the Urban Core retail will be focused. The Highways Agency has advised that the plan is unsound, not effective or sufficiently justified and they need to discuss the adequacies of the evidence base with the Councils to assess the cumulative impact of development on the Strategic Road Network.

Newcastle Green Party objects to the policy with regard to unjustified proposals for further retail and commercial development and believe that the jobs created will not benefit the unemployed.

CS6 Employment Land

Residents

No representations were made on the soundness of the policy, however a residents is concerned about the provision for new office accommodation, given the unused capacity currently available.

Organisations

There is support for capacity for new office provision being identified at Team Valley, Newcastle Airport and Metrogreen. There is concern from British Airways that the policy constrains the capacity for potential expansion of Newcastle Business Park. Dysart Developments question where the additional employment uses would be accommodated to achieve the higher take-up rate of 240 hectares, given that the plan only makes provision for the minimum 150 hectares. The Highways Agency has advised that the plan is unsound, not effective or sufficiently justified and they need to discuss the adequacies of the evidence base with the Councils to assess the cumulative impact of development on the Strategic Road Network.

CS7 Retail and Centres

Residents

No representations were made on the soundness of the policy; however a resident suggested that the policy should include Elswick Road with Westgate Road as a Local Centre.

Organisations

There was general support for the policy and the identification various District Centres. There is some concern about the express presumption against retail development outside defined centres in the retail hierarchy as this is inconsistent with NPPF.

In relation to the Urban Core, Hammerson’s generally support the policy but are concerned there is ambiguity regarding the definition of centres. Peer Group is concerned that the existing retail centre in Newcastle should be enhanced prior to any major retail development being brought forward. It is not considered that 50,000 square metres of retail would enhance the centre in the current climate.

23 | Page

184 Intu and Sainsbury’s object to the threshold of 280 square metres for assessing impacts on existing centres as there is no evidence to support this restrictive approach. Igloo considered that this policy does not promote mixed use communities and contradicts other policies in the Plan which promote mixed use development.

The Universities Superannuation Scheme considers that development outside centres is inconsistent with the NPPF and the positive approach to the Metrocentre is not justified. Intu welcome the commitment to supporting and sustaining the role of the Metrocentre.

CS8 Leisure, Culture and Tourism

Residents

No representations were made on the soundness of the policy. However a resident seeks the policy to generate new, innovative, positive ideas.

Organisations

There is support for the policy. Intu consider that the Metrocentre should be included as and accessible location for leisure, culture and tourism uses. The Theatres Trust outline that existing facilities should be protected and enhanced.

CS9 Existing Communities

Residents

No representations made.

Groups

Crawcrook and Greenside Local Environment Group objects to any development in Crawcrook.

Organisations

Igloo and Persimmon and Charles Church support for this policy as the most sustainable place for growth. Northumbria University would like Bullock Steads to be included as an allocation for housing and some housing development should be promoted in Greenside. It is argued that locally set brownfield targets should be included.

CS10 Delivering New Homes

Residents

Residents consider the economic, population and housing growth projections to be flawed and therefore the housing requirement should be reduced.

24 | Page

185 Groups

STOP and Newcastle West Campaign considers that the provision of 30,000 new homes is unnecessary as the population projections are based on ‘predict and provide’. Oliver Group considers the economic and population projections to be flawed.

Organisations

Developers, Landowners and Northumberland Water support the identified housing requirements. Various developers consider that a reference should be made to a minimum annual target of 1,500 new homes. Persimmon Homes and Charles Church support the proposed housing requirement; they consider the housing to be aspiration yet realistic target. However, they go on to state that if it is realistic then the build rate should be increased in early in the plan period.

The House Builder Federation support the proposed housing requirement and the approach to increasing build rates are considered an aspirational yet realistic target. Many of the house builders and landowners, who submitted representation, consider that the provision of 30,000 new homes is a target to be exceeded and therefore this figure should be a minimum. Northumberland Estates consider the target of 850 homes per annum for Newcastle is at the lower end of a range of possible scenarios and a figure of at least 1,225 new homes per annum would be more appropriate. Barratt David Wilson Homes and Taylor Wimpey have expressed concern about the timeframe and phasing of the housing land supply and particularly in the early years.

Barratt David Wilson Homes and other landowners consider the plan period should be from 2014 and 2034 and therefore, Figure 10.2 should be based on a 2014 adoption. Several developers consider that further work should be done to support the housing target as it is considered low and that there needs to be triggers for a review of the plan if a higher build rate is achieved.

There is concern that the annual development rates in the early stages of the plan cannot be justified and there has not been positive planning. Additionally, there should not be a breakdown of how many homes are expected from different areas. Avant Homes consider the evidence base contradicts the housing numbers in the policy and housing and population evidence is flawed.

Storey Homes consider that enough housing sites are not identified in Newcastle in the first 5 years and the plan is unsound. Northumbria University state that if the housing numbers are increased then Bullock Steads should be the preferred site, alternatively it should be identified as safeguarded land.

Cities for People objects to Policy CS10 on the grounds that the provision of 30,000 new homes (including 19,000 in Newcastle) is unnecessary, unsustainable and does not reflect an objective assessment of need. There is a lack of capacity in 'sustainable locations'. The Plan will result in piecemeal development largely on green belt release sites. CPRE not convinced that the level of proposed housing is needed and there has been double counting in population growth.

25 | Page

186

CS11 Providing a range and choice of housing

Residents

Some residents question the emphasis on larger homes. The provision for social and affordable housing is deemed to be inadequate. One resident requests that there should be more purpose built student accommodation to aid regeneration in the west end. Some Residents consider Lifetime Homes should be required rather than encouraged.

Groups

Taylor and Crawcrook and Greenside Local Environment Group oppose any development as it does not meet local needs.

Organisations

There is some support for the overarching aim of the policy. However, some developers have commented that there is a need for flexibility in requiring 60% of new homes to be 3 bedrooms or more. This should not be required on every site. Developers have said that this requirement is inflexible and not based on robust evidence. They feel level of family housing should not be prescriptively set but should adapt to meet market requirements. The 60% requirement for larger family housing is not considered to be justified in terms of evidence or delivery. Also the requirement for Wheelchair Accessible Homes is voluntary and should not be a standard.

The House Builders Federation consider the policy requirement is sound but that elements of the policy could place a significant burden on the development industry particularly with regard to Lifetime Homes, Wheelchair Accessible Homes and space standards. These requirements would be contrary to the effective delivery of the plan. The policy requirement of 15% affordable housing should be applied flexibly and not across the whole plan area. Northumberland Estates consider that there has been significant over provision of smaller homes in recent years and that more than 60% of new homes should be 3 or 4+ beds. They have also said that the tenure mix of 75% subsidised rent for affordable homes is too high and does not reflect the need to improve access to owner occupation through a greater focus on provision of intermediate affordable homes.

Some developers consider the requirement for 15% affordable housing does not reflect provision in the NPPF for off-site provision of affordable homes or a financial contribution. The view is expressed that this figure should be a target and Taylor Wimpey, Persimmon Homes and Charles Church, Greenwich Hospital Estate, Bellway Homes, Miller Homes, Barratt David Wilson North East and Storey Homes say development viability should be taken into account. Persimmon Homes and Charles Church consider the provision of adequate space outside homes should not be turned into a prescriptive requirement as it would stifle innovation and add to development costs. They also recommend that the 2 bed percentage of 30% is too high and should be reduced to around 20% with re-provision in 3 and 4 bed units.

26 | Page

187 Age Friendly City Group outline that there is not clarity on how the aspirations of the policy will be delivered and the Elders Council state that the policy does not promote an adequate range of housing for the needs of the aging population requiring Lifetime Homes.

McCarthy and Stone Retirement Homes Lifestyles commend the Councils for taking a positive approach in seeking to provide appropriate accommodation to meet the needs of the aging population. Northumbrian Water considers that the policy should be implemented flexibly and subject to assessment of up to date needs in order to minimise any potential threat to the viability of specific developments.

CS12 Gypsies, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople

Residents

There was a view from one resident that additional sites for gypsies, traveller and travelling show people are not justified. Whereas, another resident considers that the Plan fails to make provision in the form of sites or locations in order to meet these needs.

Organisations

No representations made.

CS13 Transport

Residents

Residents are concerned about the impact the strategy will have on the existing transport network. They are particularly concerned that growth will result in increased congestion, especially in Neighbourhood and Village Growth Areas. Residents consider that the Plan does not make sufficient effort to promote public transport. However a resident considers that priority public transport over the car cannot be justified and the Plan should ensure the free movement of vehicles, including a new access to the Metrocentre from Newcastle and expansion of the Metro.

Groups

Newcastle West Green Belt Protection Campaign, Cities for People and the Tyne and Wear Public Transport Users Group consider there should be further clarification on point 1 (i) to ensure there is good public transport access for the over 65s and to provide access to jobs. They also comment point 2 (i) fails to set out how acceptable impact will be assessed. The group consider that there is inconsistency between the plan strategy and the Infrastructure Delivery Plan, the report on the new road through the Green Belt suggests that all five routes will cause habitat connectivity severances with potential impact on protected species. Point 2 (iii) should acknowledge the importance of opening up the railway lines in promoting job mobility. In point 2 (iv) there is no reference to balancing additional road capacity with environmental impacts. In point 3 the admission that the plan will increase the demand for car use is not in conformity with the Local Transport Plan 3 Strategy 2011-21. The plan is also considered to be unsound as it increases the demand for travel by focusing development at the periphery of the City where public transport services are difficult to sustain. Core Area Residents, Oliver Group and Crawcrook and Greenside Local

27 | Page

188 Environment Group are concerned that development in the Green Belt will result in unsustainable public transport linkages.

Organisations

The organisations who submitted representation generally support the approach. The Highways Agency has advised that the plan is unsound, not effective or sufficiently justified and they need to discuss the adequacies of the evidence base with the Councils to assess the cumulative impact of development on the Strategic Road Network.

Nexus support the policy in promoting sustainable growth and have undertaken feasibility studies to identify corridor extensions to the Metro including Newcastle City Centre to the west and Newcastle/Gateshead to Team Valley and the Metrocentre. There is also potential for the Metro to be extended to Middle and Upper Callerton.

Nexus support Park and Ride and consider that the merits of Park and Ride to the west should be investigated. Nexus are concerned about the long term use of the High Level Bridge and endorse the possibility of an additional multi modal river crossing. The Integrated Transport Authority welcomes the reference to the Third Local Transport Plan and support the aims of encouraging sustainable travel. NECTAR welcome the intention to implement a robust sustainable transport and active travel policy.

CPRE state that point D 3 (vii) should be clear that it refers to cycling throughout the plan area and cycling facilities should be referred to in every development. Durham County Council supports the transport policies to develop in sustainable locations accessible by a choice of transport modes. The Better Bus Area Fund is complementary to the Durham improvement programme and the Council would welcome further discussions about development of the Great North Cycle Way.

Newcastle International Airport express concern about highway capacity restrictions and request that cumulative capacity modelling is carried out for housing development. The identification of the access road is broadly accepted together with the principle of an additional road through the airport. However, there is concern about the viability of the road and how it will be funded.

The British Motorcyclists Federation consider that reference should be made to the promotion of powered two wheelers as a means of reducing congestion and damage to the environment. The British Horse Society considers that the terminology is vague and the text should state that bridleways need to be protected and enhanced. The Elders Council consider the policy should make more detailed reference to public transport provision.

Persimmon Homes and Charles Church, and Avant Homes support the transport policy. Avant Homes and Mr Willey a landowner would like it to reflect the different challenges faced by the rural and village areas. Banks Property considers Figure 11 fails to identify the strategic need for a bypass around the village of Sunniside and that the plan is therefore ineffective as it does not seek to mitigate impacts where possible. Igloo Regeneration commented that a minimum standard of cycle parking in the Urban Core needs to be set.

28 | Page

189 CS14 Wellbeing and Health

Residents

A resident is concerned that there are no policies which address good housing design, standards and amenity issues. Some residents consider that development of Green Belt land will undermine health and wellbeing through the removal of open space, increased noise and emissions, inadequate access to jobs and local medical services and a Habitat Impact Assessment should be required to assess the impact of development at this site. There is concern that the policy will not benefit vulnerable or disadvantaged residents. The approach of promoting allotments and restricting access fast food outlets is questioned as it could limit employment opportunities.

Groups

STOP Group considered that development at Throckley will have a detrimental impact on the health and wellbeing of residents.

Organisations

CPRE and Persimmon welcome this policy. Age Friendly City Group considers the policy to be helpful but general and at this strategic level it is not clear how this will be delivered. The Elders Council request that the policy should make more detailed reference to the needs of the ageing population and promote healthy ageing. Sport England is broadly supportive but requests a specific link between health and wellbeing and access to sports facilities as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. The Coal Authority consider there should be due consideration to ground stability.

CS15 Place Making

Residents

A resident suggested that “Preserve or enhance” should replace “Respect and enhance” in bullet (1 iv), as heritage features have not been sufficiently respected in Newcastle. There is concern that proposed housing development could undermine amenity and views of the Derwent Valley, and the setting of the Hadrian Wall World Heritage Site.

Organisations

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds consider that the policy is inconsistent with national policy and that the policy should make reference to building design and how this can incorporate features that would enhance and conserve the biodiversity of the area. English Heritage welcomes the policy for the conservation, enhancement and enjoyment of the historic environment that are clearly identified as strategic.

Northumbria Water, Persimmon Homes and Charles Church support the principles of the policy. Taylor Wimpey are concerned that this policy places additional costs on development and does not recognise viability constraints. Onsite consider the policy is not consistent with national policy as it is inflexible and makes no reference to viability.

29 | Page

190 Groups

STOP Group, Newcastle West Green Belt Protection Campaign and Cities for People state that this policy is in conflict with other policies in the plan. Proposed development in the west of Newcastle will have an adverse impact on the on the character of villages and views, will impair rural, cultural and historic assets and result in light pollution. Proposals brought forward should demonstrate how village identity, character and sense of place will be preserved. Taylor Group object to the policy on the grounds that the proposed housing development would not respect or enhance significant views of the Derwent Valley.

CS16 Climate Change

Residents

Groups

Newcastle West Green Belt Protection Campaign considers that there are no robust policies in the Plan which will ensure reduced carbon emissions (above that required by national regulation). There is no recognition in the Policy that land use planning and transport plays a role in CO2 reduction. STOP group believe that development at Throckley will counter-act the proposals to address climate change. Crawcrook and Greenside Local Environment Group object to development at Crawcrook on the grounds that it will increase the impact of climate change.

Organisations

The policy was considered generally sound by organisations. Northumbria Water Ltd and House builders including, Taylor Wimpey, Barratt David Wilson Homes, Bellway Homes, Miller Homes and Storey Homes are concerned that the policy places additional costs on development and does not recognise viability as a constraint. It is recommended that the policy is kept under constant review to take into consideration national standards and amended to be more flexible. The requirement to submit a sustainability statement is supported. The House Builder Federation considers this policy to be unsound as it places additional costs on development in terms of viability.

Cities for People consider that there are no robust policies in the Plan which will ensure reduced carbon and there is no recognition in the Policy that land use planning and transport plays a role in CO2 reduction.

CS17 Flood Risk and Water Management

Residents

Residents are not concerned that there is no planning for the expansion both of flood defences and capacity at Howdon Sewage Treatment works, nor are there any risk assessments for water supply, waste water and surface ware for 100 years ahead or more. There is a concern that proposed housing development will increase the risk of and to flood risk – proposed attenuation ponds on housing sites at Ryton will not manage surface water run off effectively.

30 | Page

191 Groups

STOP group believe that the removal of natural drainage will increase flood risk.

Organisations

Northumbria Water Ltd and Environment Agency support the inclusion of this policy and the recognition that development will avoid and manage flood risk from all sources. The Environment Agency considered that the policy should ensure that development seeks to improve water quality and use methods to tackle urban diffuse pollution. Newcastle International Airport Ltd made representations that development of SuDS should make reference to the airports safeguarding policy. Newcastle University request that the supporting text (paragraph 12.3) recognises the wider water collection area.

Community groups, particularly Newcastle Green Party consider that the aims of this policy are undermined by development of Neighbourhood and Village Growth Areas which will exacerbate flooding.

CS18 Green Infrastructure and the Natural Environment

Residents

The Plan is considered unsound by some residents as the protection of wildlife and habitats has not been given enough consideration. There is support for the strategy’s approach to environmental conservation and enhancement and the identification of a green infrastructure network (underpinned by a sustainability appraisal and Habitat Regulation Assessment). There is concern that development at Lower Callerton would cut off the wildlife and green space corridor that runs to the west of North Walbottle Road. There is however, support for the enhancement and protection of wildlife corridors.

Groups

Groups including Oliver, STOP and Crawcrook and Green Local Environment Group are concerned that development will result in a loss of open space, countryside, village greens and woodlands.

Organisations

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds consider that this policy should refer to the protection and recovery of priority species populations where species in decline do not yet have a biodiversity plan. Northumberland Wildlife Trust consider that the plan is contrary to national policy as a large proportion of the proposed housing development is to take place within the identified green infrastructure network. Natural History society supports the development of the Green Infrastructure Network and wildlife corridors.

31 | Page

192 CS19 Green Belt

Residents

There is a strong objection from the majority of residents to the alternation of Green Belt boundary for Neighbourhood and Village Growth Areas as this fails to accord with national policy. There is concern that the proposed housing development at Ryton will create sprawl, coalescence and will undermine urban regeneration and recycling of brownfield land. They consider that the assessment of sites has been flawed and more suitable locations in East Gateshead have not been identified. Residents consider there are no exceptional circumstances for the removal of land from the Green Belt; the Plan is not consistent with the NPPF, and the current boundary is correct and justified. The approach has been to identify sites for development, and not a full review, and therefore the proposed boundaries are not defensible. There is concern that the proposed development at Callerton (and possible expansion beyond the plan period) coalesces towards Ponteland.

Organisations

Taylor Wimpey objects to the wording of the policy and seek that it should be re-worded to ensure that it is clear that the Green Belt boundary has been altered not only to allocate land for new development but also where it is deemed no longer appropriate. House builders Avant Home, Bellway Homes and Northumberland Estates consider policy is unsound as it is inconsistent with national policy in terms of safeguarding land beyond the Plan period. Greenwich Hospital Estates welcome the revised boundary however the policy should consider the boundaries and their intended permanence in the long term.

Dysart Development Ltd, challenged designated boundaries particularly at Callerton Parkway, and its function. Newcastle Airport supports the future protection of the Green Belt.

Dinnington Parish Council considers that the policy fails to meet the test of soundness, in terms of being positively prepared, effective or consistent with national policy. Dinnington Parish Council wants the policy to stipulate that the green field sites should only be developed when brownfield sites have been utilised.

Cities for People consider that the policy fails to achieve its stated aim of protecting Green Belt land in accordance with national guidance and the exceptional circumstances have not been demonstrated. Natural History Society of Northumbria are concerned with the security of the Green Belt beyond the short term.

Groups

Cities for people, Oliver Group, Ryton Green Belt Protection Group and Newcastle West Green Belt Protection Campaign consider that the policy fails to meet the test of soundness, in terms of being positively prepared, effective or consistent with national policy. They consider that this policy fails to meet these tests as the designated Green Belt boundary was not consulted on until the submission stage, does not use clear and existing natural features or set the exception circumstances for revisions.

32 | Page

193

CS20 Minerals

Residents

Residents consider the policy should protect development in close proximity to landfill sites and request the policy is amended to ensure that no landfill sites are within 2 miles of housing. There is concern over location of proposed housing to existing landfill sites and contamination of groundwater, particular in Path Head, Ryton, Blaydon Quarry and Chopwell.

Organisations

Persimmon Homes and Charles Church consider that the policy fails to meet the test of soundness as criterion 3 places unnecessary burden and therefore could impact viability and delivery. UK Coal request specific reference in the policy to energy minerals. They consider that the policy is not consistent with NPPF as it does not identify areas where coal extraction would be acceptable.

The Minerals Products Association is concerned about the lack of reference to the local aggregates assessment and the need for more resources to be made available. The Plan should include areas of search and more detail to the approach to safeguarding boundaries. They also question the threshold for prior extraction. The confederation of UK Coal Producers request that criterion 1 of the policy is amended to make reference to all minerals. Durham County Council welcomes the reference to Birtley and Lamesley as mineral sites.

CS21 Waste

Residents

Residents consider that this policy should provide effective protection for residents living near to sites identified as potential landfill sites. There is concern about the location of proposed housing and their proximity to landfill site. The European Environment Committee stated that Gateshead Council should have been aware of problems for nearby residents.

Organisations

No representations made.

Section 4 - Urban Core Policies

UC1 Office and Business Development

No representations made.

33 | Page

194 UC2 New Retail (A1) in Newcastle and Gateshead

Residents

No representations made.

Organisations

There is general support for the Primary Shopping Area boundary. However, the justification for 50,000 sqm of retail floorspace at East Pilgrim Street was challenged by Universities Superannuation Scheme and Intu. Intu request that development of East Pilgrim Street should support and complement the existing Primary Shopping Area. Therefore a sequential approach and impact assessment should be applied. Barclays Banks consider that the policy is not justified or consistent with national policy as the policy restricts the presence of significant generators of footfall such as banks which contribute to the vitality and viability of town centres.

UC3 Leisure, Culture and Tourism

Residents

One resident considers that this policy needs to be broader and include a requirement for major tourist attracts in the Urban Core.

Organisations

Developers including Igloo and Jomast Development support the policy. There is a concern that the existing river leisure route will not encourage people to walk to the Ouseburn. The Theatres Trust request that the policy is amended to ensure it enhances and protects existing leisure, culture and tourism facilities.

UC 4 Homes

Residents

Residents support the Metro in Newcastle being expanded and enhanced.

Organisations

Jomast Developments and Igloo generally support the policy approach. The Highway Agency.

UC5 Primary and Secondary Pedestrian Routes

Residents

No representations made.

34 | Page

195 Organisations

This policy is generally supported, particularly the improvements to the pedestrian environment at Barras Bridge and Percy Street. Peer Group suggests that the policy should be amended to identify Morden Street as a Main entrance to Eldon Garden Shopping Centre which connects between Percy Street and the football stadium. Living Streets consider the supporting text to the policy is weak.

UC6 Cycling

Residents

No representations made.

Organisations

UC6 is generally supported, however New Cycling and CPRE are concerned that it is unclear what is meant by ‘where appropriate’.

UC7 Public Transport

Residents

No representations made.

Organisations

Peer Group supports this policy, but seeks that public transport improvements should allow for a right turn into the Eldon Gardens Car Park.

UC8 Freight and Servicing

No representations made.

UC9 General Traffic

Residents

One resident supports the UCDR and the development of Skinnerburn Road.

Organisations

UC9 is supported. However Peer Group opposes any restriction by car from Percy Street into Eldon Square car park.

UC10 Car Parking

Residents

No representations made.

35 | Page

196

Organisations

UC10 is supported. However Peer Group opposes any restriction from Percy Street into Eldon Square car park. Newcastle Green Party objects to the vagueness of the policy.

UC11 Gateways and Arrival Points

Residents

A resident challenges the reference to ‘gateway locations’.

Organisations

UC11 is welcomed by CPRE.

UC12 Urban Design

Residents

A resident challenged the language.

Organisations

No representations made.

UC13 Respecting and Managing Views within, from and into the Urban Core

Residents

A resident considers that further standards should be included.

Organisations

No representations made.

UC14 Heritage

Residents

A resident is concerned about respecting heritage in Newcastle.

Organisations

No representations made.

UC15 Urban Green Infrastructure

36 | Page

197 Residents

No representations made.

Organisations

Igloo supports this policy.

UC16 Public Realm

Residents

A resident supported the plans for public realm improvement and would welcome St James Metro Station being turned into a public square.

Organisations

Igloo supports this policy.

Section 5 - Sub Areas and Site Specific Policies

Sub Areas, Site and Allocation

Organisations

Developers support the strategic allocation within this section of the Plan. However in regards to Neighbourhood and Village Growth Area, they reaffirmed their view that land should be safeguarded for development beyond 2030. The Environment Agency strongly support that the strategic allocations are supported by a flood risk sequential and exception test.

NC1 Newcastle Central Sub Area

Residents

A resident is concerned that redevelopment of the portico at Newcastle Central Station will conceal historic assets, obscure access, increase traffic and compromise any bid for World Heritage Status.

Organisations

NC1, is generally supported, Peer Group would request that Eldon Garden Shopping Centre is designated as Secondary Retail Frontage. Barclays Banks consider that the policy is not justified or consistent with national policy as the policy restricts the presence of significant generators of footfall such as banks which contribute to the vitality and viability of town centres.

37 | Page

198 NC2 East Pilgrim Street Key Site

Residents

No representations made.

Organisations

In regards to NC2, Barclays bank is concerned that the policy is inflexible. Intu request that development of East Pilgrim Street should support and complement the existing Primary Shopping Area. Therefore a sequential approach and impact assessment should be applied. Nexus support the incorporation on bus facilities within East Pilgrim Street. The Home Builders Federation request that this policy is applied in a flexible manner to reduce burdens on developers and ensure viability is maintained.

C1 Civic Sub-Area

Residents

No representations made.

Organisations

C1 is supported. Newcastle University request that Percy Street is included as it is an integral part of the road network.

C2 Science Central Key Site

Residents

No representations made.

Organisations

Northumbrian Water Ltd considers that there is an opportunity for the inclusion of a wide range of SuDS at Science Central. The Home Builders Federation request that this policy is applied in a flexible manner to reduce burdens on developers and ensure viability is maintained.

D1 Discovery Sub Area

Residents

Support for this policy from a resident.

Organisations

No representations made.

38 | Page

199 D2 Stephenson Quarter Key Site

Residents

No representations made.

Organisations

British Airways support the policy approach to improving connections from the Discovery Sub-Area. The Royal Mail considers the policy in unsound as it is not consistent with national guidance as the policy should protect the site from development that may adversely affect mail service.

D3 Forth Yard Development Opportunity Site

Residents

There is general support for the policy for development at Forth Yards and the creation of a conference centre is also supported.

Organisations

The allocation of Forth Yards is supported by Strawon Holding Ltd and Omnival Ltd; however they request that the policy should allocate the site as a Key Site rather than a Development Opportunity Site, given that it is a gateway location.

QO1Quayside and Ouseburn Sub Area

Residents

A resident requested that the policy should include a reference to the removal of earth fill at Ouseburn.

Organisations

The Environment Agency recognise that the site is not within a significant risk of flooding, however the policy could promote opportunities to manage water quality from new development. The Home Builders Federation request that this policy is applied in a flexible manner.

AOC1 Newburn

Residents

Resident are concerned about residential development at Newburn on the grounds that it will increase traffic, result in a loss of wildlife, impact on local amenity and increase flooding.

39 | Page

200 Organisations

The allocation of Newburn Riverside is broadly supported. Developers including Northumbria University challenge the delivery of the site, in terms of viability and timescales. Onsite consider the policy is not aligned to national policy as it offers no flexibility and is considered to be onerous. The Home Builders Federation request that this policy is applied in a flexible manner. Natural History Society of Northumbria raised their concerns that the site has valuable urban ecology and any development should be required to submit an ecological assessment. The Environment Agency request the policy recognises the opportunity to manage water quality from new development. The Highways Agency has advised that the plan is unsound, not effective or sufficiently justified and they need to discuss the adequacies of the evidence base with the Councils to assess the cumulative impact of development on the Strategic Road Network.

NN1 Lower, Middle and Upper Callerton

Residents

There is strong objection from some residents for development at Callerton, on the following grounds:

Brownfield land should be prioritised first. o There is a lack of public transport. o No need for the proposed access road (Bullet 4) and lack of justification. o Adverse impact on wildlife (bullet 9) and countryside. o Loss of agricultural land. o Adverse impact on residential amenity. o Rights of way and open space should be protected. o Coalescence of Walbottle village and Westerhope and urban sprawl. o Increase flood risk and lack of protection. o Lack of schools. o Inadequate infrastructure provision and services. o Not in accordance with national policy, particularly NPPF paragraphs 17,183 and 184. o Sterilization of coal fields. o o Bullets 7,8,9 cannot be complied with.

Groups

40 | Page

201 areas, poor public transport linkages, and impacts on traffic and roads, wildlife, green infrastructure and health and wellbeing. They state that proposals are unsustainable and would be contrary to the NPPF in terms of protecting the Green Belt (paras 70 and 83). They also state that the Great Park site provides an example of where housing growth has not led to improved public transport services.

Organisations

The Homes Builder Federation, Storey Homes, Taylor Wimpey, O’Neil Wright and Quadrinin, Bellway Homes and Northumberland Estates support the allocation of this site. They are however, concerned by the need for a masterplan and the policy requirements. It is recommended that the policy is amended to ensure that any contributions and mitigations are necessary and appropriate and the policy should be applied in a flexible manner to ensure viability. Commercial Estates Group considers the land identified as part of the SLR process between Middle and Upper Callerton should be removed from the Green Belt. They consider that the site is available, developable and deliverable.

It is considered by the house builders that the requirements for development to provide education provision will be delivered on and off site. Although Northumbria University supports the allocation at Callerton, they considered that the policy is inconsistent with national policy and unjustified as it is not the most appropriate approach to providing the objectively identified housing needs for Newcastle and therefore Bullock Steads should be included.

UK Coal consider that there is an opportunity for mineral extraction at Crescent Farm to the west of Lower Callerton, and therefore the policy should be amended to ensure that prior to development to ensure that there will be no unnecessary sterilisation of mineral resource. National Grid state they will be retaining the overhead lines in situ.

In regards to transport, the Highways Agency has advised that the plan is unsound, not effective or sufficiently justified and they need to discuss the adequacies of the evidence base with the Councils to assess the cumulative impact of development on the Strategic Road Network. The Environment Agency considers that the policy could be improved to ensure the protection of watercourses and opportunities to manage water quality from new development. The British Horse Society is concerned that any open cast development will impact on existing resident’s ability to participate in informal recreation.

Groups

Residents groups including Callerton Tenant and Residents Association and Newcastle West Green Belt Campaign consider the policy is unsound, as it is contrary to national policy, will result in urban sprawl and coalescence and there is no exceptional circumstance for altering the Green Belt boundary at Callerton. In regards to the policy requirements the residents groups consider the education provision is stretched, there is traffic congestion already which will be exacerbated, there will be an ecological impact and the link road will result in increased traffic.

41 | Page

202 NN2 Kingston Park/Kenton Bank Foot

Residents

There is strong objection from some residents for development at Kingston Park/Kenton Bank Foot, on the following grounds:

o Empty housing should be prioritised and brownfield development.

o Adverse impact on the existing road network.

o Risk of flooding.

o Inadequate foul and surface water drainage capacity.

o Inadequate infrastructure.

o Adverse impact on wildlife.

o Not in accordance with national policy, particularly NPPF paragraphs 17,183 and 184.

o Loss of existing open space.

o Increased urban sprawl.

o loss of agricultural land.

o There is no reference to school provision.

Groups

The Oliver Group object to proposed housing development at Callerton, Kingston Park/Kenton Bank Foot and Newbiggin Hall on the grounds of flawed projections, inadequate infrastructure, the failure to prioritise brownfield land, distance from employment areas, poor public transport linkages, and impacts on traffic and roads, wildlife, green infrastructure and health and wellbeing. The proposals are unsustainable and would be contrary to the NPPF in terms of protecting the Green Belt (paras 70 and 83). They also state that the Great Park site provides an example of where housing growth has not led to improved public transport services.

Organisations

Northumbria University request that Bullock Steads should accommodate additional housing at Kingston Park/Kenton Bank Foot if land is safeguarded as it is the most sustainable and appropriate land. Developers and house builders including, Mr Arthur, Taylor Wimpey and Homes Builder Federation support the allocation of this site. William Leech Investments consider that the reference to 300 units should be approximate and informed by a masterplan.

42 | Page

203

Sport England are concerned that there is no consideration as to whether sport and recreation facilities have sufficient capacity to absorb the growth being proposed. The Environment Agency considers that the policy could be improved to ensure the protection of watercourses and opportunities to manage water quality from new development. The British Horse Society is concerned that any open cast development will impact on existing resident’s ability to participate in informal recreation.

NN3 Newbiggin Hall

Residents

There is strong objection from some residents for development at Newbiggin Hall, on the following grounds:

o The policy is not considered justified. o Increased urban sprawl. o Adverse impact on the local schools provision. o Access via Etal Park is already congested and Woolsington Bypass is already busy. o Adverse impact on wildlife and loss of open space.

Organisations

William Leech strongly support this policy. It is maintained that site 4828 can be delivered in the short term to support the Plans objectives. The land owners of Land West of Pecks House Farm objects the sites in NN2 being allocated together. They consider that the individual sites are not linked in terms of phasing, access or mitigation and therefore are independent. There is concern that allocating the sites together could result in delays to delivery. The Homes Builder Federation consider that flexibility is required regarding the policy requirements identified in the policy to ensure viability.

Councillor Lower opposes proposals at Newbiggin Hall on the grounds that development would result in urban sprawl and remove open space, increase traffic on existing road network, there is inadequate infrastructure provision, inappropriate site access and impact on wildlife corridors.

The Environment Agency considers that the policy could be improved to ensure the protection of watercourses and opportunities to manage water quality from new development. In regards to transport, the Highways Agency has advised that the plan is unsound, not effective or sufficiently justified and they need to discuss the adequacies of the evidence base with the Councils to assess the cumulative impact of development on the Strategic Road Network. Sport England are concerned that there is no consideration as to whether sport and recreation facilities have sufficient capacity to absorb the growth being proposed. English Heritage is concerned that it has not been demonstrated that the significance of heritage assets that may be affected by the proposed allocation.

43 | Page

204

Groups

The Oliver Group object to proposed housing development at Callerton, Kingston Park/Kenton Bank Foot and Newbiggin Hall on the grounds of flawed projections, inadequate infrastructure, the failure to prioritise brownfield land, distance from employment areas, poor public transport linkages, and impacts on traffic and roads, wildlife, green infrastructure and health and wellbeing. They also state that the proposals are unsustainable and would be contrary to the NPPF in terms of protecting the Green Belt (paras 70 and 83). They also state that the Great Park site provides an example of where housing growth has not led to improved public transport services.

NN4 Newcastle Great Park

Residents

One resident considers that all potential development on land currently within the Green Belt should be community led rather than developer lead.

Organisations

Mr Arthur and Barratt David Wilson Homes support the allocation of the site north west of the A1. However they object to contents of the Policy as the majority of the information is contained within the development frameworks. It is not necessary if a masterplan is requested to include this in the policy. In regards to criterion 1, this is considered restrictive and each allocation should be considered on its own merits. They also state that are conflicts with policy CS11. It is therefore onerous and not effective. They state that there are inconstancies with the policy and Development Capacity Frameworks. The Homes Builder Federation consider that flexibility is required regarding the policy requirements identified in the policy to ensure viability. Newcastle Great Park Consortium also support the allocation all of the policy criteria. They also Support the removal of the site as an employment allocation, as it is recognised that the site is unlikely to come forward during the lifetime of the plan.

The Environment Agency is concerned that the Newcastle Great Park Expansion Site (NN4b) identified with Policy NN4 is predominately within Flood Zone 1 (low risk), with small margins in Flood Zone 2 (medium risk). It is considered that Policy NN4 should b amended to reflect the requirements of the Sequential Test. English Heritage is concerned that it has not been demonstrated that the significance of heritage assets that may be affected by the proposed allocation.

In regards to transport, the Highways Agency has advised that the plan is unsound, not effective or sufficiently justified and they need to discuss the adequacies of the evidence base with the Councils to assess the cumulative impact of development on the Strategic Road Network. The National Grid requests that potential developers of the sites should be aware that it is National Grid policy to retain our existing overhead lines in situ.

Newcastle International Airport Ltd requests that the policy makes reference to the Newcastle International Airport Ltd safeguarding.

44 | Page

205 NV1 Dinnington

Residents

No representations made.

Organisations

Land owners Persimmon Homes and Charles Church and Bellway Homes consider there has been an extensive and sound process and support the role identified for Village Growth Areas including housing growth. They support the reduction of houses proposed which reflects the context and the scale of the villages. They support the inclusion of Dinnington as a Village Growth Area. Bellway Homes state that they support the allocation of 250 homes and this figure should be a target not a ceiling. They consider the requirement for a minimum of 75% family homes to be overly prescriptive and unnecessary. They accept the need for education provision but consider it should only be required where there is demonstrable need. The requirement to improve access is viewed as vague and unjustified. The retention and development of rights of way, pedestrian routes, cycle routes and a strong identifiable Green Belt boundary is supported but this should be where appropriate. Open space provision should be on or off site. The policies for flooding and drainage are supported. Land south of Mitford Way should be allocated as safeguarded land to provide for longer term development.

The House Builders Federation consider that the plan provides a good range of sites provided the Councils can ensure their deliverability and flexibility is required to ensure viability.

In regards to transport, the Highways Agency has advised that the plan is unsound, not effective or sufficiently justified and they need to discuss the adequacies of the evidence base with the Councils to assess the cumulative impact of development on the Strategic Road Network. The Environment Agency support the overall ambition of the policy to limit surface water drainage and manage flood water risk but consider that the policy could be improved to recognise opportunities to manage water quality and ensure that consideration is given to a range of flood risk scenarios.

Newcastle International Airport commented that SUDs, flood risk and wildlife should be considered and reference made to the Newcastle International Airport Ltd safeguarding. Dinnington Parish Council object to housing development in the Green Belt on the grounds that it will not enhance the neighbourhood, have a detrimental impact on the character of the village and would also have an adverse impact on the road network. They consider brownfield sites should be prioritised first. The British Horse Society consider the policy does not militate against the cumulative effects of traffic on Prestwick Road which is well used by non-motorised vehicles.

NV2 Hazlerigg and Wideopen

Residents

No representations made.

45 | Page

206 Organisations

Barratt David Wilson Homes support the allocation of the site at Coach Lane for housing but object to the Policy as the majority of the points should be contained within the Development Framework rather than in the Policy. The requirement for 75% of homes to be family homes is considered restrictive and each allocation should be considered on its merits. They state that there are conflicts with Policy CS11 and is onerous and not effective. They state that the Development Framework is inconsistent with the Policy. Banks Property support the allocation of NV2a for housing. The House Builders Federation consider that the plan provides a good range of sites provided the Councils can ensure their deliverability and flexibility is required to ensure viability.

Newcastle International Airport have commented that SUDs, flood risk and wildlife should be considered and reference made to the Newcastle International Airport Ltd safeguarding. The Natural History Society of Northumbria considers the Policy contradicts national policy specifically the Natural Environment White Paper (2011) as the site is next to the Havannah Local Nature Reserve. The Policy does not address the impact on the Reserve and should include mitigation. The Environment Agency support the overall ambition of the policy to limit surface water drainage and manage flood water risk but consider that the policy could be improved to recognise opportunities to manage water quality and ensure that consideration is given to a range of flood risk scenarios. The British Horse Society state that there should be mitigation of the cumulative impacts of the proposed development on the highway network.

NV3 Throckley

Residents

There is strong objection from some residents for development at Throckley, on the following grounds: o Site stability and inappropriate site access.

o Adverse impact on traffic.

o Increased risk of flooding.

o Loss of wildlife.

o Loss of amenity.

o Inadequate infrastructure.

o Loss of agricultural land.

o Loss of character and community identity impact on heritage.

46 | Page

207 o Criterion 8 - The proposed development weakens existing strong Green Belt boundaries and the landowner will support further encroachment.

o Criterion 10 - the result is less likely to be distinctive neighbourhood than a dormitory neighbourhood.

o Urban sprawl.

o Brownfield sites should always be used to regenerate areas.

Groups

STOP Group objects to proposed housing development at Throckley on grounds, the target for 75% family homes as it does not seem to reflect housing, there will be massive increase in local car usage, it will weaken existing strong Green Belt boundaries and the landowner will support further encroachment and there is a thriving protected bat colony on the site.

Organisations

Greenwich Hospital Estate welcome the inclusion of site NV3a. They consider there is currently surplus education provision and the policy wording should be amended to be more flexible. The point on access to local facilities should be amended to be more flexible to allow development to come forward in phases and access could be from three points, the deliverable option is from Hexham Road (West) and therefore the Policy should be amended. The Green Belt should be amended to take account of future need and therefore the text should be amended.

Northumberland Estates support the proposed allocation of land at Throckley. The House Builders Federation consider that the plan provides a good range of sites provided the Councils can ensure their deliverability and flexibility is required to ensure viability. Northumbrian Water Ltd considers that the allocation of smaller sites within the area would provide added flexibility in terms of the delivery of housing in Throckley.

The British Horse Society state that there should be reference to the fact that there are bridleways northwards and another running round the perimeter of the site. In regards to transport, the Highways Agency has advised that the plan is unsound, not effective or sufficiently justified and they need to discuss the adequacies of the evidence base with the Councils to assess the cumulative impact of development on the Strategic Road Network.The Environment Agency support the overall ambition of the policy to limit surface water drainage and manage flood water risk but consider that the policy could be improved to recognise opportunities to manage water quality and ensure that consideration is given to a range of flood risk scenarios. English Heritage is concerned that it has not been demonstrated that the significance of heritage assets that may be affected by the proposed allocation.

KEA1

Residents

No representations made.

47 | Page

208

Organisations

The Environment Agency has commented that development that encroaches on the watercourses through sites KEA (b) and (d) could potentially have a severe impact on their ecological value and it is essential that they are protected. It is considered that the Policy could be improved to recognise the opportunities to manage water quality from new development. The sites are within low and medium flood risk zones and it is considered KEA4 is amended to reflect the requirements of the sequential test.

Persimmon Homes and Charles Church consider the Policy is sound and support increased flexibility at the airport and the allocation of additional employment land. Dysart Developments consider that KEA1 is unsound and the deliverability of these sites is questioned as the development would be reliant on substantial investment in highway infrastructure. They state that previous planning approvals at the airport have lapsed and some have not been implemented. Newcastle International Airport support the designation of the airport as a Key Employment Site but consider the policy should be amended as the site is not considered to be small.

The Natural History Society of Northumbria consider the Policy contradicts national policy specifically the Natural Environment White Paper (2011) as the south east area of the site is very close to several sites that are important for nature conservation and wildlife. The Policy does not recognise the impact of the proposed development on nature conservation sites and wildlife corridors and the need to address this through mitigation. The British Horse Society state that there should be mitigation of the cumulative impacts of the proposed development on the highway network and no improvement to the bridleway network is proposed.

GC1 Gateshead Central Sub Area

Residents

No representations made.

Organisations

The Environment Agency suggests that this policy should recognise opportunities to manage water quality from new development. Barclays Bank oppose the element of the policy regarding retail frontage which restricts change of use, and thus potentially prevents other uses such as banks which are significant generators of footfall. There is no evidence for such an approach.

48 | Page

209 GC2 Gateshead Central Development Opportunity Sites

Residents

No representations made.

Organisations

The Homes Builder Federation requests that the policy requirements should be applied flexibly to ensure viability.

SG2 The Exemplar Neighbourhood Key Site

Residents

No representations made.

Organisations

The Homes Builder Federation requests that the policy requirements should be applied flexibly to ensure viability. Messers Willey and Avant Homes are concerned that delivery of the site is likely to be delayed due to infrastructure and other constraints The Highways Agency has advised that the plan is unsound, not effective or sufficiently justified and they need to discuss the adequacies of the evidence base with the Councils to assess the cumulative impact of development on the Strategic Road Network.

G3 Southern Gateway Development Opportunity Sites

Residents

No representations made.

Organisations

The Homes Builder Federation requests that the policy requirements should be applied flexibly to ensure viability.

QB2 Gateshead Quay Site

Residents

No representations made.

Organisations

The Homes Builder Federation requests that the policy requirements should be applied flexibly to ensure viability. The Environment Agency suggests that this policy should recognise opportunities to manage water quality from new development.

49 | Page

210 QB3 Quays and Baltic Development Opportunity Sites

Residents

No representations made.

Organisations

The Homes Builder Federation requests that the policy requirements should be applied flexibly to ensure viability.

AOC2 Metrogreen

Organisations

The approach to Metrogreen is generally supported. Messers Wiley and Avant Homes consider that infrastructure and other constraints will delay delivery of this site. The Homes Builder Federation recommend that the requirements of the policy are applied flexibly to ensure viability. The Church Commissioner would encourage a greater quantum of development to come forward earlier in the plan period, with the capacity figure being a minimum.

In regards to transport, the Church Commissioner consider that a new bridge not being necessary or viable. Whereas, The Highways Agency has advised that the plan is unsound, not effective or sufficiently justified and they need to discuss the adequacies of the evidence base with the Councils to assess the cumulative impact of development on the Strategic Road Network. Nexus request that the document should make greater reference to the role that public transport plays in providing sustainable access to the Metrocentre area, both at present in terms of services at the transport interchange and rail station, an in the future in terms of the provision of accessibility to the proposed Metrogreen development. This is likely to be at a scale which will justify major future development in public transport. Sport England query the lack of consideration to the need for sport and recreation facilities.

Intu supports the broad approach to Metrogreen, but recommends that the long term aims for the area should not compromise sustainable development in the area prior to the publication of an Area Action Plan. Penegon request that the policy should allow retail and commercial uses to come forward at Metrogreen. Northumbrian Water Ltd supports this policy and the integrated approach to managing surface water and infrastructure referred to, including the Surface Water Management Plan.

GN1 Dunston Hill

Residents

There is strong objection from some residents for development at Dunston Hill, on the following grounds: o Increased Traffic and Congestion.

50 | Page

211 o Inadequate infrastructure.

o No proposal to address the impact on the road network and accommodate additional capacity.

o Education and health facilities cannot accommodate additional growth.

o Loss of countryside and wildlife.

o The south western boundary cannot be easily defended because at present it is just a map line drawn across an agricultural field.

o Increased flood risk.

o Loss of amenity.

o Land stability.

o Impact on the landscape.

Groups

There is concern regarding the proposed site at Dunston Hill from which the Council will benefit financially as a landowner. The plan does not address infrastructure concerns in a sound way, and the circumstances for developing in the Green Belt are insufficient (Ramsay Group). The Save Dunston Hill Group also query the evidence base in terms of the population and household forecasts and the SHLAA. The groups consider that more emphasis should be given to brownfield land which is available. The plan fails to address concerns regarding road capacity, schools, health facilities, impacts on wildlife, countryside and surface water run-off.

The Rudge, Jennings and Skipper Groups are concerned that the character of Ryton will be destroyed through the proposed housing development. It is stated that numerous negative impacts will result on traffic, pollution, flooding, wildlife, agricultural land, health and wellbeing and mine working and that there is insufficient infrastructure to support the proposals which will be remote from employment opportunities.

Organisations

Northumbrian Water Ltd support the approach to foul and surface water capacity, whilst the EA support the approach to surface water run-off but have suggested minor rewording. Messers Wiley and Avant Homes are concerned that infrastructure and other constraints will delay delivery of this site. The Homes Builder Federation requested that the policy should be applied flexibly to ensure viability.

Sport England query the lack of consideration to the need for sport and recreation facilities. Washingwell Primary School supports the proposal. Councillor Maughan objects to the proposal on the basis of highway impacts, loss of wildlife and Green Belt, the failure to prioritise brownfield sites and the lack of objectivity in the assessment.

51 | Page

212

GV1 Chopwell

Residents

There is strong objection from some residents for development at Chopwell, on the following grounds: o The development would have an adverse impact on the village. o Increased congestion. o Loss of agricultural land. o Increase flood risk. o Unacceptable impact on the village character, landscape and wildlife. o Lack of infrastructure and ground instability resulting from the mining legacy. o Brownfield land should be prioritised first. o The evidence is inaccurate. Site 307a has been mis-scored by the Strategic Land Review. o There is no evidence that the need of regeneration will be addressed by the removal of the three sites from the Green Belt. o The supporting evidence is unsound as the Chopwell Development framework is full of misleading and inaccurate information. o There is no evidence that Policy GV1 will improve public transport facilities, benefit Chopwell Primary School, support services and retail development.

Groups

There is concern from the Teasdale, Smith and Silence Groups that there are inconsistencies between the Development Framework and the policy for Chopwell, and in the evidence base. There is no justification or evidence as to why the village needs to regenerate. The road network and the character of the village would be undermined and flood risk, contamination and mining legacy have not been adequately addressed.

The McNestry, Blackhall Mill Community Association and Bryne Groups believe that the proposed sites in Chopwell will remove the incentive to develop the Heartlands site. The proposals will not benefit schools or shops in Chopwell, whilst there are more viable alternatives at Byermoor, for example. The Neasham Group argue that the proposed sites are on the periphery of the village and the Heartlands site is more appropriate. It is stated that the roads in the village could not sustain the proposed housing.

Organisations

Messrs Willey supports the allocation. Banks Property Ltd considers that this allocation exceeds what is required in this settlement or what could conceivably be delivered by the

52 | Page

213 market in the long term. The HBDF requests that flexibility is needed to ensure viability. Northumbrian Water Ltd supports the requirement for evidence from developers to demonstrate that there is adequate foul and surface water capacity before connecting to the existing public sewage system. Sports England is concerned that the proposed housing allocation gives no consideration whether existing sport and recreation facilities have sufficient capacity to absorb the growth being proposed.

Blackhall Mill Community Association argues there is no evidence that the need of regeneration will be addressed by the removal of the three sites from the Green Belt. The British Horse Society are concerned that the cumulative effect of traffic is generated by the developments will impact on the movement of horserider to and from Chopwell Woods. Newcastle Art Centre objects to proposed housing development on the Chopwell South site on the grounds that the plans for the site do not include the hedgerows.

GV2 Crawcrook

Residents

There are strong objections to housing development at Crawcrook on the following grounds: o The plan is unsound due to the failure to consider the semi-rural character of area. The landscape and visual amenity should be improved. o Development and traffic should not be allowed to lead to urban sprawl. o Cumulative impact of development will generate traffic and transport assessments are not robust and it is not clear how junctions would be improved. o Crawcrook is remote from major employment centres and therefore the use of sustainable transport would not be facilitated. o Houses should not be built on arable land when previously developed land is available. o Brownfield land should be prioritised first. o There is a mining legacy including underground shafts and pits which mean that these sites should not be developed for housing. o The capacity of school is restricted. o The existing foul and surface water main system has inadequate capacity to support new development. o Increased flood risk. o Sites are disconnected from the village and would not support amenities.

53 | Page

214 Groups

Crawcrook and Greenside Local Environment Group objects to proposed housing development in Crawcrook on the grounds of impacts on flood risk, ground conditions, the scale of population increase, negatively changing the nature of Crawcrook from a village to a town and proximity to Crawcrook Quarry. Also questions the viability of the sites given the need to expand local primary and secondary school expansion. Questions the deliverability of Crawcrook North given land ownership issues.

Organisations

Northumbrian Water Ltd support the approach to foul and surface water capacity, and the requirements for flood risk and SUDs, whilst the EA support the approach to surface water run-off but have suggested minor rewording. Storey Homes support Crawcrook South but objects to exclusion of western part on grounds of village green application. The Highways Agency has advised that the plan is unsound, not effective or sufficiently justified and they need to discuss the adequacies of the evidence base with the Councils to assess the cumulative impact of development on the Strategic Road Network.

Sport England query the lack of consideration to the need for sport and recreation facilities whilst the requirements of the policy should be applied flexibly to ensure viability (Homes Builder Federation). The British Horse Society request that the cumulative traffic impacts of the developments on the A695 for non-motorised traffic be taken into account.

GV3 Highfield

Residents

There is one objection to housing development at Highfield on the following grounds: o Brownfield land should be prioritised first and there are empty properties which should be brought back into use.

Organisations

Northumbrian Water Ltd support the approach to foul and surface water capacity, and the requirements for managing surface water flood risk at Highfield Road. Whilst the EA support the approach to surface water run-off they have suggested minor rewording. The Highways Agency has advised that the plan is unsound, not effective or sufficiently justified and they need to discuss the adequacies of the evidence base with the Councils to assess the cumulative impact of development on the Strategic Road Network. Banks Property Ltd state the proposed Green Belt release exceeds what can be delivered within the plan period, is ineffective and replacement housing land should be allocated elsewhere.

Sport England query the lack of consideration to the need for sport and recreation facilities whilst the requirements of the policy should be applied flexibly to ensure viability (Homes Builder Federation). Miller Homes support the proposal allocation but question the proposed boundary as not justified. The British Horse Society request that the cumulative traffic impacts of the developments on the A695 for non-motorised traffic be taken into account.

54 | Page

215

GV4 High Spen

Residents

There are strong objections to housing development at High Spen on the following grounds:

o There is sufficient housing within High Spen for the next 10 years supply for the area. The sites are too large in terms of the scale of the village. Brownfield sites should be developed and the Green Belt retained.

o New housing will put pressure on existing facilities and the school and medical centre.

o Increased traffic will impact on road safety.

o Housing development will ruin the character of the village.

o There is concern that housing will replace allotments.

o Housing development will lead to increased flood risk.

o There is inadequate infrastructure provision to serve new housing.

o There would be an adverse impact on wildlife. An ecological buffer would not have a positive impact.

o Housing development would have a detrimental impact on the character of the village.

o The Council will need to subsidise development to the extent that it will be economically unviable.

o The village does not have sufficient services and facilities to cope with the additional population. The cost of providing these facilities would make the development unviable.

o Flood risk would increase.

Groups

Residents of Aged Miners Homes objects to housing development on Green Belt land in High Spen on the grounds of increased flood risk, impact on local roads, impact on amenity, inadequate infrastructure provision and the impact on wildlife.

Organisations

Northumbrian Water Ltd support the approach to foul and surface water capacity, and the requirements for flood risk and SUDs, whilst the EA support the approach to surface water run-off but have suggested minor rewording. Sport England query the lack of consideration to the need for sport and recreation facilities ,whilst the requirements of the policy should be applied flexibly to ensure viability (Homes Builder Federation). The Highways Agency has advised that the plan is unsound, not effective or sufficiently justified and they need to discuss the adequacies of the evidence base with the Councils to assess the cumulative impact of development on the Strategic Road Network.

55 | Page

216 Banks Property Ltd state the proposed Green Belt release exceeds what can be delivered within the plan period, is ineffective and replacement housing land should be allocated elsewhere. Avant Homes support the proposed sites – but that the capacity of GV4(b) could be increased by amending the NE site boundary, addressing a discrepancy between figure 17.11 and the Development Framework, and facilitating site access. The British Horse Society state that development must provide safe crossing points for non-motorised users of the highway network. Redscape Ltd objects on the grounds of Green Belt policy, inadequate infrastructure and the negative impact on the character/appearance of the village.

GV5 Kibblesworth

Residents

There are strong objections to housing development at Kibblesworth on the following grounds: o The proposed scale of development is too large and would result in significant overdevelopment of the village. Brownfield sites should be developed first.

o Housing development would have a detrimental impact on the character of the village.

o Kibblesworth is not a sustainable location for housing development and would necessitate travel by car.

o Increased traffic will have an adverse impact on road safety.

o There is inadequate infrastructure to serve new housing.

o There would be a detrimental impact on wildlife.

o Flood risk would increase.

o The removal of this site will lead to further piecemeal development in the Green Belt in future.

Groups

The McAlpine Group state that he proposal for Kibblesworth conflicts with policies on climate change, green infrastructure, health and wellbeing and placemaking. There is insufficient infrastructure to support the development which will impact on the road network as there is insufficient emphasis on sustainable forms of transport, and will increase flood risk. There are insufficient job opportunities in the area also. There is a concern that development on land currently in the Green Belt should be community led in the form of neighbourhood plans in accordance with the Localism Act (Oliver Group). Development will not secure improvements in public transport and will lead to congestion and undermine wildlife and the natural habitat; exceptional circumstances/the lack of brownfield sites is not demonstrated adequately and therefore the proposal is unsustainable. (O’Leary Group). NPS Employees Group also question the capacity of the electricity network and internet connections to support the development.

56 | Page

217 Organisations

Taylor Wimpey support the proposals allocation of land at Kibblesworth, but request that figure 17.12 be amended so that it corresponds with their development framework. The British Horse Society state that the impact of the development on road crossing points for non-motorised users must be addressed ,and an extension to the bridalway network on the northern boundary of the site should be provided. Northumbrian Water Ltd support the approach to foul and surface water capacity, and the requirements for flood risk, overland flows and SuDs, whilst the EA support the approach to surface water run-off but have suggested minor rewording. The Highways Agency has advised that the plan is unsound, not effective or sufficiently justified and they need to discuss the adequacies of the evidence base with the Councils to assess the cumulative impact of development on the Strategic Road Network.

Redscape Ltd objects on the grounds of Green Belt policy, inadequate infrastructure and the negative impact on the character/appearance of the village. Sport England query the lack of consideration of the need for sport and recreation facilities. Homes Builder Federation consider the requirements of the policy should be applied flexibly to ensure viability.

GV6 Ryton

Residents

There are strong objections to housing development at Ryton on the following grounds:

o The Green Belt boundary should not be altered around Ryton. Brownfield sites should be developed first.

o There would be an adverse impact on the historic and local character of the village. The scale of development is disproportionately large in this village.

o There is inadequate information of access to the sites and there would be increased traffic and congestion, carbon emissions and pollution.

o The existing road network is already congested and cannot accommodate further traffic.

o There is inadequate information on school provision and services and there are inadequate services to support new housing.

o There is inadequate information on flooding.

o The policy does not address protection of wildlife and habitats and there would be an adverse impact on wildlife.

o There would be an unacceptable loss of agricultural land.

o There is a mining legacy and these sites should not be developed for housing.

o Ryton is not a sustainable location for housing development and is remote and isolated from employment centres.

o A Health Impact Assessment should have been carried out to support proposals.

57 | Page

218 o There was not early engagement as required.

o Flood risk would increase and the existing foul and surface water system was not designed for further housing.

Organisations

Northumbrian Water Ltd support the approach to foul and surface water capacity, and the requirements for flood risk, overland flows and SuDs, whilst the EA support the approach to surface water run-off but have suggested minor rewording. The Highways Agency has advised that the plan is unsound, not effective or sufficiently justified and they need to discuss the adequacies of the evidence base with the Councils to assess the cumulative impact of development on the Strategic Road Network. Sport England query the lack of consideration to the need for sport and recreation facilities, whilst the requirements of the policy should be applied flexibly to ensure viability (Homes Builder Federation). The British Horse Society objects on grounds that road safety on the A695/Stargate junction is not addressed.

Taylor Wimpey support the policy and the allocation of new homes at Ryton. In regards to 1, this is supported, however question the need for a substantial buffer. With regards to 2,3,4 this should only be required if deemed necessary. The site is deemed deliverable, however access can be taken off Woodside Lane (to the western parcel) the access to the eastern parcel should be via Bishops Drive or via Bellway Homes land and the identification of the development potential of the western and southern areas of the western part of the site should be made.

Groups

The Ryton Green Belt Action Group objects to the proposed site on the grounds of traffic impacts, inadequate infrastructure, adverse impact on the character of the village, remoteness from employment locations, the lack of consideration to improving the junction of the A695 and Woodside Lane, ownership concerns, flood risk, mining legacy, loss of amenity and impact on health and wellbeing. They also state that access to shops is limited and residents will have to drive to the supermarket at Blaydon, whilst a proposed road widening scheme for Stargate Lane is inadequate. The Crookhill and Stargate Darby and Joan Club objects on the grounds of traffic, access and infrastructure. The Rudge, Jennings and Skipper Groups are concerned that the character of Ryton will be destroyed through the proposed housing development. Numerous negative impacts will result on traffic, pollution, flooding, wildlife, agricultural land, health and wellbeing and mine workings. There is insufficient infrastructure to support the proposals which will be remote from employment opportunities.

GV7 Sunniside

Residents

There are strong objections to housing development at Sunniside on the following grounds:

o There should be no development in the Green Belt around Sunniside and brownfield land should be prioritised. The proposals will result in urban sprawl.

58 | Page

219 o There would be an unacceptable impact on the character of the village. o Infrastructure and services are inadequate to support the level of growth proposed. o There would be congestion of the road network leading to pollution and an adverse impact on road safety. Public transport would need to be improved. o Wildlife and habitats would not be protected and there would be an adverse impact on wildlife. o There would be an unacceptable loss of agricultural land. o The allocation of the two sites would result in a loss of employment sites. o Flood risk would increase.

Groups

Protoctor, Streetgate and Councillor Wallace groups opposes proposals for Sunniside on the grounds of inadequate infrastructure, impact on the existing road network, impact on wildlife, inappropriate site access an impact on local character.

Organisations

Northumbrian Water Ltd support the approach to foul and surface water capacity. The EA suggest that the policy for GV7a should be improved to protect watercourses which run through the site and to recognise opportunities for manage water quality. Sport England query the lack of consideration of the need for sport and recreation facilities whilst the requirements of the policy should be applied flexibly to ensure viability (Homes Builder Federation). Taylor Wimpey support the allocation of land at Sunniside (SE) but request that the boundary of the site be amended to be more logical and to deliver 117 dwellings and not 83; that bullets 3,4 and 6 are generic requirements which should be deleted; and that figure 17.14 be amended so that it corresponds with their development framework.

Banks Property Ltd state that the allocation is insufficient - the impacts on local roads and the need for mitigation through a bypass needs to be more fully explored. The site should be expanded to cater for increased capacity and a bypass, and sites GV7a&b should contribute towards the cost of a by-pass and not Whickham Highway. If this is not found to be acceptable than this additional land should be safeguarded given the need for a bypass in future.

The British Horse Society state that the impact of the development on road crossing for non-motorised users on Pennyfine Road must be addressed. The Highways Agency has advised that the plan is unsound, not effective or sufficiently justified and they need to discuss the adequacies of the evidence base with the Councils to assess the cumulative impact of development on the Strategic Road Network.

59 | Page

220 KEA2 South of Follingsby Lane

Organisations

Northumbrian Water Ltd supports the approach requiring a water supply and adequate foul sewage supply strategy, whilst the EA support the approach to surface water run-off but have suggested minor rewording. The Highways Agency has advised that the plan is unsound, not effective or sufficiently justified and they need to discuss the adequacies of the evidence base with the Councils to assess the cumulative impact of development on the Strategic Road Network.

Section 6 - Delivery and Monitoring

DEL1 Infrastructure and Developer Contributions

Organisations

Taylor Wimpey and Bellway Homes consider the policy should comply with NPPF para 203- 206 as, there is some concern that it applies to all development (Hammersons). Homes Builder Federation request that the costs and finding mechanisms need to be identified before the Plan is submitted including relating to policies CS21, UC7, UC12 and UC15.

Flexibility should be included to allow for off-site provision or a financial contribution in lieu of part or all of the on-site requirement (Messers Willey/Avant Homes). One detailed monitoring table would improve the Plan (Taylor Wimpey). Northumbrian Water Ltd support this policy and that developer contributions for drainage infrastructure will be sought.

There is concern regarding the funding for new or upgraded infrastructure and that clarification is required on the scope of contributions under CIL and Section 106, and relating to Criterion 2 of the policy on strategic cross-boundary impacts of development (Persimmon & Charles Church).

A clear and flexible telecommunications policy should be included (Mobile Operators Association) whilst infrastructure requirements that promote growth should be prioritised (Storey Homes/Miller Homes). It is acknowledged that necessary infrastructure should be prioritised and delivered in a timely and cost effective manner (Northumbrian Water Ltd).

60 | Page

221

Appendices

Appendix 1 - Representation Form Appendix 2 - Statement of Representations Procedure Appendix 3 - Proposed submission documents Appendix 4 - Website Appendix 5 - Letter Appendix 6 - Invited consultees Appendix 7 - Leaflet Appendix 8 - Poster Appendix 9 - Members Briefing Appendix 10 - Staff News Appendix 11 - Social Media Appendix 12 - Council News Appendix 13 - Images on Gateshead TV and Newcastle screens Appendix 14 - An Executive Summary of the Plan Appendix 15 - Policy Document Appendix 16 - Proposal Maps Appendix 17 - A user guide for completing the Representation Form Appendix 18 - User guide to for submitting representation online Appendix 19 - Breakfast meeting invitees and letter Appendix 20 - Breakfast meeting Agenda Appendix 21 - Breakfast meeting Presentation Appendix 22 - Breakfast meeting Question Appendix 23 - Organisations Representations Appendix 24 - Residents Representations Appendix 25 - Groups Representations

61 | Page

222

REPORT TO CABINET 17 December 2013

TITLE OF REPORT: Gateshead Local Plan – Duty to Cooperate

REPORT OF: Paul Dowling, Strategic Director, Development and Enterprise

Purpose of the Report

1. This report outlines the statutory requirements that local planning authorities (LPA’s) and other public bodies have in relation to the Duty to Co-operate when preparing their statutory development plans (Local Plans) and seeks agreement of an associated joint Memorandum of Understanding

Background

2. The Duty to Co-operate was inserted into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 by s.110 of the Localism Act 2011 (the Act), and was further amplified in the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in March 2012. Following the revocation of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East, it is the primary legal requirement in terms of dealing with strategic planning matters that cross administrative boundaries. The duty applies to all local planning authorities in England and to a number of other public bodies including the Marine Management Organisation, Environment Agency, Historic Buildings & Monuments Commission for England, Natural England, Civil Aviation Authority, Homes & Communities Agency, Clinical Commissioning Groups, Office of the Rail Regulator, Highways Agency, Integrated Transport Authorities and Highway Authorities.

3. When assessing a Local Plan at independent examination the Secretary of State will be assessing whether the LPA has complied with the duty to co-operate in preparing the Local Plan.

Proposal

4. In order to ensure compliance with the duty to co-operate a Memorandum of Understanding has been prepared between Newcastle City Council, Gateshead Council, Northumberland County Council, Northumberland National Park, Durham County Council, North Tyneside Council, South Tyneside Council and Sunderland City Council (“the Partners”).

5. The purpose of the Memorandum of Understanding is to set out how the Partners will comply with the duty to co-operate for their mutual benefit and for that of their joint plan making area. It will:

223 • Clarify and record the responsibilities of the Partners both individually and collectively; and • Establish guidelines for joint working going forward in accordance with the governance arrangements set out in the Memorandum of Understanding.

6. The Memorandum of Understanding is an operational document. It is not a formally binding legal agreement and the partnership is not a legal entity.

7. The Partners individually and collectively agree to use all reasonable endeavours to comply with the terms and spirit of the Memorandum of Understanding.

8. Agreement to or withdrawal from the Memorandum of Understanding does not remove a Local Authority’s duty to co-operate pursuant to the Act.

9. The Memorandum of Understanding and governance structure are set out at Appendix 2. It is intended that each authority (including the NorthEast Local Enterprise Partnership) will formally sign the Memorandum of Understanding.

Recommendation

10. It is recommended that Cabinet

i. Notes the statutory Duty to Co-operate

ii. Agree the Council signs the Memorandum of Understanding proposed between the 7 North East LEP local authorities.

For the following reason:

To ensure the council is appropriately prepared to satisfy the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate legislation in respect of strategic cross-boundary planning matters, and minimise the associated risks of development plans being declared ‘unsound’ at independent examination.

CONTACT: Anneliese Hutchinson extension: 3881

224

APPENDIX 1

Policy Context

1. In the absence of regional government offices and regeneration agencies to coordinate strategic planning, the duty to co-operate requires local authorities to take the lead in tackling the big issues that cut across administrative boundaries. It will particularly come into effect when strategically planning for ‘larger than local’ issues that cannot be dealt with by any individual local authority working alone. Co-operation is required on all planning issues (such as housing, economic development, transport infrastructure and Green Belt) where those issues are considered to be both strategic and would have a significant impact.

Background

2. The duty to co-operate requires councils to “engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis” on strategic issues relevant to statutory plans, and requires councils to consider joint approaches to plan making and infrastructure planning. Specifically, the new duty relates to sustainable development or use of land that should have a significant impact on at least two local planning areas, and requires councils to set out planning policies to address such issues.

3. Local planning authorities should work collaboratively with other bodies to ensure that strategic priorities across local boundaries are properly coordinated and clearly reflected in individual Local Plans. In particular, joint working should enable local planning authorities to work together to meet development requirements (e.g. housing and employment) which cannot wholly and sustainably be met within their own areas – for instance, because of a lack of physical capacity or because to do so would cause significant harm to the core planning principles and policies.

4. Local planning authorities are required to demonstrate evidence of having complied with the duty to co-operate and effectively co-operated to plan for issues with cross-boundary impacts when their Local Plans are submitted for independent examination.

5. The ongoing involvement of elected members across local authorities will be particularly important and will be a key determinant of success, particularly in terms of a corporate approach to the delivery of infrastructure, new homes and economic growth to: • Ensure the alignment of priorities and investment plans for strategic infrastructure, major development areas and other issues that are best managed strategically (e.g. water resources, energy, waste);

225 • Maximise opportunities for both public and private sector funding and make the most of new fiscal measures to support growth (Such as the Community Infrastructure Levy, New Homes Bonus scheme and Growing Places Fund); • Provide a clear translation from corporate policy objectives and priorities through to delivery on the ground, helping to boost investor confidence; and • Build effective partnerships and relationships with affected communities, neighbouring local authorities and other partners, helping to manage political sensitivities and local impact.

6. The duty to co-operate also applies to other public bodies in addition to local authorities, including: • Environment Agency • English Heritage • Natural England • Civil Aviation Authority • Homes and Communities Agency • Highways Agency

7. These bodies are required to co-operate with councils on issues of common concern to help formulate ‘sound’ development plans.

8. Local Enterprise Partnerships, whilst not statutory bodies and therefore not subject to the duty themselves, are nevertheless noted as bodies that those covered by the duty should have regard to when preparing plans and other related activities. Local Enterprise Partnerships are considered as providing potentially useful structures to support the management of strategic planning priorities and will be involved in helping to prioritise infrastructure investment.

9. Private sector utility providers are not covered by the duty. However, it is in their interests and those of local authorities, for them to continue to be involved in the plan making process and to actively contribute to key decisions.

10. The duty to co-operate is now firmly enshrined within the Local Plan examination process, being cited as a stand-alone requirement for the independent inspector to consider as well as being embedded within the broader ‘tests of soundness’ that plans have to abide by. To be found ‘sound’ and fit-for-purpose, the inspector must be satisfied that the plan is, positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent. However, in contrast to other elements of the ‘tests of soundness’, failure to abide by the duty to co-operate is deemed as fatal. Further, there would not be an opportunity for the council to rectify failures during the examination stage.

226 11. Careful distinction must be drawn as to what the duty actually requires. There is no formal duty for local authorities to actually ‘agree’ on matters, and there will continue to be cases where authorities object to an adjacent authority’s plan, such matters would ultimately be resolved through the respective examination processes. The duty does however apply to the preparation of the respective plans and the extent to which authorities have worked together on cross-boundary issues and where possible resolved any differences and developed solutions.

12. Cross boundary co-operation of this nature is therefore required at the earliest opportunity in the plan making process and is then seen as an iterative process.

Established Cross-Boundary Working

13. There has been a strong track record of co-operation between this Council and its neighbouring authorities on both strategic policy issues and establishing consistent methodologies to develop evidence to inform their respective development plans.

14. Cross-boundary meetings on common development plan issues have long been held at officer level on an informal basis with our neighbouring authorities. However, these fairly informal ad hoc meetings often lack the authority to make commitments or recommendations to other groups or organisations.

15. Under the duty to co-operate, these working relationships should become more formalised to provide clear evidence that all avenues have been explored as our respective development plans are advanced.

Alternative Options

16. Local planning authorities are expected to demonstrate evidence of having complied with the duty to co-operate and effectively co-operated to plan for issues with cross-boundary impacts when their Local Plans submitted for independent examination. Alternative options could be by way of plans or policies prepared as part of a joint committee, or a jointly prepared strategy that is presented as evidence of an agreed position. A Memorandum of Understanding is considered appropriate to allow flexibility for local circumstances and further develop partnership working skills at both officer and Member levels for effective co-operation to work.

227 Implications of Recommended Option

17. Resources:

i) Financial Implications – The Strategic Director of Finance and ICT confirms there are no financial implications arising directly from this report. ii) Human Resources Implications – There are no human resource implications arising from this report. iii) Property Implications - There are no property implications arising from this report.

18. Risk Management Implication – Failure to comply with the statutory duty to co-operate will increase the risk of the Local Plan being declared ‘unsound’ and unfit for purpose at its independent examination by the Planning Inspectorate and Secretary of State. The proposed joint Memorandum of Understanding is considered to be a necessary key part of putting in place more formalised arrangements between the Northern Eastern councils to ensure that the duty to co- operate requirements are sufficiently satisfied.

19. Human Resources Implications - There are no human resource implications arising from this report.

20. Equality and Diversity Implications – There are no equality and diversity implications arising from this report.

21. Crime and Disorder Implications – There are no crime and disorder implications arising from this report.

22. Health Implications – There are no health implications arising from the report

23. Sustainability Implications – There are no sustainability issues arising from this report.

24. Human Rights Implications - There are no human rights implications arising from this report.

25. Area and Ward Implications - All

228 Appendix 2

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

Duty to Co-operate

Newcastle, Gateshead, Northumberland, Durham, North Tyneside, South Tyneside and Sunderland Councils

1. Introduction

1.1 This Memorandum of Understanding is the agreement between Newcastle City Council, Gateshead Council, Northumberland County Council, Northumberland National Park, Durham County Council, North Tyneside Council, South Tyneside Council and Sunderland City Council (“the Partners”) to comply with the duty to co-operate on planning issues set out in Section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (the Act) as well as those that relate to Strategic Priorities as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.

1.2 Section 33A of the Act introduces a new ‘duty to co-operate’. This applies to all local planning authorities in England and to a number of other public bodies including the Marine Management Organisation, Environment Agency, Historic Buildings & Monuments Commission for England, Natural England, Civil Aviation Authority, Homes & Communities Agency, Clinical Commissioning Groups, Office of the Rail Regulator, Highways Agency, Integrated Transport Authorities and Highway Authorities.

1.3 Section 20 of the Act requires that in examining Local Plans the Secretary of State will be assessing whether the Local Planning Authority has complied with the duty to co-operate in preparing the Local Plan.

2. The purpose of our co-operation

2.1 The purpose of the Memorandum of Understanding is to set out how the Partners will comply with the duty to co-operate for their mutual benefit and for that of their joint plan making area. It will:

229 1. Clarify and record the responsibilities of the Partners both individually and collectively; and 2. Establish guidelines for joint working going forward in accordance with the governance arrangements set out in the Memorandum of Understanding.

3. Status of the Memorandum of Understanding

3.1 The Memorandum of Understanding is an operational document. It is not a formally binding legal agreement and the partnership is not a legal entity.

3.2 The Partners individually and collectively agree to use all reasonable endeavours to comply with the terms and spirit of the Memorandum of Understanding. 3.3 Under the Memorandum of Understanding the Partners cannot employ staff, let contracts or commit financial resources on behalf of the constituent Partners without their formal agreement.

3.4 Agreement to or withdrawal from the Memorandum of Understanding does not remove a Local Authority’s duty to co-operate pursuant to the Act.

4. Governance Arrangements

4.1. These arrangements are set out on the attached flowcharts (“the Flowcharts”). The arrangements are as follows:

4.2. Each local authority will be responsible for preparing and adopting their own Local Plan, development plan documents and local development documents and setting up their own governance arrangements to facilitate this.

4.3 Each Local Authority’s Local Plan Governance Group will feed progress reports and strategic priority issues that have a cross-boundary interest to the Planning Heads of Service Group for discussion. The Planning Heads of Service Group will include representation from each of the seven local authorities. This will be the mechanism of co-operating on such issues.

4.4 The Planning Heads of Service Group will report their discussions and agreed actions back to the Local Plan Governance Groups and as appropriate to any or all of the following: • Economic Directors Group • LEP Transport Group • LEP Planning and Infrastructure Group • Chief Executives Group • Leaders and Elected Mayors Group

230 • North East Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP)

4.5 These above groups may also refer issues to the Planning Heads of Service Group for discussion and or action and for feeding back to the Local Plan Governance Groups.

4.6 The Local Plan Governance Group is the relevant board or grouping of senior officers managing the production of the authority’s Local Plan.

5. Scope of Co-operation

5.1 Each Partner will engage constructively, actively, expediently, and on an on-going basis in any process which involves the following: • The preparation of Local Plans; • The preparation of other local development documents; • Activities that can reasonably be considered to prepare the way for activities which any of the above that are or could be contemplated; and • Activities that support any of the above so far as they relate to sustainable development or use of land that has or would have a significant impact on at least two planning areas, including sustainable development or use of land for or in connection with infrastructure that is strategic and has or would have a significant impact on at least two planning areas.

5.2 Engagement for the purposes of 5.1 includes in particular: • Considering whether to consult on and prepare and enter into and publish agreement on joint approaches to the undertaking of activities in 5.1; and • Considering whether to agree to prepare joint local development documents. 5.3 When complying with the duty to co-operate the Partners will have regard to guidance given by the Secretary of State.

6. Meetings

6.1. The Planning Heads of Service Group will meet bi-monthly or as required.

7. Funding and Finance

7.1. Each Authority will use its own staff to progress their Local Plans except where consultants are used.

7.2. If consultants are used on a joint basis their costs will be apportioned dependent upon the amount of work that affects each authority’s area. The Project Directors responsible for each Local Plan Governance

231 Group or in their absence the Project Owners as specified on the Flowcharts will be responsible for authorising the costs associated with any work prior to that work being commenced.

7.3. Each authority will invoice the other authority once every two months for expenditure it has incurred on the others behalf, providing supporting detail of the relevant transactions as appropriate.

8. Duration

8.1. The joint governance arrangements will remain in place until the duty to co-operate is no longer required by legislation.

9. Dispute Resolution

9.1. In the event of a dispute that cannot be resolved by the Planning Heads of Service Group the matter concerned will be referred to the Chief Executives Group. If the matter cannot be resolved by the Chief Executives Group it will be referred to the Leaders and Elected Mayors Group. If the matter is not able to be satisfactorily resolved the Partners put in writing and keep on file the matter.

9.2. Those decisions in respect of agreement and dispute will be clearly logged and submitted as part of the evidence to each respective local planning authority’s Local Plan examination to demonstrate how the duty has been complied with.

10. Intellectual Property Rights

10.1. Subject to the rights of third parties, the Partners will share equally the intellectual property rights to all data, reports, drawings, specifications, designs, inventions or other material produced or acquired including copyrights in the course of their joint work. The Partners agree that any proposal by one Partner to permit a third party to utilise the documents and materials produced by the partnership shall be subject to the agreement of all other Partners. Any changes, amendments or updates made to the documents and materials, if made under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, shall be jointly owned by the Partners.

11. Freedom of Information Requests

11.1. If any partner receives a freedom of information request in respect of shared work associated with the Memorandum of Understanding it will be shared at the earliest opportunity with the other relevant authorities in order to determine and achieve a consensus as to what information shall be released.

232

12. Termination

12.1. Any of the Partners may withdraw from the Memorandum of Understanding at any time. Any such withdrawal would need to be approved by the Chief Executives Group and Leaders and Elected Mayors Group.

12.2. If the Memorandum of Understanding is terminated, the Partners agree that any reports, studies or any other information which has been jointly prepared by the Partners can be used by each of the Partners separately.

13. Signatories

Leader: Chief Executive:

Elected Mayor: Chief Executive:

Chief Executive:

233 Leader:

Leader: Chief Executive:

234 Duty to Co-operate Governance Structure ‘Flowchart’

235

ƒ REPORT TO CABINET 17 December 2013

TITLE OF REPORT: Proposed Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) for (1) Bridges Conservation Area Conservation Management Strategy, and (2) Walker Terrace/Regent Terrace Conservation Area Management Strategy

REPORT OF: Paul Dowling, Strategic Director, Development & Enterprise

Purpose of the Report

1. Cabinet is asked to approve the draft Conservation Area Management Strategies (CAMS) for Bridges Conservation Area and Walker Terrace/Regent Terrace Conservation Area for formal public consultation as draft Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs), to form part of the Gateshead Local Plan, to be used as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications in those conservation areas.

Background

2. Section 71 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places on Local Planning Authorities the duty to draw up and publish proposals for the preservation and enhancement of conservation areas in their district. There is also a requirement under s.71 to consult the local community.

3. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 126 requires Local planning authorities to set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, taking into account the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the historic environment, the wider benefits that the conservation of the historic environment can provide, the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness and the opportunity to draw on the contribution of the historic environment to the character of a place.

4. The character and appearance of conservation areas can change through incremental stages or quite suddenly and regular appraisals help to identify threats and opportunities which can be developed into a management plan. Management plans can be used to promote beneficial change, for example, in areas which are in a state of economic decline, and suffer from a lack of investment.

Bridges Conservation Area Townscape Heritage Initiative

5. The 2002-2011 Bridges Conservation Area Townscape Heritage Initiative (THI), funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund, Single Regeneration Budget and One North East, transformed the run-down historic core of Gateshead and secured the repair

236 of a number of significant buildings and the improvement of the public realm and attracted additional private sector investment beyond the scope of the project.

6. The scheme was informed by a detailed conservation area character appraisal and action plan. A condition of the Heritage Lottery Fund grant is that the Council prepares and adopts a conservation area management strategy to inform the future development of the conservation area in a constructive manner, and provide a mechanism for the protection and maintenance of the public investment after the end of the THI project.

7. A condition of the THI is that the Council is required to prepare, and adopt a conservation area management strategy and shopfront design guide. These documents will inform the future development of the conservation area in a constructive manner, and provide a mechanism for the maintenance of the public investment after the project has ended.

Walker Terrace/Regent Terrace Conservation Area

8. The enhancement of Walker Terrace/Regent Terrace conservation area is proposed by the draft Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan (proposed submission document, September 2013). Policy GC1 (6) sets out for the coordinated approach to the repair and enhancement of buildings, reinstatement of gardens and railings, enhancement of the public realm and rationalisation of car parking, in association with the conservation area management strategy. The priority is to work with existing owners and seek to secure public funding, such as a THI scheme for example, to assist in the delivery of such a scheme of enhancement. An established and adopted CAMS will assist in securing such funding.

Proposed Supplementary Planning Documents

9. In June 2013 Planning and Development Committee agreed Conservation Area Character Appraisals (CACAs) for both conservation areas. These appraisals have informed their respective Conservation Area Management Strategy (CAMS) and will be attached as an appendix. The CACAs were prepared by North of England Civic Trust on behalf of the Council.

10. The draft CAMS SPDs (appendices 2 and 3 to the report – available online and in the Members’ room ) aim to provide guidance to the local community, developers, the Council and statutory agencies to promote the protection and enhancement of both Conservation Areas through the positive management of change and the identification of opportunities for improvement. The CAMS documents will provide a framework for managing future development and growth, and assist in securing funding for enhancement schemes.

11. The documents have two roles, to inform decisions and to promote enhancement and regeneration. In the former, at this stage and as adopted SPDs these are one of a number of material planning considerations. Regarding the second, to promote enhancement, an aspirational approach is most appropriate and sets out the added benefit of a conservation-led approach, which can attract public funding. Further, CAMS are subject to a 5 yearly review, which allows options to be tested and monitored, and reviewed in a timely manner.

237 12. Both conservation areas fall within the Bridges Ward.

13. Should Cabinet be minded to agree, public consultation would be undertaken in January and February 2014 in accordance with the statutory requirements for SPDs. As part of the public consultation, letters will be sent to all properties within the two Conservation Areas and the documents will be made available online, at Gateshead Civic Centre and by request.

Recommendations

14. It is recommended that Cabinet approves:

(i) the draft Conservation Area Management Strategy SPD for Bridges Conservation Area for the purposes of formal public consultation; and

(ii) the draft Conservation Area Management Strategy SPD for Walker Terrace/Regent Terrace Conservation Area for the purposes of formal public consultation.

For the following reasons:

To inform and manage the physical and economic regeneration of both conservation areas; to deliver the big ideas contained in Vision 2030; and to ensure that the Council can use the Conservation Area Management Strategies as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.

CONTACT: Clare Lacy ext 3510

238

APPENDIX 1

Policy Context

1. The draft Conservation Area Management Strategies (CAMS) support a range of Big Ideas in Vision 2030, as stand alone documents and support past and future regeneration incentives including the Bridges Townscape Heritage Initiative (THI):

• City of Gateshead o Vibrant, diverse and growing population – by supporting the ongoing regeneration and enhancement of Bridges and Walker/Regent Terraces, independently and in association with the wider Town Centre regeneration • Gateshead goes Global o A place that attracts international talent - a place where people want to live and do business with – by bringing commercial premises back into use, and improving the appearance of commercial properties to complement the Town Centre and make the area more attractive for investment. • Creative Gateshead o A well educated community which utilises lifelong learning for both work and leisure – through the enhancement of knowledge about the conservation areas. o Gateshead’s heritage and culture is recognised and preserved – through the approval of the Conservation Area Management Strategies and development of enhancement opportunities to improve the physical environment. • Sustainable Gateshead o Improving and protecting our local environment so that Gateshead is the best place to live and work.

2. The SPDs also support the interventions and ambitions of the Council Plan 2012- 2017. In particular, the need for better quality environments and the ambition for sustainable communities. The SPDs will help contribute to the delivery of key regeneration projects and wider regeneration of the Town Centre and Quays areas.

3. The Council is preparing its Local Plan which will be made up of a number of Local Plan Documents including the Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan for Gateshead and Newcastle upon Tyne. The SPDs will form part of the Local Plan and will provide further details of policies and proposals for the two conservation areas in the saved Gateshead UDP and the emerging Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan. The Local Plan will replace the Unitary Development Plan (UDP).

4. The Urban Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan for Gateshead and Newcastle upon Tyne is being presented to Cabinet at the same time as this report recommending progress towards submission of the joint plan to the Secretary of State for independent examination.

5. Bridges Conservation Area was designated in 1991, and extended in 1994. Walker Terrace/Regent Terrace Conservation Area was designated in 1977. The Conservation Area Management Strategies (CAMS) have been prepared to

239 specifically support and amplify saved UDP Policies and emerging Core Strategy and Urban Core Policies. Once adopted as Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) they will be used to inform the future management of these Conservation Areas. In particular, the draft CAMS support the draft Core Strategy policy CS15 Place Making, and Urban Core Policies UC12 urban design, UC13 respecting and managing views, UC14 heritage and GC1: Gateshead Central Sub-Area. The documents relate to Saved UDP Policies ENV 7 – 10 which deal with development in, or affecting conservation areas

6. The SPDs also support the delivery of the Gateshead Centre Regeneration Delivery Strategy: Fit for a City (2008).

Background

7. Section 71 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places on Local Planning Authorities the duty to draw up and publish proposals for the preservation and enhancement of conservation areas in their district. There is also a requirement under s.71 to consult the local community.

8. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 126 requires Local planning authorities to set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, taking into account the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the historic environment, the wider benefits that the conservation of the historic environment can provide, the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness and the opportunity to draw on the contribution of the historic environment to the character of a place.

9. The character and appearance of conservation areas can change through incremental stages or quite suddenly and regular appraisals help to identify threats and opportunities which can be developed into a management plan. Management plans can be used to promote beneficial change, for example, in areas which are in a state of economic decline, and suffer from a lack of investment.

Consultation

10. Planning and Development Committee agreed the Conservation Area Character Appraisals (CACAs) for both conservation areas in June 2013. The draft CAMS are informed by the CACA.

11. The Cabinet Members for Sustainable Communities Central and Culture and ward councillors have been consulted.

12. Formal public consultation is proposed to take place during January and February 2014 and will include run for a minimum of six weeks in accordance with the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement. Letters will be sent to all households and businesses within the Conservation Areas, and the documents, with an online questionnaire will be made available on the Council’s website. In addition paper documents will be made available to view in the Central Library and the Civic Centre.

240 Alternative Options

13. The Council could choose to not take these documents forward for consultation and adoption as SPDs. However, this would conflict with the approved conditions of the Bridges THI grant offer from Heritage Lottery Fund and have a negative impact on the attraction of further funding to support the further enhancement and regeneration of either conservation area. Further, the publication of the CAMS is a statutory requirement under the 1990 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act s.71 and a requirement of the NPPF (para 126).

Implications of Recommended Option

14. Resources:

a) Financial Implications - The Strategic Director, Finance and ICT confirms that the draft CAMS as SPDs do not have any financial implications.

b) Human Resources Implications - The draft CAMS as SPDs do not have any human resource implications.

c) Property Implications - The draft CAMS as SPDs provide advice to the Local Planning Authority and Property owners who are seeking to enhance their property.

15. Risk Management Implication - The draft CAMS sets out the way in which development pressures and/or neglect will be managed to ensure that the conservation area retains the qualities and significance which led to its designation.

16. Equality and Diversity Implications – Consultation with residents and businesses will take place in January and February 2014 as part of the statutory requirements to prepare SPDs.

The CAMS expands on the policies contained within the saved UDP and the emerging Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan. In principle, SPDs should not be subject to the Strategic Environmental Assessment or require proposals or modify planning documents which have already been subject to sustainability appraisal. Most topic based SPDs, for example design guides, are unlikely to require a sustainability appraisal as they are unlikely to have significant environmental effects.

The parent policies within the Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan have been subject to a sustainability appraisal, which considers equality and diversity implications. It is considered that additional work is not required to assess the equality and diversity implications of the SPDs.

Nevertheless a Comprehensive Impact Assessment has been completed to evaluate the effects of any equality and diversity implications. This can be viewed online.

17. Crime and Disorder Implications - Northumbria Police will be consulted on the draft CAMS.

241 18. Health Implications - The enhancement of the historic environment within both conservation areas will have a positive impact on wellbeing and mental health through improving a sense of place and connectivity between people and a quality built environment.

19. Sustainability Implications - The SPDs are in accordance with the Council’s

20. Human Rights Implications - There are no implications arising from this report.

21. Area and Ward Implications - Bridges Ward, with the Central Neighbourhood management area.

242 Comprehensive Impact Assessment

(March 2013)

Group: Service: Section: Lead officer: DEVELOPMENT AND ENTERPRISE Economic and Housing Growth Area Regeneration and Historic CLARE LACY Environment Support officers: Completion date: 11/11/2013 Review date:

General information

(1) Name of Proposal/ Policy/Function: (1) Bridges Conservation Area Management Strategy (Supplementary Planning Document) (2) Walker terrace/Regent Terrace Conservation Area Management Strategy (Supplementary Planning Document) The purpose of the Conservation Area Management Strategies is to set out, with reference to the Briefly describe the aims, objectives and emerging Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan (and saved UDP policies), more detailed planning purpose of the policy policy guidance on the principles of managing Bridges and Walker Terrace/Regent Terrace Conservation Areas and to explain how planning policies will be applied in the context of recent guidance and requirements.

Positive management is essential if such pressure for change, which tends to alter the very character that made the areas attractive in the first place, is to be controlled. Proactively managing these Conservation Areas will ensure that the area moves forward in a manner which preserves and enhances its character and appearance for everyone.

This is a new document and supersedes the Bridges and Walker Terrace/Regent Terrace (2) Is this new or existing? Conservation Areas chapters in Interim Planning Advice 17, Conservation Area Character Statements, Strategies and Policy Guidance, approved by Cabinet in March 2006. Design professionals including architects, planners, landscape architects, agents and surveyors (3) Who are the main customer groups affected Highway engineers by this Policy / Function Local Planning Authority Project delivery organisations Project appraisers (responsible for assessing and scoring applications)

When describing impact specifically consider the effect of the proposal/policy/function on groups identified in question 4

243 Local communities (affected by proposed projects in their neighbourhoods) Special interest groups (nature conservation, Gateshead Access Panel, Local Heritage Groups) Artists Investors

(4) Groups affected by Proposal/Policy/Function: (5) Geographical areas affected by the Proposal/Policy/Function: Central South Age - (Children 0-16, Young people 16-24, 25-59 year olds, 60+ Y Bridges Y Birtley N Year olds) Deckham N Chowdene N Disability - (Physical/mobility, Sensory impairment, learning Y difficulties, Mental health, Other) Saltwell N High Fell N

Gender and gender identity - (Men/Women/Transgender people) Y Lobley Hill & Bensham N Lamesley N

Lesbians, Gay men, Bisexuals (LGB) Y East Low Fell N Felling N Race – (BME groups, Gypsies and travellers, Asylum seekers and Y West refugees, new and emerging communities) Pelaw & Heworth N Blaydon N

Religion or belief groups – (Including those of no religion or belief) Y Wardley and Leam Lane N Chopwell & Rowlands Gill N

Socio-economic groups Y Windy Nook and Whitehills N Crawcrook & Greenside N

Geographic communities – (Urban, Rural, Neighbouring areas) Y Inner West Ryton, Crookhill and Stella N Dunston Hill & Whickham East N Visitors or those working in the Borough Y Winlaton and High Spen N Dunston & Teams N Elected Members Y Whickham North N Council Employees Y Whickham South and N Everyone in Gateshead N Sunniside

When describing impact specifically consider the effect of the proposal/policy/function on groups identified in question 4

244 All Wards N

(6) Who has been consulted in the development of the proposal/policy/function, and what has changed as a result? The draft documents have been prepared by the Area Planning and Historic Environment Team, in consultation with Officers across Development and Enterprise. The documents are informed by the Conservation Area Character Appraisals prepared on behalf of the Council by North of England Civic Trust in 2012.

Internal consultation across Development and Enterprise took place in October 2013 and the strategies have been amended in light of the comments received during this period.

Should the draft strategies be approved for public consultation, this will take place in January/February 2014 for a minimum of 6 weeks in accordance with the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement.

(7) Data analysed during development of the proposal/policy/function and key issues (Service Data – e.g. Comments and complaints, user surveys, database statistics, etc. Local –Strategic Needs Assessment, JSNA, Household Survey, viewpoint, etc. National – e.g. Census, Labour Force Survey, etc.) Conservation area character appraisals were prepared for both conservation areas, in line with best practice (English Heritage) to consider the significance of the conservation area, and the issues affecting that significance. These provide a baseline for understanding the significance of the conservation area and its component parts, and how development may affect that, in a positive or harmful way.

Various National documents have been used to inform the draft SPDs including PPS5 Practice Guide and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Various research and best practice publications undertaken by the English Heritage have informed the draft SPDs.

When describing impact specifically consider the effect of the proposal/policy/function on groups identified in question 4

245

(8) Equality Impact Description of Impact Mitigation +2, +1, 0, -1, -2 What impact will this proposal/policy/function have on;

• Equality of opportunity across all 0 diverse groups

• Eliminating discrimination, 0 harassment, and victimisation Neutral Impact

• Relations between groups 0 Neutral Impact

• Access to services / facilities / 0 Neutral Impact information

(9) Environment Impact Description of Impact Mitigation +2, +1, 0, -1, -2 What impact will this proposal/policy/function have on;

• Energy and Carbon Emissions 0 Neutral impact.

• Built Environment +2 The SPDs seek to create attractive and well designed

When describing impact specifically consider the effect of the proposal/policy/function on groups identified in question 4

246 places and spaces. Through the appropriate application of the draft SPDs and the Development Management process it is anticipated that the quality of the Built Environment will improve over a sustained period of time with a particular emphasis on the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment.

• Transportation +1 The SPDs encourage well designed environment that will create and improve pedestrian routes / linkages / cycle routes.

• Natural Environment +1 The SPDs encourage new developments to enhance and improve the natural environment..

• Waste Management 0 Neutral Impact

(10) Health and Wellbeing Impact Description of Impact Mitigation +2, +1, 0, -1, -2 What impact will this proposal/policy/function have on;

• The physical and mental health of +1 There are links between quality of place and health and residents well being. Creating quality places including attractive residential environments will promote positive mental health.

• The health related behaviours of +1 By encouraging quality places with attractive open residents spaces, attractive and pleasant streets residents will be

When describing impact specifically consider the effect of the proposal/policy/function on groups identified in question 4

247 encouraged to spend time outside walking, playing & socialising.

• Social elements of health 0 Neutral impact.

• Economic well-being and its role in +1 The SPDs assist in the delivery of the Town Centre promoting good health Regeneration.

• Physical environment and its role in +2 The SPDs encourage the improvement of the physical promoting good health environment (buildings and spaces, public realm and parks).

• Capacity of health and social care 0 Neutral Impact systems

(11) Economy Impact Description of Impact Mitigation +2, +1, 0, -1, -2 What impact will this proposal/policy/function have on; • Deprivation and disadvantage 0 Neutral Impact • Child and family poverty • Financial inclusion

• Aspirations and enhancing life 0 Neutral Impact chances

• Supporting people into employment 0 Neutral Impact

• Economic performance and growth – When describing impact specifically consider the effect of the proposal/policy/function on groups identified in question 4

248 supporting business start-up +1 The SPDs can positively contribute to the regeneration of development and survival, including the Town Centre and provide different opportunities for social enterprises the development of commercial spaces.

• Investment and development +1 The SPDs are linked to the delivery of the Town Centre regeneration and identify opportunities for further investment and development.

When describing impact specifically consider the effect of the proposal/policy/function on groups identified in question 4

249

(12) Community Safety Impact Description of Impact Mitigation +2, +1, 0, -1, -2 What impact will this proposal/policy/function have on the Council’s statutory duty to address;

• Crime and disorder 0 Neutral impact.

• Anti-social behaviour 0 Neutral impact.

• Substance misuse 0 Neutral Impact

• Behaviour adversely affecting the 0 Neutral Impact local environment

• Reducing re-offending 0 Neutral Impact

(13) Community Cohesion Impact Description of Impact Mitigation +2, +1, 0, -1, -2 What impact will this proposal/policy/function have on;

• Local integration and cohesion +1 The Conservation Area Management Strategy encourages development which positively assists the conservation and enhancement of the conservation area, and that development is appropriate to its context

When describing impact specifically consider the effect of the proposal/policy/function on groups identified in question 4

250 thus aiding integration with the surrounding neighbourhoods.

• The visibility of social justice and 0 Neutral Impact equality between groups

• Understanding across different 0 Neutral Impact groups

• Engagement with residents / 0 Neutral Impact community leaders / young people

(14) Workforce and Assets Impact Description of Impact Mitigation +2, +1, 0, -1, -2 What impact will this proposal/policy/function have on;

• The Council workforce 0 Neutral Impact (changes to; numbers of employees; working practices; IT systems; training needs)

• Does the proposal have a greater 0 Neutral Impact adverse impact on any group of employees sharing a protected characteristic

• Council Assets +1 The SPDs will be applicable to development which is being promoted on Council owned sites within the Conservation Areas and will be referenced in development briefs, frameworks etc.

When describing impact specifically consider the effect of the proposal/policy/function on groups identified in question 4

251 • Which group of employees will be affected?

SIGNED: Clare Lacy Completing Officer

SIGNED: Head of Service

SIGNED: Group Director

When describing impact specifically consider the effect of the proposal/policy/function on groups identified in question 4

252

9 REPORT TO CABINET 17 December 2013

TITLE OF REPORT: Energy Efficient Heating Scheme, Maintenance and Associated Works to Crowhall Towers

REPORT OF: David Bunce, Strategic Director, Community Based Services Paul Dowling, Strategic Director, Development & Enterprise

Purpose of the Report

1. The purpose of this report is to ask Cabinet to give approval to the Gateshead Housing Company to carry out energy efficiency improvement works to Crowhall Towers.

Background

2. The Gateshead Housing Company currently has 25 multi-storey tower blocks in its management. All of these blocks have varying degrees of investment needs in the coming years, including 16 blocks that have electric storage heaters as the main form of heating and at least 6 blocks being ‘difficult to heat’ due to the nature of their construction.

3. The Gateshead Housing Company has been working directly with Energy Company Obligation (ECO) funder, Cosyseal Limited, to develop a fully funded offer for works to Crowhall that will improve the thermal performance of the block.

5. Further background detail is provided within Appendix 1.

Proposal

6. The offer from Cosyseal Limited includes: • External Wall Insulation • High Performance double glazed windows • Biomass fired heating system • Insulated flat roof

7. Maintenance of all heating plant for a 20 year period is included in the offer, for which Cosyseal Ltd will retain 50% of the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) income received.

8. Electrical works will be undertaken at the time as the energy upgrade by Local Environmental Services.

9. The works to Crowhall Towers are to be delivered by the same contractor that will be carrying out similar improvement to the adjacent St. Oswalds Court, managed by ISOS housing association.

1 of 6 253

10. Once works are completed, Gateshead Housing Company will contract with the Council’s Energy Service Company, to provide ongoing management of the scheme.

Recommendations

9. It is recommended that the Cabinet gives approval for the Gateshead Housing Company to carry out energy efficiency improvement works to Crowhall towers.

For the following reasons:

(i) The scheme delivers approximately £2 million worth of grant funded works to sustain the long-term future of Crowhall Towers (ii) The scheme will support the wider regeneration of felling town centre (iii) The scheme will help reduce fuel costs and carbon emissions of the block

CONTACT: Jim Gillon Extension: 3923

2 of 6 254

APPENDIX 1

Policy Context

1. The proposal from the Gateshead Housing Company to issue a contract for energy efficiency improvements to Crowhall Towers will directly deliver many targets within Vision 2030, Council’s Corporate Plan, the Council’s Climate Change Strategy and other council strategies and commitments, specifically:

• Energy efficiency improvements with new, lower carbon heating systems, reducing domestic carbon emissions; • creating financial savings for residents and improving health and comfort; • contributing to Active and Healthy Gateshead by helping to reduce excess winter deaths; • contributing to Sustainable Gateshead by reducing energy consumption, and potentially increasing renewable energy generation.

Background

2. All 25 tower blocks managed by TGHC were assessed for the potential to improve their energy efficiency. The major factors influencing viability of schemes is levels of grant funding available, which is determined by the following factors:

• Building Fabric Condition – wall insulation must be included to qualify for ECO funding. • Heating type – replacing electrical heating gives higher carbon savings and grant funding • Location – grant funding is higher in the 34 most deprived Lower Super Output Areas

3. Following this assessment, the Council has already let a contract with Mears Ltd, to upgrade 5 tower blocks with energy efficiency works (Fell, Lough, Beacon, Redheugh and Eslingtons Courts).

4. Separately to the above contract, the Gateshead Housing Company were approached by a funder, Cosyseal Limited, offering a fully-funded scheme for Crowhall Towers. This offer arose in conjunction with a similar offer to being made from Cosyseal to Isos Housing, who manage the adjacent St Oswalds Court. Isos Housing have already signed a contract with Cosyseal to deliver works in St Oswalds Court.

5. Considering the general condition of blocks that require urgent repairs and renewals work, a review of the business case for the proposed scheme at Crowhall Towers was undertaken, that confirmed energy efficiency improvements for these blocks could be funded largely through grant funding, with ongoing operating and maintenance costs recovered through the sale of heat to tenants over 20 years.

6. The Gateshead Housing Company have since negotiated the fully funded offer directly with Cosyseal limited, without the need for a procurement exercise, an approach which was confirmed by the Council’s procurement and legal sections.

3 of 6 255

Proposal

7. The proposal is to provide a biomass heating scheme for Crowhall Towers including new radiators which will reduce fuel costs to residents, improve the sustainability of the blocks and reduce their carbon emissions.

8. Biomass boilers will be fed from secure woodfuel stores, integrated into the central plant building. The type of woodfuel – pellets, or woodchip – is still to be determined during initial scheme design review.

9. Once finalised, a sustainable, local source of woodfuel for the scheme will be procured early in 2014.

10. The works will also include the following upgrades to building fabric.

• External Wall insulation • High Performance double glazed windows • Roof Replacement

11. The offer includes full funding for the improvements noted above. The only cost that is not covered is the internal project costs, which are approximately £85,000. These will be funded from the HRA capital programme.

12. The financial model indicates that all operating and maintenance and are expected to be met in full from the income generated from heat sales to tenants and income from government subsidies for renewable heat generation, with a potential for surplus income generation, which will be confirmed as scheme design is finalised.

13. To cover ongoing maintenance costs, Cosyseal will be paid 50% of the Renewable Heat Incentive for the duration of the maintenance contract (20 years), subject to meeting agreed maintenance standards.

14. The scope of works is a Design, Build and Maintenance Contract including the security of obtaining ECO or other funding to fully cover the scheme capital cost.

15. The initial design, build and works contract will commence early 2014, and will be synchronise with a planned rewire of the blocks, being delivered by Local Environmental Service.

16. Once works are completed, TGHC will contract the Council’s Energy Service Company to manage the scheme, including operation of boiler plant and metering and billing of tenants directly for heat.

Consultation

17. The Cabinet Members for Housing and ward councillors have been consulted. Since receiving a formal offer from Cosyseal, the project has been approved by the Gateshead Housing Company’s Board.

18. Subject to scheme approval, consultation with tenants is will take place regarding the proposed improvements.

4 of 6 256

Alternative Options

19. The following options were considered and rejected.

• Do nothing. Given the need for repairs and improvements to the block, this option was not considered viable.

• Deliver the scheme through an alternative contract. The Housing Company and Council have explored potential to deliver this scheme through another contract, but at present, no other contract is able to offer a fully-funded scheme within the required timescales of this scheme.

Implications of Recommended Option

20. Resources:

(a) Financial Implications The Strategic Director, Finance and ICT confirms that the improvement works will be managed by the Gateshead Housing Company and are estimated to cost £2,000,000. The works will be fully funded by external grant funding. There will be a cost to the Council for internal project management fees, estimated to be £85,000, which can be accommodated from within the HRA capital programme.

(b) Human Resources Implications - Nil

(c) Property Implications - The scheme will provide a modernised heating system for Crowhall Towers, including new wet distribution systems, radiators and heat meters within resident’s flats. It will also greatly improve the building fabric of Crowhall Towers, improving long term sustainability and reducing maintenance costs.

21. Risk Management Implications - The risks associated with this contract have been assessed by officers with the appropriate expertise in terms of gas, electrical and Health and Safety.

. A full risk register of all other risks has been developed and will be monitored as the project progresses to ensure that the overall project remains on target and continues to deliver the required outputs.

22. Equality and Diversity Implications – Equality and Diversity is a keen part of TGHC’s contract specification.. TGHC will monitor the successful tenderer’s compliance throughout the Contract Period

23. Crime and Disorder Implications – Effective property management and repair contribute to community safety. . 24. Health Implications –The quality and standard of maintenance of the properties and the heating scheme will contribute to the health and wellbeing of the tenants in the blocks.

5 of 6 257

25. Sustainability Implications. - The scheme will reduce domestic carbon emissions in Gateshead by reducing energy consumption and replacing electric heating with wood-fuelled heating. Wood fuel will be sourced locally if possible, within a given radius, to ensure sustainability of supply.

26. Human Rights Implications - Nil

27. Area and Ward Implications – East and Felling ward

Background Information

28. None.

6 of 6 258

REPORT TO CABINET 17 December 2013

TITLE OF REPORT: Council Plan – Six Month Assessment of Delivery and Performance 2013/14

REPORT OF: Jane Robinson, Chief Executive

Purpose of the Report 1. Cabinet is requested to approve the Council Plan – Six Month Assessment of Delivery and Performance Report 2013/14.

Background 2. Within Gateshead, the six month review of delivery and performance for the period April 2013 to September 2013 is seen as an integral part of the Council’s performance management framework and demonstrates the progress made to achieve Vision 2030 and the priorities and outcomes within the Council Plan.

3. This is the six month composite report for 2013/14 and provides an overview of progress over the last six months in delivering the Council Plan.

Performance Management Framework 4. Cabinet on the 16 April 2013 approved the Performance Management Framework which included the new list of strategic outcome indicators, 5 year targets and new reporting framework.

Delivery of the Council Plan 2012 -17 5. At its meeting on the 21 May 2013, Cabinet agreed the refresh of the Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) which is a key part of the Council’s Performance Management Framework and aims to ensure that all resources are directed towards the corporate priorities and delivery of the Council Plan 2012-17.

Performance Reporting 6. Each Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC) has considered its six month 2013/14 review of performance and the progress made in relation to the strategic outcome indicators applicable to it. The reports included:

. An assessment of the Council’s contribution to the delivery of the Council Plan and Vision 2030 . An overview of the analysis of performance identifying key achievements and areas for improvement; . An outline of the six month performance against the strategic outcome indicators

7. Presented to Cabinet is a summary document, from appendix 2 onwards, which includes an overview of the Council’s contribution to delivery of the Council Plan including some of the major achievements in relation to the 6 big ideas which contribute to the delivery of Vision 2030. This is supported

1 259 by an outline of six month performance against the strategic outcome indicators, key achievements and improvement actions applicable to each Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Also included are the minutes of the discussion at these meetings

8. Full versions of the reports considered by each Overview and Scrutiny Committee are available at http://online.gateshead.gov.uk/docushare/dsweb/View/Collection-4413

Summary Annual Report 9. A summary of the Council’s performance is reported annually through Council News and online via Gateshead Council’s website.

Recommendations 10. It is recommended that Cabinet: (i) Approves the recommendations of all of the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committees in relation to the 2013/14 six month performance report (Appendix 4). (ii) Agrees that the Council has satisfactorily met its performance objectives and is addressing the outcomes in delivering the Council Plan 2012-17.

For the following reason: To ensure performance supports the delivery and achievements of the Council Plan 2012-17.

CONTACT: Marisa Jobling extension 2099

2 260 APPENDIX 1

Policy Context

1. The Council Plan – Six Month Assessment of Delivery and Performance 2013/2014 illustrates how the Council aims to meet the vision and outcomes, and forms part of the Council’s Performance Management Framework.

2. The report highlights an overview of achievements against Vision 2030 and the Council Plan in the last six months period April 2013 to September 2013 and contains performance data where available.

Background

Performance Management Framework 3. Cabinet on the 16 April 2013 approved the Performance Management Framework which included the new list of strategic outcome indicators, 5 year targets and new reporting framework.

Delivery of the Council Plan 2012-17 4. At its meeting on the 21 May 2013, Cabinet agreed the refresh of the Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) which is a key part of the Council’s Performance Management Framework and aims to ensure all resources are directed towards the corporate priorities and delivery of the Council Plan 2012-17.

5. The MTFS was prepared against the background of significant reductions and changes to grant funding and additional costs arising from service demand pressures, in particular the increased demand for social care.

6. In June 2013, following approval of the MTFS, the Government announced further reductions in government funding as part of the Governments Spending Review.

Consultation 7. Each six month report has been considered by the appropriate Overview and Scrutiny Committees during October, November and December and minute extracts and comments made by the committees are included at Appendix 4. The Deputy Leader, Cabinet Member for Performance Management, has also been consulted in preparing this report.

Alternative Options 8. There are no alternative options with regard to the report as the recommendation supports the Council’s general duty to secure continuous improvement in the way functions are exercised, having regard to the combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.

3 261 Implications of Recommended Option

9. Resources a) Financial Implications – The Strategic Director, Finance and ICT confirms that there are no financial implications arising directly from this report. However, external pressures have been identified against delivery of the Council Plan 2012-17. b) Human Resource Implications – There are no human resource implications arising directly from this report. c) Property Implications – There are no property implications arising directly from this report.

10. Risk Management Implications – There are no risk management implications arising directly from this report. Where any areas of concern have been identified in the reports, supporting information has been given to mitigate this in each Overview and Scrutiny report. However, external pressures have been identified against delivery of the Council Plan 2012- 17.

11. Equality and Diversity Implications – There are no direct implications arising directly from this report. However, Services will continue to ensure the impact of policy decisions do not disproportionately affect certain communities or individuals through the Comprehensive Impact Assessments.

12. Crime and Disorder Implications – There are no crime and disorder implications arising directly as a result of this report.

13. Health Implications – There are no health implications arising directly as a result of this report.

14. Sustainability Implications - There are implications associated with the ambitions for creating the conditions for economic growth which stem from the current economic picture. If resource is not made available for continued investment in the borough both in terms of people, skills and infrastructure then there is a risk that jobs and growth may not be created for sustainable economic growth and wellbeing.

15. Human Rights Implications - There are no human rights implications arising directly as a result of this report.

16. Area and Ward implications – There are no area and ward implications arising directly as a result of this report.

Background Information

17. Performance Management Framework Report to Cabinet 16 April 2013 Medium Term Financial Strategy 2014/15 – 2015/16 Report to Cabinet 21 May 2013

4 262 APPENDIX 2

COUNCIL PLAN – SIX MONTH ASSESSMENT OF DELIVERY AND PERFORMANCE 2013/14

Composite Report Introduction 1. The composite report reflects the key issues in relation to the six month assessment of delivery and performance 2013/14 for the Council Plan.

2. During October, November and December 2013, the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committees considered their six month assessment of delivery and performance made between 1 April 2013 to 30 September 2013 to achieve Vision 2030 and the priorities in the Council Plan.

3. The five Overview and Scrutiny Committee reports, when brought together make up the Cabinet Composite Report, Council Plan – Six Month Assessment of Delivery and Performance 2013/14.

Delivery of Council Plan 2012-17 4. Sustainable economic growth and wellbeing is our overall ambition and is at the heart of the Council Plan. The Council is committed and determined to deliver against the priorities set out in the Council Plan and has made significant progress in the last six months.

Overall Six Month Performance Overview 5. There are 86 strategic outcome indicators in the performance management framework. The direction of travel for the 52 strategic outcome indicators where performance has been reported shows 33 have improved, 12 have stayed the same and 7 have declined.

Performance Performance Performance Improved Declined Stayed the Same 33 7 12

6. There are 20 indicators where performance has not been reported at the six month stage as they are annual indicators. There are also 2 biennial indicators where performance will be reported in 2014/15.

7. It is also to be noted that this reporting period is still part of the baseline year for 12 of the ‘new’ strategic outcome indicators introduced to the performance framework. Once the baseline data is collated, targets will be set for future years and future comparison.

8. A more detailed analysis is given below according to each OSC.

Summary of Achievements and Areas for Improvement 9. The 5 performance reports from each OSC give an overview of performance for the six month period and highlight achievements and areas for improvement. Some areas to note for each OSC include:

5 263 Corporate Vitality OSC 10. The direction of travel for performance information available at this time shows the following for 8 of the 15 strategic outcome indicators:

Performance Performance Performance Improved Declined Stayed the Same 7 1 -

11. Of the remaining 7 strategic outcome indicators, data was unavailable for 5 and the remaining 2 indicators, increase turnout at elections and increase satisfaction with Gateshead as a place to live are biennial indicators with no targets set for 2013/14.

12. Of the sickness absence indicator where performance is declining, current figures indicate council employees on average took 9.29 days sickness absence in the year up to August 2013 which falls short of the year end 2013/14 target of 8.25 days.

13. Some of the achievements include • Our local Apprenticeship Offer is proving a great success with local employers supporting young people into Apprenticeships. If all referrals are successful we will have 75 employers signed up and have created 108 apprenticeship places for the young people of Gateshead. • An increase in the numbers of apprentices employed with the Council from 35 in 2012/13 to the current figure of 45; • We have continued to create capacity through volunteering with nearly 10,000 people took part in Gateshead’s volunteer’s month. This took place in June 2013 and aimed to increase volunteering opportunities and make it easier to volunteer. The event successfully recruited 387 new volunteers. • 4242 people recorded the hours they volunteered on the Gateshead Volunteers Month ‘totaliser’. The volunteer hours totalled 35,000 which far exceeded the target of 20,000. • The speed in which benefit claims are processed has improved • The new Resilience Strategy was agreed by Cabinet in June 2013.

14. Areas for improvement include continuing work to recruit apprentices within the Council through the Apprenticeship Plan for Gateshead and improving sickness related absences across the Council through a dedicated counselling service, physiotherapy support and occupational health.

Children and Young People OSC 15. The direction of travel for performance information available at this time, albeit provisional, shows the following for 12 of the 16 strategic outcome indicators:

Performance Performance Performance Improved Declined Stayed the Same 6 6 -

16. Of the 6 strategic outcome indicators where figures indicate performance is declining, it needs to be noted that performance for 5 indicators narrowly missed the targets set. The performance of the adoption indicator has

6 264 declined as the days since last year have increased; however, the Council is still performing in line with Government targets.

17. Of the remaining 4 indicators, data was unavailable at this stage for 3 indicators and the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) profile for the readiness for school indicator changed in 2012 resulting in baseline data being collected in 2013/14.

18. Our key achievements to support children and young people include: • GCSE figures in Gateshead have continued to improve for the 18th year in a row with 91.9% of Gateshead pupils securing five or more A* to C grades. • Achieving all youth offending targets showing significant success when compared to regional and national figures, • The Early Intervention Strategy was agreed by the Children’s Trust Board, • The FamiliesGateshead initiative is driving change in service delivery and showing improved outcomes for families and aims to work with 595 families over three years. • The number of nominations for the annual achievement awards ceremony for looked after children also continue to grow year on year with over 320 nominations being received this year. This illustrates the breadth of achievements of our looked after children and is testament to both the young people themselves and to the care and support they receive that encourages them to achieve their potential.

19. Areas for improvement include obesity which continues to be an issue; while rates of obesity in reception have fallen, there is a slight increase in obesity for children in year 6. Breast feeding rates also continue to be low compared with the national picture and remain a priority for health and children’s services and the numbers of children presenting at hospital as a result of self harm remain a concern.

Healthier Communities OSC 20. The direction of travel for performance information available at this time shows the following for one of the 12 strategic outcome indicators:

Performance Performance Performance Improved Declined Stayed the Same 1 - -

21. At this stage, of the remaining 11 strategic outcome indicators, baseline data is currently being collected for 6 ‘new’ indicators in 2013/14; data is unavailable for 2 indicators, one ‘new’ indicator, health support is currently under development, the stabilise the rate of hospital admissions is part of a consultation exercise which will determine the definition to be adopted and the repeat safeguarding adult referrals indicator calculation changed in 2013/14.

22. Key achievements over the last six months include: • The work of Health Trainers is being targeted in communities experiencing the greatest health inequalities and to date we have responded to 1,491 referrals across the Borough, with almost 70% of clients from the most deprived communities.

7 265 • Service reviews have commenced following the transition of Public Health to the Council which aim to transform the way that Public Health arrangements are commissioned. • Implementing options which are giving an increased choice in personal care to individuals, • Over 300 men in the East of Gateshead have engaged in the British Heart Foundation Hearty Lives Project, • Securing over £500k from the Department for Health to implement environmental improvements for people with dementia.

23. Areas for improvement include increasing the number of people using personal budgets, involving carers in the accessing and developing of services in the future, using customer feedback to improve services and the development of policies and practices to ensure safeguarding remains high on the health and social care agenda.

Sustainable Communities (People) OSC 24. The direction of travel for performance information available at this time shows the following for 9 of the 13 strategic outcome indicators relating to this OSC:

Performance Performance Performance Improving Declined Stayed the Same 9 - -

25. At this stage, of the remaining 4 strategic outcome indicators, there was no data available at this stage.

26. Some of the achievements over the six month period include • A decrease in the numbers of people on out of work benefits • An increase in the number of people receiving financial information, advice and guidance from partners which has culminated in increased benefits and grants totalling £900,000. • A reduction in adults offenders re-offending and anti-social behaviour • We have continued to build on Gateshead’s national and international profile through high impact events as Gateshead International Stadium hosted the European Team Athletics Championships in June 2013 which attracted a global television audience and significantly contributed to raising Gateshead’s profile. • Gateshead also hosted international events and conferences such as the ‘international conference de la colour’ which took place at Sage Gateshead in July 2013 and delegates from all over the world were welcomed.

27. Areas for improvement include developing ‘Money Matters’ educational programmes and activities which will support residents such as access to basic budgeting, opening and managing a bank account in anticipation of the roll out of Universal Credit and the continuous delivery of the DWP New Enterprise Allowance programme which has been extended to March 2015.

Sustainable Communities (Place) OSC 28. The direction of travel for performance information available at this time shows the following for 22 of the 30 strategic outcome indicators:

8 266 Performance Performance Performance Improved Declined Stayed the Same 10 - 12

29. At this stage, of the remaining 8 indicators, there is no data available for 6 of the indicators and baseline data for 2 ‘new’ indicators is being collected in 2013/14.

30. Key achievements over the last six months included: • The regeneration of Gateshead Town Centre reached a major milestone with the opening of the first phase of the Trinity Square Development on 23 May, creating over 1,000 additional construction jobs. Well over 200 retail jobs have already been created to date. As well as protecting existing staff, Tesco took on 155 new staff of which nearly 90% of these new employees reside in Gateshead and consequently contribute approximately £6million per year into the local economy in wages alone. • Redevelopment in Birtley is also now underway and when complete will include a new 25,000 sq ft Morrison’s supermarket, which is expected to create 250 jobs, and the building of four new two storey retail units. • £2.4 million Government funding secured to improve the road network at north end of Team Valley Trading Estate, park and ride site at Eighton Lodge identified as priority for funding by North Eastern Local Transport Body, successful ‘cycle city ambition’ bid for Dunston Staithes and Saltmarsh Garden improvements and Housing Estate Renewal Programme progressing which includes large scale demolitions at Chandless Estate • Recent figures indicate there were 485 new homes built in Gateshead in 2012/13 which is a significant increase and 40% higher than 2011/12 suggesting the housing market in Gateshead may be recovering from the recent downturn.

31. Areas for improvement include developing the Flood Risk Management Strategy for Gateshead, collaboration on asset management and disposal of properties and the implementation of an apprenticeship scheme with Mears by the Gateshead Housing Company.

9 267

APPENDIX 3

CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE DATA FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEES TO CABINET

Following receipt of updated data, this section shows the changes to performance data reported to the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committees.

Healthier Communities OSC – 15 October 2013

HC03 – Repeat Safeguarding Adult Referrals

Change on page 4/5 from:

The performance for 2012/13 for this strategic outcome indicator was 14.02%. Current performance indicates that this figure is rising. A problem profile is to be commissioned to understand this trend. Data to follow.

Change to:

As at September 2013 the rate of repeat safeguarding adult’s referrals is 24.21%. This is higher than the figure reported at the same time in 2012/13. Care must be taken when looking at these figures as the way in which this indicator is calculated changed in 2013/14 therefore direct comparisons are not possible.

Sustainable Communities – Place – 4 November 2013

PL03 – Reducing Council Carbon Emissions

Change on page 4 from:

The annual reduction figures are reported below, these show that the actual figure is shore of the 7% reduction target for 2012/13 whereas the weather corrected figure shows an overachievement of 3.9%, reporting 17.9% reduction. Both figures are continuing an upward trend in performance.

Change to:

The annual reduction figures are reported below; these show that the actual and weather corrected figures are short of the 7% reduction target for 2012/13. However, the weather corrected figures continues an upward trend in performance.

10 268 APPENDIX 4

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE MINUTES

During October, November and December 2013, all five Overview and Scrutiny Committees discussed the review of performance report appropriate to their committee. The key points from each of these discussions are listed below:

Healthier Communities OSC 15 October 2013

HC20. THE COUNCIL PLAN – SIX MONTH ASSESSMENT OF DELIVERY AND PERFORMANCE 2013/14

The Committee received the six month assessment of performance for 2013/14 and covered the period 1 April 2013 to 30 September 2013, providing an update on the performance and delivery of the Council Plan 2012-17.

The six month assessment of performance report focused on reporting achievement, areas identified for improvement and future actions relevant to the Healthier Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The report contained an update on performance against the outcomes identified in the Council Plan 2012-17.

The report also included the progress and improvements made against the medium and longer term ambition of sustainable economic growth and wellbeing relevant to the individual role and remit of the Healthier Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the strategic interventions.

Progress was also reported in relation to Vision 2030 and the 6 Big Ideas and is consistent across all 5 year end assessment of performance reports.

RESOLVED - i) that the information be noted. ii) that the report be referred to Cabinet on 17 December 2013

Sustainable Communities - People OSC 23 October 2013

SCPE16. THE COUNCIL PLAN – SIX MONTH ASSESSMENT OF DELIVERT AND PERFORMANCE 2013/14

The Committee were provided with the six month assessment of performance for 2013/14 which covered the period 1 April 2013 to 30 September 2013. An update on the performance and delivery of the Council Plan 2012-17.

RESOLVED - i) that the information be noted. ii) that the report be referred to Cabinet on 17 December 2013.

11 269 Children and Young People OSC 24 October 2013

CYP19 Vision 2030 and Council Plan – Delivery and Performance

The Committee received the six monthly report on the performance and delivery of the Council Plan 2012-17.

In terms of achievements over the last six months it was noted that Family Group Conferences are producing good results in relation to resolving family situations therefore preventing the need for formal interventions. In addition, it was noted that over 300 Looked after Children have been nominated for the annual achievement awards.

In relation to areas of challenge, obesity and breastfeeding rates continue to be an issue. Work is also ongoing around the increase in the number of children presenting at hospital as a result of self harm.

The report identified progress against each of the 14 strategic outcomes for which the data is available. The readiness for school indicator looks at the number of children achieving a good level of development at age 5. It was noted that there is no comparison available yet so this is based on 17 early learning goals. 55.8% of children achieved expected or exceeding levels in the Prime Goals, 34.4% achieved expected or exceeding levels in Specific Goals and 31.8% achieved expected or exceeding levels in all goals.

The target was not met for the health improvement indicator, which looks at excess weight in primary age children in year six, however the outcome is within the agreed tolerance. It was noted that there has been a decline in this indicator and this remains an area of concern for the service. It was also pointed out that while there has been an increase in excess weight figures in year six children; there has actually been a reduction in the figures for reception age children.

Similarly, the target around educational attainment at primary school has not been met although it is within the agreed tolerance. It was noted that, although these figures are provisional, Gateshead has performed well achieving 79% compared to the regional average of 77% and national average of 76%. It was also confirmed that the results for children achieving level five at KS2 is the best in the region.

Educational attainment at secondary school is measured by GCSE results. It was noted that provisional data shows that this target has not been met but is within the agreed tolerance.

The NEET indicator target has been met, although it was pointed out that the number has increased since the official figure was reported in January. A number of initiatives are in place to reduce the NEET figure further, including the Youth Contract and funding to support apprenticeships.

The life chances strategic indicator looks at first time entrants to the youth justice system. The target was met for this indicator and is continuing to improve.

The indicator for early intervention measures the number of children subject to a child protection plan. It was confirmed that the target was not met but was within

12 270 the agreed tolerances. Over the last two quarters the figure has increased and at present stands at 210. It was pointed out that this may be due to the decrease in the number of looked after children which consequently means an increase in the number of plans.

The indicator for safeguarding is measured through the percentage of children subject to a second or subsequent child protection plan. It was confirmed that this target was not met, but is within the agreed tolerance, and will continue to be monitored.

In terms of stability for looked after children this indicator is measured through the percentage of children living continuously in the same placement for two years. It was noted that this figure has improved and although the target was not met it remained within the agreed tolerance.

The adoption indicator focuses on the reduction in time between a placement order being granted and a child being placed with adopters. It was confirmed that the target was not met and the average number of days has increased, however this is in line with Government targets. To date this year there has been 18 children adopted.

The equalities objectives have been met and these indicators are around attainment of vulnerable young people and promoting positive emotional mental health amongst the school age population. The proxy measure for the promotion of emotional mental health is the rate of hospital admissions for self harm.

The point was made that the number of children subject to a child protection plan should depend on the number of children in need and therefore targets should not be set around these figures. It was confirmed that this target is set in order to see whether figures are diverging from the target and if so further analysis work can be carried out to discover why. It was also pointed out that this indicator previously included information such as the length of time on the register and the numbers of children coming off the register, therefore it was suggested that this indicator is now not as relevant.

It was queried as to how the Children’s Centres reach figures have increased despite budget cuts in this area. It was confirmed that this is affected by the number of families accessing two year old funding which has meant an increase in contact. It was also requested that officers bring information back to this Committee as to what the definition of ‘significant reach’ is. It was also agreed that the explanation of reoffending rates would be distributed, as was described at the Committee’s last meeting.

It was noted that there is likely to be an increase in GCSE figures and this will be reported back to Committee once the data is validated.

The point was made that the proxy measure of self harm is likely to be unrealistic as it only considers admissions to the QE Hospital and does not take into consideration admissions to the RVI or those children who manage without going to hospital. It was recognised that this is an under reporting and work is ongoing with schools, the LSCB and the CAMHS Partnership. It was also acknowledged that year end figures are nationally collected.

13 271

It was queried whether any of the alcohol related hospital admissions were for the same person more than once. It was confirmed that this information is based on admissions only, however work is being undertaken to see whether the data can be picked further to decipher the actual number of young people.

It was questioned as to when the data on the reduction of child poverty rates would be reported to Committee. It was agreed that the figure would be confirmed at the next meeting however there is significant delay and this is two year old data so will not show recent changes.

RESOLVED - (i) The Committee considered that the activities undertaken during the last six months are achieving the desired outcomes in the Council Plan 2012-17.

(ii) That the Committee agreed that the report be referred to Cabinet on 17 December 2013, with the recommendations from the Children and Young People OSC for their consideration.

Sustainable Communities - Place OSC 4 November 2013

SCPL16. THE COUNCIL PLAN – SIX MONTH ASSESSMENT OF DELIVERY AND PERFORMANCE 2013/14

The Committee considered a report that provided the six month assessment of performance for 2013/14 and covered the period 1 April 2013 – 1 September 2013. The report also provided an update on the performance and delivery of the Council Plan 2012– 2017.

It was highlighted that within the achievements there have been numerous successful funding bids, in particular around transport schemes.

In respect of target PL03 – reducing carbon emissions, it was highlighted that this target has fallen behind, mainly due to the long cold winter of 2012/13 which led to an extra 25% in heating demand, compared to 2011/12.

Queries were raised in relation to proposed park and ride schemes and whether the service would terminate at Gateshead or continue on to Newcastle and it was suggested that termination at Gateshead was preferred.

Comments were made in relation to the limited money available for cycle routes within Gateshead compared to that available for Newcastle and members were informed that officers are working closely with officers from Newcastle City Council in relation to cycle route provision.

It was queried why there had been delays on the funding announcement in relation to a proposed new medical centre within Dunston. Members were informed that the outcome of a meeting with the local Finance Director of the NHS is still awaited.

14 272

It was agreed that information would be circulated to members in response to the following queries raised:-

• Park and Ride Developments – information on potential sites and service patterns • Gas from Beggars Wood Landfill – is this gas collected and if so, is this put to good use • Energy from Waste Plant – if the plant is now operational, why are the Council needing to wait until 2014 before it can be used • Natural Green Space – what is the definition of natural green space

In respect of solid wall insulation, Members were advised that the homes which have been targeted are those which are non-traditional builds. Following these works, households have seen some significant reductions in energy bills and condensation.

Progress for proposals for a farmers market in Ryton, to help with targeting under- performance in the rural economy was welcomed.

RESOLVED - (i) The Committee considered that the activities undertaken during the last six months are achieving the desired outcomes in the Council Plan 2012-17.

(ii) That the Committee agreed that the report be referred to Cabinet on 17 December 2013, with the recommendations from the Sustainable Communities – Place OSC for their consideration.

Corporate Vitality OSC 2 December 2013

DRAFT MINUTES

THE COUNCIL PLAN – SIX MONTH ASSESSMENT OF DELIVERY AND PERFORMANCE 2013/14

The Committee received a report providing the six month assessment of performance for 2013/14. The report contains an update on performance and delivery in relation to the outcomes identified in the Council Plan 2012-17 and which are relevant to the Committee.

A number of areas were highlighted, including; reducing sickness absence, increasing council tax collection, increasing volunteering and increasing speed of processing benefit claims.

The Committee was pleased to note the number of volunteers recruited to date and requested a geographical breakdown to identify the locations and number of volunteers across Gateshead.

It was also confirmed that monitoring is undertaken to provide an indication of the number of recruits who are actively volunteering.

15 273 It was noted that the Council is in line to better the year end target of 96.80% for the collection of Council Tax.

RESOLVED - i) The Committee was satisfied that activities undertaken during the last 6 months are achieving the outcomes as identified in the Corporate Plan 2012-17.

ii) That the report be referred to Cabinet on 17 December 2013.

16 274

11 REPORT TO CABINET 17 December 2013

TITLE OF REPORT: Responses to Consultation

REPORT OF: Jane Robinson, Chief Executive

Purpose of the Report

1. To endorse the responses to the following consultations:

• Core Strategy: Housing, Employment and Green Belt Preferred Options (Stage 2) and certain supporting documents – Northumberland County Council - appendix 1 • The census and future provision of population statistics in England & Wales – Home Office - appendix 2 • “Personal Alcohol Licences: Enabling Targeted, Local Alternatives ” – Home Office – appendix 3.

Background

2. The background to the consultations and responses are set out in appendices 1 to 3.

Proposal

3. To endorse the responses set out in appendices 1 to 3.

Recommendations

4. It is recommended that Cabinet endorses the consultation responses set out in appendices 1 to 3.

For the following reason:

To enable the Council to contribute a response to the consultation.

CONTACT: Kevin Ingledew extension: 2142

1 275

APPENDIX 1

Northumberland County Council - Core Strategy: Housing, Employment and Green Belt Preferred Options (Stage 2) and certain supporting documents

Policy Context

1. Northumberland County Council is consulting on its Core Strategy: Housing, Employment and Green Belt Preferred Options (Stage 2) and certain supporting documents. The Core Strategy document is the main strategic plan for Northumberland and sets out how housing and economic growth should be accommodated up to 2031.

2. Gateshead shares a border with Northumberland, and is therefore being consulted on the Plan. Gateshead’s comments look at the potential implications of the Core Strategy on development and growth across Gateshead, particularly in the context of Gateshead’s emerging Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan, are set out in the attached annex.

3. The deadline for the consultation response is Thursday 2 January 2014. The Council’s comments will be forwarded to Northumberland County Council after confirmation by Cabinet on the 17th December 2013.

Background

4. Consultees are being asked to comment on the Council's preferred policy approach to housing, employment and Green Belt. The Core Strategy seeks to: • Set out strategic planning policies

• Provide the planning principles to guide future development in Northumberland over the period to 2031

• Provide the policies to help protect Northumberland's environment

• Set out the general scale and distribution of new development

• Set out strategic allocations for housing and employment

Consultation

5. There has been no external consultation.

276

Implications of Recommended Option

6. Resources:

a) Financial Implications – The Strategic Director, Finance and ICT confirms there are no financial implications directly arise from this report

b) Human Resources Implications – No human resources implications.

c) Property Implications - No property implications.

7. Risk Management Implication - No risks associated with the consultation.

8. Equality and Diversity Implications – A spatial objective of the plan is to reduce inequality.

9. Crime and Disorder Implications – No crime implications.

10. Health Implications – No health implications.

11. Sustainability Implications - A Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment has been carried out on the Core Strategy document.

12. Human Rights Implications - No human rights implications.

13. Area and Ward Implications – Northumberland County Council’s Local Plan could potentially have implications across the Borough, although adhering to the duty to co-operate should resolve any issues.

277 Annex

Northumberland County Council’s Core Strategy: Housing, Employment and Green Belt Preferred Options (Stage 2) December 2013

Firstly, we would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on your Core Strategy Document.

Our representation relates to the duty to co-operate imposed by the Localism Act 2012, Housing/Population Growth, Labour Supply, Employment Land Provision and Transport. Specifically, there is concern over the high population and housing growth assumptions and the potential impact on the surrounding housing market. Also there is a projection of a relatively low level of economic growth which allied to the high population growth assumptions may have implications on in commuting to Gateshead and consequential need for improved transport infrastructure.

We are willing to discuss this further with you and would be more than happy to host further discussion to incorporate this into your future plans.

Duty to Cooperate

Without regional strategies, the delivery of infrastructure, homes and economic growth will require strong cooperation between our authorities. The ‘duty to co-operate’ is a legal requirement of the plan preparation process. It is the first thing that the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) will look at in examining an authority’s plan.

We are content with the way in which cross-boundary working has developed and continues; we feel that working together can only further strengthen the policies of the two councils.

Housing / population growth

Questions 9, 10 & 14: Northumberland’s preferred options consultation document sets out plans to provide around 24,000 new homes between 2011 and 2031. It is noted that this rate is very ambitious. The rate of delivery represented by this level of housing provision (around 1,216 dwellings per annum) is around 55% higher than recent rates of housing delivery in the County (as indicated by Northumberland’s average of 780 dwellings per year over the past five years). The level of housing growth set out in the Preferred Options document suggests a substantial increase in housing delivery that will be challenging to achieve in current market conditions, and a level of population growth that is likely to have significant implications for infrastructure provision, and for the strategic objectives of neighbouring authorities.

The preferred growth scenario identified for the Central Northumberland area (which borders Gateshead) sets out growth of 6,270 dwellings over the plan

278 period, representing an increase of almost 20% in the number of households, and is estimated to deliver population growth of around 12% over the 20-year plan period. The level of growth identified for the Central Northumberland area is likely to place increased demands on services and infrastructure in the wider area. The cross-boundary implications of growth in the Central Northumberland area should therefore be discussed fully with neighbouring authorities in order to ensure that strategic needs are met in a coordinated manner.

It is noted that Northumberland County Council have used ONS population projections and CLG household projections to inform a ‘baseline’ growth scenario. However these projections have not been used to underpin the preferred growth scenarios identified in the plan, which have been developed with the aim of delivering objectives around the sustainable growth of Northumberland’s settlements. Further information and cooperation between Northumberland and its neighbouring authorities, including an exploration of the migration assumptions used in the County’s emerging Core Strategy, would allow better understanding of the strategic implications of Northumberland’s preferred growth scenario on other North East authorities and whether such a level of housing is capable of being achieved.

Northumberland’s preferred option for economic growth sets out an objective to increase the number of jobs within the county by 3,000, representing a GVA growth rate of around 2% per annum. It is unclear how this level of economic growth aligns with the County’s plans for population growth in the region of 32,000, and an objective of increasing net in-commuting into jobs in Northumberland. Accompanying evidence (population and household forecasts) provides graphical information on county-wide growth scenarios, but more detailed outputs and information on the assumptions used would allow a more informed assessment of the County’s forecast labour market balance.

Employment Land Provision

Question 13:

Northumberland’s proposed employment land provision of 421 ha appears high against the forecast employment land requirements of 133ha to 161ha. However, it is noted that the portfolio includes 207ha for the Blyth Estuary Renewable Energy Zone, 15ha for airport related uses and land which is flexible to other employment generating uses or other uses; therefore the general employment land provision is in balance with the forecast employment land requirements. It’s noted that it is proposed to have a new mixed use allocation at Ponteland (3ha) and a new employment site at Prudhoe (5ha); and the retention of a strategic inward investment site at West Hartford Business Park, Cramlington (13ha).

279 Transport

There is a concern about the impact on the Gateshead transport network that will arise as a result of housing development in the Central sub-area, most significantly the proposal for homes in Prudhoe. Strong links with Tyneside mean the cross boundary impacts of traffic will be important, and there may be a need for contributions towards improvements to the transport network in Gateshead from these proposals.

One site specific issue, which should be considered in relation to the proposed Prudhoe hospital site, is the scope for linking to and improving the cycle route network in Gateshead. A number of existing advisory routes use lightly used rural lanes in the Greenside area which run close, but are not currently connected, to the hospital site.

280 APPENDIX 2

Consultation: The census and future provision of population statistics in England & Wales

Policy Context

1. The response to the consultation document ‘The census and future provision of population statistics in England & Wales’ supports all 6 big ideas outlined in the Sustainable Community Strategy Vision 2030. The provision of accurate and timely intelligence at appropriate geographical levels informs the entire programme of transformation outlined in Vision 2030.

Background

2. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) is consulting on the census and the future provision of population statistics in England and Wales.

3. The 2011 Census successfully provided population statistics that will be used for the next decade by planners, policy makers and researchers across the public and private sectors. Our population is changing rapidly, and the need to understand these changes will continue. The Office for National Statistics' Beyond 2011 programme is currently reviewing these needs, and how they might best be met in the future.

4. Improvements in technology and in government data sources offer opportunities to either modernise the existing census process, or to develop an alternative census method that reuses existing data already held within government.

5. The consultation document requests views on two possible approaches:

• A comprehensive census once a decade, like that conducted in 2011, but primarily online • A less comprehensive census annually, using existing administrative data and compulsory annual surveys

6. The preferred option outlined in the consultation response is for a comprehensive census once a decade. It is suggested that ONS explore use of administrative data to provide better population and household counts on a more regular basis in addition to the census.

Implications of Recommended Option

7. Resources:

a) Financial Implications – The population figures resulting from census are used in the local government financial settlement. The Strategic Director, Finance and ICT confirms that the financial implications resulting from any changes in the approach to undertaking the national census in future years cannot be predicted at this stage, but are not likely to be significant.

b) Human Resources Implications - No human resources implications.

c) Property Implications - No property implications.

281

8. Risk Management Implication - No risks associated with the consultation.

9. Equality and Diversity Implications - The preferred option for future census provision is to conduct the census mainly online. This risks digital exclusion of certain groups including older people and socially disadvantaged groups. We have recommended that the needs of these groups should be taken into account when deciding the final approach to census.

10. Crime and Disorder Implications - No crime implications.

11. Health Implications - No health implications.

12. Sustainability Implications - No sustainability implications.

13. Human Rights Implications - No human rights implications.

14. Area and Ward Implications - The preferred option for future census provision will ensure that robust intelligence is available from the census for areas and wards. As highlighted in the equality and diversity implications above, certain groups may be at risk of digital exclusion. These groups are concentrated in particular wards and areas more so than in others. However, we have recommended that the needs of these groups should be taken into account when deciding the final approach to census.

282 The census and future provision of population statistics in England and Wales

Q1: What are your views of the different census approaches described in this document?

Having considered the two options outlined in the consultation document, our preference is to undertake the decennial online census for the reasons outlined below. Ideally, we would like to retain the census and make better use of administrative data as well, however we recognise that this may be cost prohibitive. If a switch was made to using administrative data sources and surveys, we believe it should be piloted first in a few, selected areas and compared with census 2021 before being rolled out in its entirety.

Approach A: An online census once a decade Use of small area census data Census data is available at small geographical levels or ‘building blocks’ which has enabled us to produce profiles of specific areas to support funding bids and prioritise resources, targeting areas of greatest need. The comprehensive coverage of the Census data allows us to make these decisions with confidence. If data was only available at ward level, we would not be able to target resources as effectively.

The small area census geographies, and in particular LSOA level, have been adopted as the standard unit at which to publish a range of administrative data. This recognises the importance of being able to link small area Census data with other data sources. An important example of this is the Indices of Deprivation which not only uses LSOA as its main geography, but also includes some census data.

Census data appears to be used to model market segmentation data such as ACORN and Mosaic to postcode and even household level. This data provides useful insight into attitudes, behaviours, lifestyle choices, contact methods, household income and expenditure, etc.

Time series If the Census continued to be undertaken in the future (i.e. there was no break in the data time series) we would be able to track changes over time and build an understanding of the impact of our policies and interventions.

Frequency of population statistics We would prefer to receive more regular updates on the characteristics of the population – ten years between censuses is a long time during which there have been new housing developments, areas of demolition, and the impact of EU accession countries that are not accurately and responsively reflected in population statistics between censuses.

Travel to work (origin-destination) data Detailed census information is very important for the transport sector. It provides the best and most comprehensive source of travel to work and transport mode information. Annual surveys are already undertaken as part of the National Travel Survey however the sample rate is poor and similarly the reliability; other additional surveys are often prohibitively expensive for local authorities to commission and do not provide an adequate response rate. The data is used to support modelling, scheme planning and design and land use transport planning.

Online response to surveys Although the consultation document points out the low online response rate to the last census, it also points out that this is likely due to the large mail out of paper questionnaires. This is borne out by other countries’ experiences that have increased their online response rate when it was the primary method. Our own experience of running surveys shows that when online completion is the primary method we receive around 50% of responses online.

Access to the internet for online completion In a sample (4,086 or 4.6% of households) survey of Gateshead residents, 81% state that they use the internet, with 71% using broadband at home. However, some groups are less likely to use the internet such as those aged 65+ (55% stated that they do not use the internet), and residents in social housing (37% do not use the internet). It would therefore be essential to ensure that our ageing population and other groups that are less likely to use the internet are not digitally excluded and have easy access to other methods of completion.

283 The Government is promoting a ‘digital by default’ policy, where central and local government services are provided online by default. This also recognises that assisted digital completion is necessary for particular groups e.g. older people. Ofcom data shows that 71% of the UK and 68% of Gateshead residents have access to broadband (Nov 2012). Local authorities are undertaking initiatives to tackle digital exclusion, for example using digital volunteers to support particular groups to gain access to online services.

Approach B: A census using administrative data and surveys Geographical level of data The proposal to produce statistics only down to ward level is limiting. An important use of Census data is profiling specific areas in need of support. If data was only available at ward level we would not be able to target resources as effectively. We question how much statistical confidence we can have in ward level data even if it is pooled over several years.

Frequency of population statistics We already make regular use of administrative data, most typically from DWP, in addition to small area census data. As outlined above, the 10 year gap between censuses is not ideal. If the approach to using administrative data sources results in better counts of the population and households than are currently available it would be a positive move – however, this is not clear.

Using survey data to improve administrative data In terms of the proposed approach to use survey data to improve administrative data, we have had quite a negative experience. International passenger survey data is used to improve migration data primarily from GP registrations in mid-year population estimates. This has produced unsatisfactory results and resulted in swings in population estimates over the years. For example, Gateshead’s 2010 population (which used these ‘improved’ migration estimates) was estimated to be 191,700, however, when Census 2011 data was released it showed that we actually had a population of 200,200, a difference of 10,500. These estimates feed into population projections which are then used to inform local government financial settlements. We have seen quite volatile swings in population projections between 2001 and 2011 because of difficulties in estimating the population, and in particular migration.

Confidence in the data The proposed annual refresh of population characteristics would only be valuable if we could confidently use the data to identify change over time. For example, we question whether it will be possible to see if a 5% increase in the BME population represents a ‘real’ change, or if we would be unsure because it falls below confidence levels attached to the survey data.

Travel to work (origin-destination) data We are concerned about being reliant on survey data to understand transport and travel to work issues. We already have access to National Travel Survey data, which provides information on transport and travel to work. However, the small sample provides poor results at a local level. Commissioning additional surveys is often prohibitively expensive and would not provide an adequate response rate to enable detailed modelling, scheme planning and design and land use transport planning.

Continuity of administrative data sources, data matching and time series We are concerned about the possible impact of changes to the nature/specification of administrative data collected e.g. eligibility criteria for benefits data, which may result in inconsistencies in calculating population statistics.

Another concern is the ability to successfully match administrative data from different sources to provide accurate household and population statistics. Our experience of matching administrative data is that it can be very challenging e.g. when matching data for the national ‘troubled families’ initiative.

The flexibility of the annual survey is potentially helpful to gain insight on topical issues, however, it may also impact on comparability of data over time.

Publicity and raising awareness of surveys The Census has a large publicity campaign to encourage completion, and help respondents to understand the need to complete it. With an ongoing annual survey and no specific publicity campaign, awareness of and response to the survey may be affected. 284 Q2: Please specify any significant uses of population and housing statistics that we have not already identified.

None

Q3: Please specify any significant additional benefits of population and housing statistics that we have not already identified.

None

Q4: What would the impact be if the most detailed statistics for very small geographic areas and small population groups were no longer available? High, medium, low, or no impact?

High

Q4.1 If medium or high, please give further information.

The small area data available from census is critical to understanding communities. The data has been particularly useful to us in identifying areas that need targeted interventions and understanding how changes to our policies affect different communities. For example, in our review of community centres, small area census data has been drawn on to understand the catchments and customer base of centres.

A lack of small area data would prevent us from identifying bespoke areas for funding. Some areas of need are masked by ward level data, which could potentially result in loss of funding.

Small area travel to work data is essential for modelling, scheme planning and design, and land use transport planning.

As outlined earlier in our response, there is a potential knock on effect for other products that make use of small area census data, for example the Indices of Multiple Deprivation and market segmentation data. These and other products like them give invaluable insight into our communities.

Q5: What would the additional benefit be if more frequent (ie annual) statistics about population characteristics were available for areas like Local Authorities and Electoral Wards? High, medium, low, or no impact?

Medium

Q5.1 If medium or high, please give further information.

More frequent updates to population and household statistics would be very welcome if they were accurate and enable comparisons to be made from one year to the next. However, this is not clear from the proposal. It seems likely that population characteristics will have wide confidence intervals attached that may negate the benefit of receiving statistics on an annual basis.

Q6: Please specify any significant uses of census information for historical research that we have not already identified.

Use for industrial/occupational research – The census picks up small details that other administrative sources do not. For example, a person may describe their occupation as ‘railway engineer’ on the census, however a marriage certificate is likely just to say ‘engineer’. It is a subtle difference but one which will lead down a whole new path of research.

Q7: What advantages or disadvantages for genealogical or historical research can you see from a move to a solution based on archiving administrative data sources?

Advantages The data will be from a wider period in time and not just a snapshot.

285 Disadvantages The census currently provides information in a standardised format. We see difficulties in bringing together administrative data from multiple sources. If information is recorded inconsistently, it will present challenges for historical researchers.

Q8: What are your views of the risks of each census method and how they might be managed?

An online census once a decade Falling response rates There is a shift in online access to mobile devices such as phones and tablets. Designing the census survey for easy access on mobile devices may increase response rates significantly.

The traditional form based survey method may be obsolete by 2021 as technology moves forward. Planning for the next census should take advantage of emerging technologies and creative and innovative approaches.

Excluding people with no access to the internet The Government is promoting a ‘digital by default’ policy, where central and local government services are provided online by default. This also recognises that assisted digital completion is necessary for particular groups e.g. older people. By 2021, we would anticipate that a larger proportion of the population will have access to the internet. We believe that ONS and our own approach as local authorities should be to support completion of surveys online, but the option of paper completion should remain available.

Invasion of privacy Completion of surveys and provision of personal information is increasingly becoming normal practice. The approach taken with previous censuses appears to have been effective in reassuring respondents of the need for the information as well as confidentiality. Questions that may be viewed as sensitive could be non-mandatory. Good communication is needed to minimise this risk.

A census using administrative data and surveys New methods are less well understood and may not work as planned If a switch was made to using administrative data sources and surveys, we believe it should be piloted first in a few, selected areas and compared with census 2021 before being rolled out in its entirety.

Discontinuity in statistics This is of concern to us. It may be possible to look at population and household counts from previous administrative data, but it would not be possible to identify population characteristics.

Access to administrative data We are concerned about changes to the nature/specification of administrative data collected e.g. eligibility criteria for benefits data, which may change the scope of the population included.

Falling response rates See comments on ‘falling response rates’ in census section above.

Public acceptance of use of administrative data Good communication is needed to minimise this risk.

Q9: Are there any other issues that you believe we should be taking into account?

The census is the most accurate information we have about the population. We believe this should be retained. Would it be possible to investigate the use of administrative data in addition to the census by reinvesting the resources used to produce outputs like the mid-year population and household estimates?

286

APPENDIX 3 Home Office Consultation:

“Personal Alcohol Licences: Enabling Targeted, Local Alternatives ”

Policy Context

1. The Council’s response supports Vision 2030 and Council Plan priorities particularly in relation to health and community safety.

Background

2. The Government has set out in its Alcohol Strategy, and in its recently published response to the Alcohol Strategy consultation, a whole range of national and local measures to tackle alcohol-related harms. One of the main focuses of the Government has been to free up responsible businesses from unnecessary red tape to help drive local growth and to make alcohol licensing more targeted, proportionate and flexible.

3. Many concerns were expressed in the Alcohol Strategy Consultation about the limitations of the personal licence system as a whole and as a result the Government has committed to consulting on the abolition of personal licences altogether.

4. The Home Office Consultation which ran from 12 September to 7 November 2013 sets out the Government’s proposal for how alcohol licensing would work if personal licences were abolished and seeks views on whether this would reduce burdens on business or undermine the four licensing objectives.

5. The Licensing Act 2003 currently requires that all alcohol sales are made or authorised by a personal licence holder. At the same time the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) in relation to licensed premises must hold a personal licence.

6. The two safeguards to ensure that alcohol is sold responsibly and to prevent crime and disorder at licensed premises are:

• Personal licences may be denied to, or forfeited from, those who have criminal convictions for certain offences, and,

• Applicants for a personal licence must be trained

Consultation

7. The consultation proposals are as follows:

287 • Use conditions added to premises licences to provide a better and more targeted way to apply the existing safeguards of training and criminal records checks (ie removing the requirement for well run businesses to spend money on unnecessary training and criminal records checks)

• ‘in the event that personal licences were abolished’ retain the national benchmarks for training and criminal records checks to ensure consistency of standards between licensing authorities where these safeguard are required

• Require all alcohol sales to be made or authorised by the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) rather than a personal licence holder

• Allow the police to object to a new DPS based on the crime prevention objective in general, rather than only in ‘exceptional circumstances’

• Allow licensing authorities to require a criminal records declaration to be provided with any new application to vary a DPS

• Allow those who are either named as the DPS in relation to a premises licence or have accredited training to give up to 50 Temporary Event Notices a year; those without would be limited to giving five

• Work with training providers to ensure that training certificates can be provided in a readily available and easily recognisable form to make conditions requiring training easy to enforce for the police and licensing authorities

8. The Consultation questions and the Council’s response is attached at Annex 1. The response has been drafted in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Licensing Committee, and taking into account the views of the 12 regional authorities of the North East Strategic Licensing Group and the recently published ACPO response. The Cabinet Members for Transport & Environment and Economy & Skills have also been consulted.

Alternative Options

9. The Council could choose not to respond to this consultation. However, by not submitting a response the Council would have missed the opportunity to voice an opinion which will help shape the way in which alcohol licensing is regulated in future.

288 Implications of Recommended Option

10. Resources: a) Financial Implications – The Strategic Director of Finance and ICT confirms there are no financial implications arising directly from this report. b) Human Resource Implications – There are no staffing implications arising from this report. c) Property Implications – There are no property implications arising from this report.

11. Risk Management Implications – There are no risk management implications directly arising from this report.

12. Equal Opportunities Implications – There are no equal opportunities implications directly arising from this report.

13. Crime and Disorder Implications – There are no crime and disorder implications directly arising from this report.

14. Health Implications –.There are no health implications directly arising from this report.

15. Sustainability Implications – There are no sustainability implications directly arising from this report.

16. Human Rights Implications – There are no human rights implications directly arising from this report.

17. Area and Ward Implications – The Consultation applies to all wards in Gateshead.

Background Information

16. The following background papers were used in preparing this report: • Home Office Consultation – Personal Licences: Enabling Targeted, Local Alternatives • Impact Assessment – HO00092 23 July 2012

289 Annex 1

Home Office Consultation: Personal Alcohol Licences: Enabling Targeted, Local Alternatives

Consultation Questions

Question 1: Do you think the Government’s proposal would reduce burdens, in terms of time and/or money, on business, including small and medium enterprises?

No, we do not think that this proposal will significantly reduce the burden on business associated with the current system.

In the experience of Gateshead Council most personal licences are applied for by the individual rather than the company that employs them so the proposal will not reduce the burden on business.

In terms of the burden on individuals applying for personal licences, the Disclosure Scotland criminal record check generally takes only two weeks and training requirements are accessible and straightforward. There is no anecdotal evidence in Gateshead of applicants either individuals or businesses on behalf of individuals objecting to the current personal licence process, the fee or complaining about timescales or costs.

The Government’s proposals may have the effect of increasing the costs on all parties including businesses, the police and licensing authorities by increasing the number of variation and review applications and potential hearings where a responsible authority request conditions and those conditions are not accepted.

An assumption is made in the impact statement of the proposal that ‘only a very small number of DPS’s would require training or repeated criminal record checks. This is because we estimate that the number of premises on which conditions would be imposed is very low’. This suggests that there is a risk that under this proposal the reassurance that the trade and public currently have that suitable persons are employed at licensed premises will be significantly eroded.

Question 2: Do you think this proposal would undermine the licensing objectives? The four licensing objectives are: public safety; preventing crime and disorder; preventing public nuisance; and protecting children from harm.

Yes, we do think that this proposal may undermine the licensing objectives.

290

The impact statement of the proposal assumes that less training will be carried out. Training is essential to the communication of the relevance and importance of the licensing objectives and it therefore follows that there is a risk that the licensing objectives will be undermined as a consequence of this reduction.

In practice, conditions requiring training and criminal record checks would be imposed as a responsive measure where problems have occurred demonstrating the need for training and criminal record checks, and so the licensing objectives will have already been undermined.

Question 3: Do you think nationally accredited training courses for those authorising alcohol sales are necessary to help licensing authorities promote the licensing objectives?

Yes, nationally accredited training courses for those authorising alcohol sales are essential to help licensing authorities promote the licensing objectives.

It is noted nationally accredited training does not just help licensing authorities; rather they help all parties concerned with the sale of alcohol.

Accredited training provides a constant standard throughout England & Wales and provide a benchmark level of learning.

It helps not only licensing authorities, but the trade itself to promote the licensing objectives

Question 4: Do you think a statutory list of relevant offences, such as theft or handling stolen goods, is necessary to help licensing authorities promote the licensing objectives?

Yes, the statutory list of relevant offences is necessary.

A specified list of relevant offences ensures that each authority has regard to the same offences when determining a person’s suitability to hold a licence promoting consistency of approach and avoids costly legal arguments over whether an offence is ‘relevant’ or otherwise.

Any extension to the list of relevant offences or additional discretion to consider offences outside of the list would be a positive step, as would be the ability for the Police to object in any circumstance where the crime prevention objective is likely to be undermined rather than just in ‘exceptional circumstances’.

291 Question 5: For what proportion of premises in your area do you think conditions requiring nationally accredited training would be appropriate?

>90% (chosen from options <10%, 25%, 50%, 75%, >90%)

It is considered that accredited training would be appropriate for the majority of premises in Gateshead, particularly those which face the additional challenges associated with being situated in urban areas. It is clear that training is essential to maintain standards and promote the licensing objectives.

Question 6: For what proportion of premises in your area do you think conditions requiring criminal records declarations for future Designated Premises Supervisors would be appropriate?

>90% (chosen from options <10%, 25%, 50%, 75%, >90%)

It is unthinkable that a recently convicted drug dealer should be permitted to run a night club or even an off licence. It is essential that proper criminal records checks are carried out to expose and minimise potential risks and give the public and the industry confidence that persons operating within the licensed trade are fit and proper.

Question 7: Below, please provide evidence to support the answers you’ve given, making clear to which question the evidence refers.

Please see the answers to each question as above.

Question 8: Is there anything else you think the Government should consider?

The proposal undermines the current ‘portability’ of personal licences where licensees have the ability to move from one Licensing Authority to another in the knowledge their training, accreditation and vetting is universally recognised.

While the consultation suggests that the requirement for a Personal Licence is a burden for businesses there is no evidence to support this. However it is clear that the proposal will impose additional burdens on all parties involved in the sale and supply of alcohol.

This proposal aims to dismantle existing safe guards and create a situation where problems are allowed to be created and then fixed afterwards by means of a Review Application submission. This is thinly disguised as a reduction on the burden to business but the reality is in increased time and costs in hearings.

292

In relation to the proposed changes to TENS we believe fifty TENS is far too many averaging one per week. It would seem more appropriate for premises requiring so many TENS to apply to vary its Premises Licence. Administratively, it would be very time consuming for both the Applicant and the Licensing Authority to deal with so many.

In addition there are no means for the TENS limit to be verified and monitored as a licensing authority can only regulate those TENS held in their area.

293