East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance Annual Monitoring Statement 2002/03

December 2003

DTZ Pieda Consulting 10 Colmore Row BIRMINGHAM B3 2QD

Foreword by the Regional Planning Body

This is the second Annual Monitoring Statement for the East Midlands. It measures policies contained within draft revised Regional Planning Guidance (RPG8) (April 2003). It is the result over four months work by consultants DTZ Pieda, working in close consultation with Regional Planning Officer Groups, with the Regional Monitoring & Review Officer Group acting as the overall project steering group.

Before appointing consultants the RPG Officer Groups agreed a set of CORE indicators based on policies contained within Regional Planning Guidance and CONTEXTUAL indicators to provide additional background information. The RPB then produced a set of questionnaires to collect this information from the relevant local authorities. Once appointed this information was passed to DTZ whose job it was to collate this information, gather additional information and, in conjunction with regional partners, set about analysing and comparing the data with that from the first (baseline) RPG8 Annual Monitoring Statement which was produced in March 2003.

This final report therefore reports the state of the region in spatial planning terms after two years of monitoring RPG8 and forms a strong base to continue this work in the future as the indicator framework becomes more robust and clear trends begin to emerge.

Included in this report DTZ have also made a number of recommendations to the RPB to assist spatial monitoring in the future. Their assessment of the adequacy of the current monitoring arrangements and indicator framework is based on their experience and efforts at collating and analysing the data, as well as examining the monitoring arrangements of other RPBs. Finally DTZ have looked at potential additional CORE and CONTEXTUAL indicators which might allow a more thorough assessment of regional spatial planning in the East Midlands as RPG8 moves towards a Regional Spatial Strategy following the enactment of the Planning Bill which is expected in summer 2004. These recommendations, along with those from the recent Public Examination, will be carefully examined by those with an interest in regional spatial planning in the East Midlands before the work commences on the next Annual Monitoring Statement.

i

CONTENTS

Page

1. Introduction 1

2. Context 4 Key Regional Strategies RPG Priorities and Indicators The AMS

3. Housing 9 Density of New Housing Development Housing Provision Housing Completions by Type and Size Vacant Dwellings by Tenure Housing Built on Previously Developed Land and Conversions Planning Permissions for New Housing Affordable Housing Average Cost of Housing Units and Land Concluding Remarks

4. Economy 28 Employment Land Developed Employment Land Commitments Retail Space and Rents Retail Floorspace Office Rents Concluding Remarks

5. Natural & Cultural Resources 41 Areas of Priority Habitats (Brought into Management and Created) New Forests and Woodlands Cultural Assets Listed Buildings at Risk Energy Production in the East Midlands Regional Priorities for the Water Environment Planning Permissions Granted Contrary to Environment Agency Advice River Peak Flow Trends Flood Risk Assessments Condition of East Midlands Flood Defences Concluding Remarks

ii

6. Minerals, Aggregate Production and Waste Management 54 Recycled and Secondary Aggregates Monitoring Waste Waste Management Methods Waste Processing Methods Concluding Remarks

7. Transport 67 Level of Traffic Growth in the East Midlands Motor Vehicle Flows Travel to Work Travel to School Travel Plans in Place Regional Strategy for Behavioural Change Number of People Killed or Seriously Injured in Road Accidents A Regional Freight Strategy Integrated Public Transport Concluding Remarks

8. Key Findings & Issues for Consideration 80 Key Policy Findings Progress Towards Meeting RPG Objectives Assessment of the Current Indicators Framework Technical Implications for Future Monitoring

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 – Consultations Appendix 2 – An Overview of the East Midlands Economy Appendix 3 – Detailed Housing Data Appendix 4 – Detailed Economy Data Appendix 5 – Detailed Natural and Cultural Resources Data Appendix 6 – Detailed Minerals, Aggregate Production and Waste Mgt Data Appendix 7 – Detailed Transport Data Appendix 8 - Sources and references Appendix 9 – Data received after the deadline Appendix 10 - Policy areas not currently covered by indicators

iii

LIST OF TABLES

2.1 Revised RPG Indicators 6 3.1 Density of New Housing 2002-03 11 3.2 Housing Completions and Reductions in Stock (numbers), 2002-03 13 3.3 Housing Completions by Type, 2002-03 14 3.4 Housing Completions by Size, 2003-03 15 3.5 Vacant Dwellings by Tenure, as of 31 March 2003 16 3.6 Previously Developed Land by Suitability for Housing and Number of Dwellings by Government Office Region, 2002 18 3.7 Housing Addition on Previously Developed Land and Through Conversions, 2002-03 19 3.8 Planning Permissions for Dwellings Not Yet Completed, 31/3/03 21 3.9 Affordable Housing Completed, 2002-03 23 3.10 Average Dwelling Prices and % Increase by Region, 2002-03 24 3.11 Average Dwelling Prices: by Type of Dwelling and Strategic Authority 25 3.12 Average Land Values in the East Midlands, 2003 25 4.1 Employment Land Developed (ha) 2002/03 Greenfield 30 4.2 Employment Land Developed (ha) 2002/03 Brownfield 31 4.3 Greenfield Employment Land Commitments by Use Class and Type (ha) 33 4.4 Brownfield Employment Land Commitments by Use Class and Type of Site (ha) 2002/03 34 4.5 Regional Comparisons Forecasts of Nominal Rental Growths (2003-07) 36 4.6 Retail Rental Comparisons – East Midlands Centres 37 4.7 Percentage of Vacant Retail Units in the City Centres of Nottingham, Derby and Leicester (2003) 38 4.8 Office Rental Values as at 1 April 2003 39 5.1 Area of Priority Habitats Brought into Management and Priority Habitats Created in the National Forest 43 5.2 Grade II Listed Buildings at Risk 46 5.3 Regional County Area Targets for Electricity Generation from Renewables 47 5.4 Planning Permissions Granted Contrary to Environmental Agency Advice 51 6.1 East Midlands Mineral Sales 2001(Tonnes) 55 6.2 Draft National and Regional Guidelines for Aggregates Productions 2001-2016 56 6.3 East Midlands Aggregates and non-Aggregates Sales 2002 56 6.4 Principal waste streams arisings within the East Midlands in 1998-99 59 6.5 Municipal Solid Waste arisings in the East Midlands 59 6.6 Actual and likely MSW Tonnages required to Meet Policy Targets for Local Authorities within the East Midlands 60 6.7 Proportion of Household Waste that is recycled or composed 60 6.8 Percentage of Household Waste recycled 1998/9 – 2001/2 61 6.9 Household Waste 63 6.10 Non Hazardous Waste 63 6.11 Inert Waste 64 6.12 Household Waste 64 6.13 Non Hazardous Waste 65 6.14 Inert Waste 65 6.15 Hazardous Waste 65 6.16 Household Waste send on to Landfill 66 7.1 Motor vehicle traffic by road class for the East Midlands 69 7.2 Traffic increase on major roads – GO Region and Country 69

iv

7.3 Average daily motor vehicle flows by major road class 70 7.4 Main method of travel to work, Autumn 2001 71 7.5 Trips to and from School by Main Modes of Transport 1999-2001 72 7.6 Travel Plans in Place 74 7.7 Bus Vehicle Kilometres – GO region and Country 75 8.1 Outstanding Indicators 86 8.2 Analysis of Current Policy Areas Covered by Indicators 87

v

LIST OF FIGURES

2.1 Indicative Annual Monitoring Cycle 8 3.1 Density of New Housing 2002-03 11 3.2 Housing Completions and Reductions in Stock (numbers) 2002-03 13 3.3 Housing Completions by Type, 2002-03 14 3.4 Housing Completions by Size, 2002-03 16 3.5a Vacant Dwellings by Tenure, as of 31 March 2003 17 3.5b Vacant Dwellings % of Stock, as of 31 March 2003 17 3.6a Dwellings Built on Previously Developed Land and Conversions, 2002-03 20 3.6b Percentage of Dwellings Built on Previously Developed Land & Conversions, 2002-03 20 3.7 Affordable Housing as a Proportion of All Completions, 2002-03 23 4.1 Total Employment Land Developed by Land Type (ha) 30 4.2 Proportion of Employment Land Developed on Greenfield Sites, 2002-03 31 4.3 Proportion of Employment Land Developed on Brownfield Sites, 2002-03 32 4.4 Total Employment Land Commitments by Land Type (ha), 2002-03 33 4.5a Greenfield Employment Land Commitments, 2002-03 34 4.5b Brownfield Employment Land Commitments, 2002-03 35 4.6 Rental Comparisons 2000-2002 36 4.7 Retail Floorspace Rental Values 37 4.8 Office Rental Values, 2003 39 5.1 Number of Grade 1 and Grade 2** Listed Buildings and Scheduled Ancient Monuments at Risk by GO Region for 2003 and 1999 45 5.2 Grade II Listed Buildings at Risk 46 5.3 Proportion of Listed Buildings by East Midlands County 46 5.4 Number of Sites Generating Electricity from Renewable Sources, Dec 2002 48 5.5 Generation of Electricity from Renewable Sources, 2002 (GWh) 48 5.6 Installed Capacity of Sites Generating Electricity from Renewable Sources MW 49 5.7 Proportion of total Combined Heat and Power Schemes in England 2002 50 5.8 Planning Permissions Granted Contrary to Environment Agency Advice 52 6.1 Household and Municipal Waste per Capita (KG per head) 58 6.2 Methods of Municipal Waste Management in the East Midlands 61 6.3 Proportion of Household Waste that is Recycled or Composted 62 7.1 Average Daily Motor Vehicle Flows by major road class 70 7.2 Main Method of Travel to Work 71 7.3 Trips to and from School by Main Modes of Transport 1999-2001 73 7.4 Travel Plans in Place 74 7.5 Bus Vehicle Kilometres – GO Region and Country 2001-02 76 7.6 Number of People Killed or Seriously Injured in Road Accidents 77 7.7 Integrated Ticketing Schemes 78

LIST OF MAPS

3.1 RPG Achievement and Housing Density 12 3.2 Proportion of Housing Built on Brownfield or Through Conversions 19 3.3 Number of Dwellings with Outstanding Planning Permission 22 4.1 Total Employment Land Developed (ha) 32 4.2 Employment Land Commitments (ha), 2002-03 35

vi East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement 1 Introduction

1.01 This Report presents the 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement (AMS) for the East Midlands.

1.02 The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister requires all Regional Planning Bodies (RPBs) to have robust mechanisms for monitoring and reviewing their Regional Planning Guidance. Therefore, the East Midlands Regional Assembly, in its role as RPB, is required to produce an Annual Monitoring Statement (AMS), which links with RPG 8 and measures progress with policies contained within it.

1.03 The AMS produced in March 2003 was the first attempt to record the situation in the East Midlands across a range of policy areas covered by RPG 8. That first AMS was produced to the same structure as RPG8 (January 2002). This second AMS seeks to build upon the March 2003 baseline assessment, and is based on the revised consultation draft RPG8 (April 2003). Therefore, comparisons with last year's facts and figures may not always be possible.

1.04 At the timing of finalising this report a Draft Planning Policy Statement 11 has been published setting out the procedural policy on the nature of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSSs) and the requirements for revising them. The ODPM have already produced a set of draft national core output indicators for monitoring RSSs and this will have implications for the next monitoring cycle.

1.05 The AMS will be a statutory document and a technical report and its value will further increase in the years to come as indicators become standardised and consistently collected and data is built up to allow trends over time to be recorded and analysed. Trends will give a clear indication of policy areas in which progress is being made and where intervention may be required.

1.06 The East Midlands Regional Assembly commissioned DTZ Pieda Consulting to produce this report in September 2003. To produce this document, we have worked in conjunction with the East Midlands Regional Monitoring and Review Officer Group and have undertaken the following tasks:

• Collection of Local Authority data using questionnaires completed by the Local Authorities. The East Midlands Regional Assembly distributed five questionnaires (housing, economy, environment, waste, and transport) to county councils which then distributed to district (not transport and waste) and unitary councils. • Collection of non-local authority data through consultations, interrogation and collation of national and regional data sets. • Review of AMS documents produced by other regions. • Development of a comprehensive management information database. DTZ has designed, developed and completed a database to capture all local authority monitoring information relating to RPG 8 (April 2003). • Assessment of the suitability of the current framework of indicators. We have considered the necessity for additional indicators to monitor policy areas within RPG 8, through both consultations and internal peer review.

1.07 The following table lists questionnaires received from all local authorities in the region. Appendix 8 summarises the key reference sources used to collect non-local authority data.

1 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Questionnaires received from Local Authorities

Council Economy Environment Housing Transport Waste

Derby / / / / / Derbyshire / / Leicester / / / / / Leicestershire / / / Lincolnshire / / Northamptonshire / / / Nottingham / / / / / Nottinghamshire / Rutland UA / / / / / Amber Valley / / / Bolsover / / / Chesterfield / / / Derby Dales / / / Erewash / / / High Peak / / / North East Derbyshire / / / South Derbyshire / / / Peak District NP / / / Blaby / / / Charnwood / / / Harborough / / / Hinckley & Bosworth / / / Melton / / / NW Leicestershire / / / Oadby and Wigston / / / Boston / / / East Lindsey / / / Lincoln / / / North Kesteven / / / South Holland / / / South Kesteven / / / West Lindsey / / / Corby / / Daventry / / / East Northamptonshire / / / Kettering / / / Northampton / / / South Northamptonshire / / / Wellingborough / / / Ashfield / / / Bassetlaw / / / Broxtowe / / Gedling / / / Mansfield / / / Newark & Sherwood / / / Rushcliffe / / /

2 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

1.08 The report has also benefited from a series of consultations with key regional and local stakeholders. The purpose of these consultations was to discuss the adequacy of the current indicators framework (including sources of information) and the necessity for additional indicators, including sources of data. In total, 23 individuals were consulted during the production of the AMS. Comments and feedback were also provided on earlier draft versions of this report. A full list of consultees is included in Appendix 1.

1.09 The following Officer Group Meetings were also attended and relevant comments made during these meetings have been incorporated in the report:

• Spatial Economy Officer Group • Environment Officer Group • Housing Officer Group • Regional Technical Advisory Body on Waste • Monitoring and Review Officer Group • Transport Officer Group • East Midlands Aggregates Working Party

1.10 This Annual Monitoring Statement is structured as follows:

• Section 2 sets out the context for the AMS

• Section 3 draws on housing data to provide key information on Housing policies contained in RPG8 (April 2003)

• Section 4 considers relevant data around Economy and Regeneration, including Retail issues

• Sections 5 looks at Natural and Cultural Resources

• Section 6 reviews Minerals and Aggregate Production in the region

• Section 7 presents information around Transport issues to inform and review the Regional Transport Strategy

• Section 8 summarises key findings, considers key implications of these findings and makes recommendations on technical and policy development issues.

3 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement 2 Context

2.01 This section sets the context for the 2002/03 AMS by:

• Providing an outline of key regional strategies and Regional Planning Guidance • Discussing the relationship between the objectives contained within RPG 8 and the monitoring indicators, and listing these indicators • Describing the role of the AMS and the structure of the monitoring cycle

KEY REGIONAL STRATEGIES

Integrated Regional Strategy (IRS)

2.02 The East Midlands Integrated Regional Strategy provides a framework to integrate social, spatial, environmental and economic strategies in the region. Key strategies which are incorporated within the IRS include: the Regional Planning Guidance, including the Regional Transport Strategy, Regional Economic Strategy, the emerging Regional Housing Strategy, Regional Environment Strategy, the emerging Regional Energy Strategy, Public Health Strategy, Cultural Strategy and the Tourism Strategy.

2.03 The IRS is driven by the Region’s vision that:

'The East Midlands will be the most progressive region in Europe, recognised for its high quality of life, vibrant economy, rich cultural and environmental diversity and sustainable communities.

2.04 The IRS also serves as the regional Sustainable Development Framework and is the key coherent regional framework to achieve development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.1

2.05 The development of the IRS has been achieved by collaborative work undertaken by a wide range of organisations and partners, including the East Midlands Development Agency (emda) and the Government Office. It has been steered by the Assembly’s Integrated Regional Strategy Policy Forum and informed by the work of the Assembly’s Housing, Transport, Social Inclusion and Environment Task Groups.

2.06 The IRS is currently being updated and is due out June 2004.

Regional Planning Guidance (RPG)

2.07 RPG8 sets out a broad development strategy for the East Midlands up to 2021. It also represents the ‘spatial’ element of the East Midlands Integrated Regional Strategy (IRS).

2.08 The main role of RPG 8 is to provide a regional spatial strategy within which local authority development plans and local transport plans can be prepared. It identifies the scale and distribution of provision for new housing, as well as priorities for the environment, transport infrastructure, economic development, agriculture, minerals and waste treatment and disposal.

1 Definition of Sustainable Development contained within: Bruntland Commission (1987) World Commission on Environment and World Development: Our Common Future, OUP: Oxford

4 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

2.09 Draft revised RPG8 was published in April 2003. Following public consultation and an independent Public Examination, RPG8 is likely to be issued by the Secretary of State towards the end of 2004.

Planning Policy Statement 11

2.10 Draft Planning Policy Statement 11 sets out the procedural policy on the nature of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSSs) and the requirements for revising them. The RSS, incorporating a regional transport strategy, will provide at least a fifteen year spatial framework to inform the preparation of local development documents, local transport plans and regional and sub-regional strategies and programmes that have a bearing on land-use activities. The RSS should provide a clear link between policy objectives and priorities, targets and indicators. ODPM states that the RSS should be monitored annually against the delivery of its priorities and the realisation of its vision for the region, and reviewed as appropriate. A set of national core output indicators for monitoring RSSs has been produced by the ODPM for consultation.

RPG PRIORITIES AND INDICATORS

2.11 To translate RPG into a focused strategy, RPG sets 10 priorities to guide the spatial development of the Region:

RPG PRIORITIES • To address social exclusion, through the regeneration of disadvantaged areas and reducing regional inequalities in the distribution of employment, housing, health and other community facilities • To protect and where possible enhance the quality of the environment in urban and rural areas so as to make them safe and attractive places to live and work • To improve the health of the Region’s residents, for example through improved air quality, the available of good quality housing and access to leisure and recreation facilities • To promote and improve economic prosperity, employment opportunities and regional competitiveness • To improve accessibility to jobs, homes and services across the Region by developing integrated transport, ensuring the improvement of opportunities for walking, cycling and the use of high quality public transport • To achieve effective protection of the environment by avoiding significant harm and securing adequate mitigation where appropriate, and to promote the conservation, enhancement, sensitive use and management of the Region’s natural and cultural assets • To adopt the principle of no net loss of priority habitats, wherever possible managing and developing habitats so as to enhance bio-diversity within the Region • To promote the prudent use of resources, in particular through patterns of development and transport that make efficient and effective use of existing infrastructure, optimise waste minimisation, reduce overall energy use and maximise the role of renewable energy generation • To take action to reduce the scale and impact of future climate change, in particular the risk of damage to life and property from flooding, especially through the location and design of new development • To promote good design in development to achieve high environmental standards and optimum social benefits.

5 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

2.12 The table lists the framework of RPG Indicators and their relationship to the RPG priority objectives. Table 2.1 Revised RPG Indicators

INDICATORS RPG Policy RPG Objectives Policy Housing Core Indicators Density of new housing 2,6,8,10 3 Housing completions 1,2,3,4 17 Housing completions achieved on previously developed land or through 1,6,8 20 conversions Affordable housing completions 1,3,4 18 Housing Contextual Indicators Housing completions by type and size 1,3,4 18 Outstanding planning permissions for dwellings not yet completed 1,3,4 17 Cost of land and housing 1,3,4 18 Reductions in housing stock 2,3,4 17 Vacant dwellings by tenure 1,2,3,4 20 Economy Core Indicators Employment land developed 2,4 22 Undeveloped employment land commitments 2,4 23 Economy Contextual Indicators Private sector view Environment Core Indicators Area of priority habitats brought into management or created 6,7 28 Area of new woodland created 6,7 29 Number of listed buildings at risk 2,6,10 31 Capacity of additional combined Heat and Power facilities 8,9 39 Capacity of additional renewable energy facilities 8,9 40 Environment Contextual Indicators Planning permissions granted contrary to Environment Agency Advice 2,6,7,9 33 Peak flow trends 7,8,9 36 Flood risk assessments carried out 2,7,9 36 Condition of East Midlands flood defences 2,7,9 36 Minerals & Waste Core Indicators Amount of aggregates produced 8 37 Amount of recycled and secondary aggregates used 8 37 Amount of controlled waste produced 8 38 Proportion of household waste recycled and composted 8 38 Proportion of waste diverted from landfill 8 38 Capacity of additional waste recovery facilities 8 38 Transport Core Indicators Level of traffic growth 3,4,9 41 Level of rail passenger kilometres 3,4,5,9 46 Level of bus and light rail patronage 3,4,5,9 47 Number of people killed or seriously injured in road accidents 3,10 49,50 Number of 500 tonne freight trains starting or finishing in the East Midlands 3,4,5,9 51 Transport Contextual Indicators Travel Plans in place 4,5,8 42 Integrated Ticketing Schemes 3,4,5,8 48

6 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

THE AMS

2.13 The AMS is of crucial importance to the future of Regional Planning Guidance/Regional Spatial Strategies. RPG 8 takes a broad, strategic view of the needs of the region. Targets are set for the development of resources such as housing and employment land, and are backed up by policies that emphasise the principles and objectives contained in national planning policy. Regional guidance is then refined and made explicit to the local context of the individual counties and local authorities during the preparation of Local Plans.

2.14 As Regional Planning Guidance is implemented at the local level, it is only through monitoring and analysis of the performance of the development plans at local level that an assessment can be made as to the degree to which the spatial strategy and policies of the RPG have been realised. More significantly, the AMS feeds back into and guides the review of the RPG. This makes the whole process more responsive to local needs and can help to develop an RPG strategy which is attainable and promotes the objectives of national planning policy and sustainable development.

2.15 The spatial strategy outlines regional priorities for both urban and rural communities. It is important to note that the core strategy within RPG 8 is based on the ‘Sequential Approach to Development Form’, which provides a framework for meeting the Region’s development needs in a way that promotes more sustainable pattern of development. It contains detailed policies in respect of the region’s 5 sub-regions (Eastern, Northern, Peak, Southern, Three Cities) to provide a context for the rest of RPG 8.

2.16 The thematic strategy within RPG 8 outlines policies in five main topic areas: Housing, Economy and Regeneration, Natural and Cultural Resources, Regional Transport Strategy and Monitoring and Review.

Roles and Responsibilities

2.17 The Regional Planning Body for the East Midlands is the East Midlands Regional Assembly. The Regional Planning Board has delegated powers from the full Regional Assembly to act on planning matters. The Planning Board comprises 26 Members: 17 local authority Councillors nominated by the East Midlands Regional Local Government Association, and 9 representatives from social and economic partners, included a representative from emda. The Board is advised by the Spatial Planning Regional Officer Group and a series of ‘topic’ sub-groups as detailed below:

• Spatial Economy Officer Group • Transport Officer Group • Environment Office Group • Housing Officer Group • Regional Technical Advisory Body on Waste • Regional Aggregates Working Party • Monitoring and Review Officer Group

2.18 Each of these groups has a role in contributing to the AMS, for example in agreeing the suitability of indicators in relation to RPG 8 policies and supplementing CORE RPG indicators with CONTEXTUAL indicators where this is appropriate.

2.19 In addition to the core organisational structure, the RPB has a responsibility for liasing with other partner organisations such as emda, English Nature, the Environment Agency and the Countryside Agency. Partner organisations not only have their own strategies but also their own monitoring mechanisms. In many cases data needed for effective monitoring of RPG

7 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

implementation is collected and held by partner organisations. DTZ has highlighted throughout the document where partner agencies have contributed, or have the potential to contribute further to the development of the Annual Monitoring Statement.

Monitoring and the monitoring cycle

2.20 Figure 2.1 shows the indicative timetable for the collection of data and the preparation and publication of the AMS. The timetable allows for data to be collected during the summer and for data analysis and interpretation to be undertaken in the autumn.

Figure 2.1 Indicative Annual Monitoring Cycle

Publication of the Annual Exploration of issues raised in the December Monitoring Statement monitoring report Consideration by EMRA Planning Board January Feedback from regional stakeholders Informal consultation with key February data providers

March Revisions to the Manual

Preparation of Questions in April - M&R Group initiates conjunction with Topic Groups consultation with Topic Groups August and regional partners

Data collection for input into RPG process Data analysis by M&R September Group/consultants

October Preparation of draft Monitoring Statement within M &R Group Consultation with sub groups re draft Annual Statement

Consideration by Spatial Planning Officers Group

Consideration by EMA Planning November Agreement of the draft AMS by Board Spatial Planning officers G/M&R Group

Exploration of issues raised in the December Publication of the annual Monitoring Statement Monitoring Statement

8 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement 3 Housing

3.01 This section provides analysis on the following Housing Policy Areas contained within RPG 8:

• Policy 1 Locational Priorities for Development

• Policy 3 Promoting Better Design, defined as follows: Standards of design and construction should be improved through: use of design-led approaches, which take account of local, natural and historical character; construction techniques that minimise energy use; architectural design which is functional; increased densities for housing; access; highway and parking design; and design which helps to reduce crime and supports community safety.

• Policy 17: Regional Housing Provision, according to which, Housing provision for each structure plan area for the period 2001-2021 should be made at the following annual average rates: Derby and Derbyshire 2,550 Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland 3,150 Lincolnshire 2,750 Northamptonshire2 2,750 Nottingham and Nottinghamshire 2,450 Peak District National Park 50 East Midlands Region 13,7003

• Policy 18: Regional Priorities for Affordable Housing states that: The level of affordable housing to be provided should be justified by local housing needs assessments, preferably based on housing market or journey to work areas, as well as an assessment of the viability of seeking a particular proportion of affordable housing from such developments. The appropriate target for whether affordable housing is being met is around 3,400 dwellings per annum.

• Policy 19: Regional Priorities for Managing the Release of Land for Housing Need to ensure a sustainable pattern of development is achieved across the region. Priority areas of action include the built up areas of: Derby, Leicester, Lincoln, Northampton, Nottingham (including parts of eastern Derbyshire), Chesterfield, Mansfield and across sub-regional priority areas.

• Policy 20: A Regional Target for Reusing Previously Developed Land and Buildings for Housing Regional target of 60% of additional dwellings on previously developed land and through conversions by 2021 at the Regional Level.

• Policy 21: Regional Priorities for Regeneration

3.02 The indicators for monitoring these Housing Policy Areas are summarised in the table below and relevant data for each of these indicators are provided:

2 Subject to early review as part of the Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy. 3 All figures are rounded to the nearest 50.

9 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Indicators Source RPG RPG Target Priority Policy CORE Density of new housing Local Authorities/ 2,6,8,10 3 Increase in ODPM line with national guidance Housing completions Local Authorities/ 1,2,3,4 17, 21 13,700 dpa ODPM Housing completions achieved Local Authorities/ 1,6,8 20 60% by 2021 on previously developed land ODPM or through conversions Affordable housing Local Authorities/ 1,3,4 18 3,400 dpa completions ODPM (indicative benchmark) CONTEXTUAL Housing completions by type Local Authorities/ 1,3,4 18 - and size ODPM Outstanding planning Local Authorities 1,3,4 17 - permissions for dwellings not yet completed Cost of land and housing Land Registry/VOA’s 1,3,4 18 - Property Market Report Reductions in housing stock Local Authorities 2,3,4 17 - Vacant dwellings by tenure Local Authorities 1,2,3,4 20 -

Density of New Housing Development

3.03 The density of new housing development is covered by policy 3 in RPG 8 (which also applies to other forms of development). Revised RPG 8 states that it is essential all new development in the East Midlands aspires to the highest standard of design, if sustainable development is to be achieved. However, there is currently no clear mechanism for how ‘high standards of design’ can be monitored. Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 advises that housing should be built at 30-50 dwellings per hectare, but this can be increased in more sustainable locations, such as in the Principal Urban Areas, or in locations with good accessibility.

3.04 Figures presented for this indicator must be viewed in relation to a lack of response from some Local Authorities. It appears that some authorities have acknowledged a figure for new dwellings on completed sites but have not included a figure for the total amount of land developed. Therefore housing density cannot be deduced. In addition, some sites are very long-standing (>3 years) once completed, which is when density information is collected. Therefore information on density can be misleading, sporadic and out-of-date.

3.05 Table 3.1 below summarises density of new housing in 2002-03. This information is also illustrated in Figure 3.1 and Map 3.1.

10 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Table 3.1 Density of New Housing 2002-03

Dwellings Built Net area of Land Housing Housing on Completed Developed (ha) Density Density Sites (dwellings/ha) (dwellings/ha) 02/03 01/ 02* Derby 256 8.47 30.2 31.9 Derbyshire 1395 46.7 29.9 27.4 Leicester 121 1.1 114.2 50.0 Leicestershire 841 23.6 35.7 25.6 Lincolnshire 2359 106.2 22.2 20.0 Northamptonshire 954 95.0 10.0 29.2 Nottingham 416 7.8 53.3 68.2 Nottinghamshire 1484 57.4 25.9 19.8 Peak District National Park N/A N/A N/A N/A Rutland 17 1 17 21.7 East Midlands Total 7843 347.2 22.6 N/A *County density figures for 2001/2002 comprise averages of Districts who responded Please see Appendix Table 3.1 in Appendix 3 for a full breakdown of Local Authority responses and missing data for 2002/03 Note: The highlighted area indicates authorities with below regional average for housing density 2002/2003 Source: Local Authorities, 2003

Figure 3.1 Density of New Housing 2002-03

120

100 e r a RPG Targe t is for ect 80 between 30-50 dwellings r h

e per hectare p s g n i l

l 60 e w D 40

20

0

y e e d re er re ire ir m ir i h h a h an nds erb sh st hi s h s tl a D y ce ns g l i ers ol on in id st pt t am Ru erb Le nc ot h M D ice i m ng st e L N ti a L tha t E or No N

Source: Local Authorities, 2003

3.06 As Table 3.1 indicates, Derbyshire, Leicester, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, and Nottinghamshire have all increased the densities of dwellings built on completed sites since the Annual Monitoring Statement for 2001/02. Leicester has seen the largest increase in density with an additional 64 dwellings per hectare. This is because the completed sites during 2002/03 include three comprising new apartment blocks, which provide 96 flats on a site area of 0.45 ha.

11 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

3.07 Northamptonshire and Nottingham have seen reductions in their densities for the year 2002-03. For Nottingham, the 2002-03 figure (53.3 dwellings per hectare) is lower than the 2001-02 (68.2 dwellings per hectare). However, this is still very high relative to the other strategic planning areas.

Map 3.1 RPG Achievement (%) and Housing Density (dwellings per hectare)

Housing Provision – Completions and Additions to Stock

3.08 Economic, social and environmental regeneration is a key priority for both RPG 8 and emda’s Regional Economic Strategy (RES). The aim of developing a proportion of housing development (Policy 17) within a defined area is to ensure that development assists the regeneration of areas of the greatest identified need. The overall level of housing provision across the region is set out in annual rates for each structure plan area. These rates provide the benchmark for monitoring and review, enabling adjustments to be made, as required by the plan, monitor and manage approach. These adjustments may be for monitoring both losses or gains against the assumptions made in the dwelling projections.

3.09 As Table 3.2 indicates, overall house-building rates across the region in 2002/03 were substantially above the annual target set for the East Midlands region in RPG8 for 2002/03; 16, 144 against 13, 700. All the strategic planning areas have also exceeded their target. Over the two years of monitoring, the region has exceeded its RPG target (Policy 17) by more than 4,000 dwellings4. At sub-regional level, the largest absolute increase in

4 However, some structure plans are ‘front-loaded’, or reflect higher previous planned levels, and therefore will produce rates ahead of RPG. Other plans recognise delays in bringing housing forward.

12 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement dwelling provision was recorded in Lincolnshire with more than 3,500 additional dwellings to stock, significantly above its 2,750 target.

Table 3.2 Housing Completions and Reductions in Stock (numbers), 2002-03

Local Authority Area Total Total net Net change Net change additions to reductions to stock 3 to stock 3 stock 1 2 02/03 01/02* Peak District National Park 136 0 136 N/A Nottinghamshire 2721 162 2559 2029 Northamptonshire 3190 20 3170 2465 Nottingham 822 28 794 1121 Lincolnshire 3676 21 3655 3476 Leicestershire 2345 49 2296 2677 Leicester 894 63 831 241 Derbyshire 2607 484 2123 2589 Derby 580 107 473 584 Rutland 112 5 107 260 East Midlands Total 17083 939 16144 15442 1 Comprises total new dwellings, permanent on previously undeveloped or developed sites, new mobile and temporary dwellings, changes of use to dwellings and new dwellings completed from conversions (where gain). 2 Comprises dwellings demolished and dwellings lost through conversions. 3 Comprises total additions to stock (1) – dwellings lost (2). *Information was not available for all districts in Derbyshire and Northamptonshire. The figure for Derbyshire includes data supplied by ODPM. Please see Appendix Table 3.2 in Appendix 3 for a full breakdown of Local Authority responses and missing data for 2002/03 Source: Local Authorities, 2003

Figure 3.2 Housing Completions and Reductions in Stock (numbers), 2002-03

4,000

3,500

3,000 s

n 2,500 o i t e l p m

o 2,000 C

. of o

N 1,500

1,000

500

0 Derby & Le icestershire , Lincolnshire Northamptonshire Nottingham and Peak District Derbyshire Leicester and Nottinghamshire National Park Rutland RPG Target No Completions Over Target Source: Local Authorities, 2003

13 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Housing Completions by Type and Size

3.10 RPG 8 ensures that all development (not just housing) in the East Midlands aspires to the highest standards of design (Policy 3). Local Authorities, regional bodies, utility providers and developers need to work together to ensure standards of design and construction are constantly improved and that an indicator to monitor quality is introduced. It needs to be noted that there are no national or regional targets for house type or size, as this should be assessed locally through housing needs assessments. Tables 3.3 and 3.4 below offer a breakdown of housing completions by type and size for the year 2002-03. In the longer-term, this information may be of use for monitoring the Regional Housing Strategy. Table 3.3 illustrates that flats accounted for approximately 13% of new build completions in 2002-03.

Table 3.3 Housing Completions by Type, 2002-03

Houses Flats Total Derby N/A N/A N/A Derbyshire 1393 116 1509 Leicester 342 177 519 Leicestershire 1683 253 1936 Lincolnshire 1857 63 1920 Northamptonshire 1040 157 1197 Nottingham 298 244 542 Nottinghamshire 1792 209 2001 Peak District National Park N/A N/A N/A Rutland N/A N/A N/A East Midlands total 8405 1219 9624 Only new build completions Please see Appendix Table 3.3 in Appendix 3 for a full breakdown of Local Authority responses and missing data for 2002/03 Source: Local Authorities, 2003

Figure 3.3 Housing Completions by Type, 2002-03

2,500

2,000 s n o i

t 1,500 e l p m Co f o . 1,000 No

500

0 e k y re r re ire ir m ire ar d rb hi ste hi sh sh ha sh l P lan De ys ice ers ln ton ing am na ut erb Le st co p tt gh tio R D ice in am No in Na Le L rth ott ct No N sri Di ak Pe Houses Flats

Source: Local Authorities: 2003

14 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

3.11 Comparison of these figures with the last Annual Monitoring Statement is difficult due to a lack of data from some districts feeding into both reports. The figures relate to definitions used in the ODPM housing flows returns which only include the new build element. Therefore, factory and office conversions are excluded as they are not ‘new build’. This may explain why the number of flats is lower than expected. Data on completions also fluctuate widely. For example, in Leicester there were about 1000 student flats under construction during 2002/03, but they will be recorded as completions in 2003/04, and need to be borne in mind for the next Annual Monitoring Statement.

Housing Completions by Size

3.12 Table 3.4 and Figure 3.4 illustrate the size of dwellings and the number of completions across the region. It needs to be noted that there are a lot of districts with missing data and therefore we cannot conclude much from the table below.

3.13 Table 3.4 shows that completions of 3 and 4 bedroom dwellings have in general increased significantly more than 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings since the Annual Monitoring Statement for 2001/02. The most considerable increase since the 2001/02 AMS has been in 4 bedroom houses (3,305). However, the actual number of 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings may be underestimated because conversions are excluded. There are also other factors that affect the size of dwellings, such as extensions to existing dwellings, which makes these figures less meaningful. It may be more meaningful in future to consider monitoring dwelling type and size on single large sites.

3.14 At sub-regional level, in general, there are no wide variations between areas in the proportion of different size dwellings completed. Nottingham displays the largest proportion of 2 bedroom completions as a total of all housing completions for 2002/03 and the smallest proportion of 4 bedroom housing completions. In contrast the largest proportion of Nottinghamshire’s housing completions is for 4 bedroom dwellings.

Table 3.4 Housing Completions by Size, 2002-03

1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 4+ Bedrooms Total 02/03 01/02* 02/03 01/02* 02/03 01/02* 02/03 01/02* 02/03 01/02* Derby N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Derbyshire 112 25 166 181 514 221 465 396 1257 823 Leicester 63 12 178 125 148 150 130 56 519 343 Leicestershire 135 24 415 454 729 588 657 656 1936 1722 Lincolnshire 29 67 192 499 578 679 704 736 1503 2122 Northamptonshire 136 10 371 59 412 307 633 354 1552 630 Nottingham 27 68 384 516 112 122 19 13 542 719 Nottinghamshire 76 26 312 149 292 222 697 491 1377 927 Peak District National Park N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Rutland N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A East Midlands Total 578 232 2018 1983 2785 2289 3305 2702 8686 7286 *Data for 2001/02 was not received from all districts. In some cases the total may not equal the rows total due to breakdown not being available in some districts. Derbyshire and Lincolnshire include data supplied by ODPM Please see Appendix Table 3.4 in Appendix 3 for a full breakdown of Local Authority responses and missing data for 2002/03 Source: Local Authorities, 2003

15 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Figure 3.4 Housing Completions by Size, 2002-03

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% y e r e e e e k d rb hir te ir hir hir ham hir ar an De ys ces rsh lns ns ng ms l P utl rb ei ste co pto tti ha na R De L ice in m No ng tio Le L tha tti Na or No ict N str Di eak 1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms P

Source: Local Authorities, 2003

Vacant Dwellings by Tenure (local authorities)

3.15 As table 3.5 indicates, there are over 38, 000 vacant dwellings in the East Midlands. This has been reduced by 10, 000 dwellings from the 48, 000 vacant dwellings recorded in March 2002. Derbyshire had the smallest percentage (2.8%) of vacant stock. Derby and Leicester both have the largest proportion (4.1%) of vacant stock. However, these figures may not be completely accurate as there still remain gaps in the data. In future years, this information on vacancy needs to be closely related to the Regional Housing Strategy.

Table 3.5 Vacant Dwellings by Tenure, as of 31 March 2003

Private Registered Local Vacant % stock % stock Sector Social Authority total 02/03 01/02* Vacant Landlord Vacant Vacant Derby 3481 311 282 4074 4.1 4.2 Derbyshire 4978 248 1720 6946 2.8 2.8 Leicester 4216 157 501 4874 4.1 4.3 Leicestershire 4954 109 341 5404 2.3 1.8 Lincolnshire 5089 161 301 5551 3.1 3.7 Northamptonshire 2921 35 157 3113 3.1 1.3 Nottingham 2942 65 730 3737 3.1 2.6 Nottinghamshire 3613 216 802 4631 3.3 2.4 Peak District National N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Rutland N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.9 East Midlands Total 32194 1302 4834 38330 3.1 N/A Note: The highlighted area indicates authorities with below regional average for housing density 2002/2003 See Table 3.5 in Appendix 3 for a full breakdown of Local Authority responses and missing data for 2002/03 Source: Local Authorities, 2003

16 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

3.16 Figure 3.5a depicts vacant dwellings by tenure. Derbyshire records the highest number of vacant dwellings, in absolute numbers, which may be a result of the phasing of regeneration programmes in the area. Northamptonshire has the lowest levels of vacancy, across all tenure types.

Figure 3.5a Vacant Dwellings by Tenure, as of 31 March 2003

8,000

7,000

6,000 s e i

t 5,000 r e p o r P

t 4,000 n a c Va

f 3,000 o . No 2,000

1,000

0

y re r e re re m re erb hi ste hir shi shi ha shi D bys ice ers ln on ing m er Le est nco pt ott gha D eic Li am N in L rth ott No N Private Sector Vacant Registered Social Landlord Vacant Local Authority Vacant Source: Local Authorities, 2003

Figure 3.5b Vacant Dwellings % of Stock, as of 31 March 2003

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0 k c

o 2.5 t S l a t

o 2.0 T of 1.5 %

1.0

0.5

0.0 e r e e e s rby hir ste ire hir hir ham hir nd De ys ice rsh lns ns ng ms dla erb Le ste co pto tti ha Mi D ice Lin am No ing st Le rth ott Ea No N

Source: Local Authorities, 2003

17 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

3.17 Figure 3.5b demonstrates vacancy rates in terms of the proportion of vacant stock as a percentage of total dwellings. Although Derbyshire and Leicestershire have a large number of vacant dwellings, this represents only a relatively small proportion of their overall stock.

Housing Built on Previously Developed Land and Conversions

3.18 PPG 11 advises that RPG should include targets for the proportion of new dwellings to be built on previously developed land or through conversions.

3.19 Housing development on previously developed land should be viewed in relation to the character of the region that does not have significantly large metropolitan areas with brownfield sites. Table 3.6 below identifies the amount of previously developed land that is suitable for housing by the Government Office Region. In 2002, the East Midlands had 2,970 hectares of previously developed land that was suitable for housing. The ODPM consider this land has the capacity to hold 82,000 dwellings.

Table 3.6 Previously Developed Land by Suitability for Housing and Number of Dwellings by Government Office Region, 2002

Government Office Previously developed land that Area of which Number of Dwellings Region is unused or may be available suitable for dwellings2 per hectare for redevelopment (ha) housing (ha)1 North East 4,780 1,910 51,800 27 North West 11,770 3,960 136,100 34 Yorkshire & the Humber 8,000 2,320 87,500 38 East Midlands 6,390 2,970 82,000 28 West Midlands 6,560 2,700 71,700 27 East of England 7,540 3,980 101,200 25 London 3,520 2,120 117,600 55 South East 10,910 5,700 137,500 24 South West 6,650 2,860 98,900 35 1Based on sites judged by the local authorities to be suitable for residential development 2Based on existing planning permissions or estimated capacity based on current density assumptions Source: National Land Use Database of Previously Developed Land (NLUD- PDL), 2003

3.20 Recent achievement in the East Midlands is 55%, with wide variations across the region. RPG 8 states that there is “always scope for improvement from past performance” when it comes to re-using developed land and buildings for housing. In the Annual Monitoring Statement for 2001-02 only 3 of the strategic planning areas (Peak District NPA, Leicester and Nottingham) reached the national target of 60% or more of dwellings to be built on previously developed land or through conversions.

3.21 Map 3.2 illustrates the extent of housing built on brownfield land or through conversions. Table 3.7 summarises data on the dwellings built on previously developed land and conversions for 2002-03. Figure 3.6 depicts the same information.

18 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Map 3.2 Proportion of housing built on brownfield land or through conversions

Table 3.7: Housing Addition on Previously Developed Land and Through Conversions, 2002-03

Dwellings Dwellings built Total % Housing built % Housing built built on on previously Additions to on brownfield on brownfield previously developed land dwelling land or through land or through undeveloped or through Stock conversions conversions sites conversions 02/03 01/02* Derby 207 373 580 64.3 47.8 Derbyshire 782 1825 2607 70.0 59.0 Leicester 170 724 894 81.0 96.8 Leicestershire 1166 1179 2345 50.3 48.8 Lincolnshire 2464 1212 3676 33.0 20.7 Northamptonshire 1364 1391 2755 50.5 53.6 Nottinghamshire 993 1355 2348 57.7 49.7 Nottingham 9 813 822 98.9 95.6 Peak District National Park 59 77 136 56.6 76.0 Rutland 53 59 112 52.7 54.7 East Midlands Total 7267 9008 16275 55.3 49.3 The highlighted area indicates authorities above 60% target of housing developments on previously developed land in 2002/03 Table 3.7 in Appendix 3 provides a full breakdown of Local Authority responses and missing data for 2002/03 *Data was not available for all districts in 2001/02 Source: Local Authorities, 2003

19 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Figure 3.6a: Dwellings Built on Previously Developed Land and Conversions, 2002- 03

4,000

3,500

3,000 s g 2,500 llin e w d

2,000 f o r e

b 1,500 m u

N 1,000

500

0 e y e e e re t d b ir er ir ir ir i am ic n r h st h sh la e s e sh s n sh gh str t D y ic r ln o m n i b e te o a ti D Ru er L c pt h t k ces in m g o a D i L a n N e h tti P Le rt o N No Dwellings built on previously undeveloped sites Dwellings built on previously developed land or through conversions

Source: Local Authorities, 2003

Figure 3.6b Percentage of Dwellings built on Previously developed Land and Conversions, 2002-03

120

100

National RPG 80 Target of 60%

% 60

40

20

0

y e e e re t l ir er r ir i ire m ic ta h st hi h r and erb e sh s sh gha t tl To D ys ic rs ln on m is s e e o t tin D Ru d erb L st c p ha t k n D ce n m g a la ei Li a in No e th tt P id L r M o No N ast E

Source, Local Authorities, 2003

3.22 Nottingham, Leicester and Derbyshire exhibit the highest levels of land re-use at 98.9 per cent, 81 and 70 per cent respectively. Although Lincolnshire still has the lowest percentage (33%) on brownfield land, it has improved considerably since last year’s figure (20.7%). This reflects the rural nature of Lincolnshire and limited supply of previously developed

20 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

land compared to the more urban parts of the region. This balance between greenfield and brownfield development needs to be carefully monitored to ensure the greenfield parts of the region are maintained.

Planning Permissions for New Housing

3.23 As Table 3.8 indicates, over 73,000 dwellings have outstanding planning permission in the region, which is significantly higher than the number of new dwellings that have been developed during this monitoring cycle (16,144 dwellings).

3.24 Lincolnshire has over 20,000 dwellings with outstanding planning permission. It also contributed the highest number of additional dwellings in absolute numbers (3,655) to the housing stock during this monitoring cycle.

3.25 This potentially represents a relatively large-scale housing development. The level of planning permissions needs to be monitored closely with the levels of housing completions. A distinction needs to be made in future monitoring cycles between permissions for small and permissions for large sites to provide a more realistic understanding of ‘supply’.

Table 3.8: Planning Permissions for Dwellings Not Yet Completed, 31/3/03

Local Authority Number of new Completions as a Number of new dwellings with % of Outstanding dwellings with outstanding Planning outstanding planning Permissions 02/03 planning permission 02/03 permission 01/02* Derby 1620 29 1896 Derbyshire 11176 19 8384 Leicester 3782 22 4590 Leicestershire 9079 25 6218 Lincolnshire 22034 17 22000 Northamptonshire 10838 29 12869 Nottingham 3741 21 2751 Nottinghamshire 9363 27 9270 Peak District National Park 501 27 535 Rutland 957 11 877 East Midlands 73 089 24% 69390 The highlighted area indicates authorities with over 10,000 dwellings with outstanding planning permissions 02/03 Table 3.8 in Appendix 3 gives a full breakdown of Local Authority responses and missing data in 2002/03 *Information not available for all districts Source: Local Authorities, 2003

21 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Map 3.3 Number of dwellings with outstanding planning permission

Affordable Housing

3.26 Regional benchmark figures for affordable housing5 remain unchanged within RPG 8. However, the policy area has changed to reflect rural proofing and to ensure that as policy is developed and implemented, policy makers systematically think about the impacts in rural areas. As Table 3.9 indicates, a total of 1,059 affordable houses were developed in the East Midlands during 2002/03. This is broadly similar to the 1,170 affordable dwellings that were developed during 2001/02.

3.27 However, it is possible that not all Registered Social Landlord housing could be considered affordable as some might be let at market rents. In addition, full monitoring of affordable housing may not be taking place. For example, the figures for Nottingham City only include dwellings provided using Housing Corporation funding, either directly or via Local Authority Social Housing Grant, including shared ownership and low cost market housing. Furthermore, the current monitoring indicator excludes additional affordable housing provision through acquisition and rehabilitation of existing stock by registered social

5 Affordable housing describes both low cost housing and subsidised housing (irrespective of tenure, ownership or financial arrangements) that will be available to people who cannot afford to occupy houses generally available on the open market (Circular No. 06/98: Planning and Affordable Housing). The questionnaire asked respondents to include all dwellings developed as a result of s. 106 or set-aside agreements (where financial contributions are accepted in lieu of dwellings) as well as those provided by local authorities/registered social landlords.

22 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

landlords. Such provision could provide social rented or shared ownership units to meet local housing needs. Affordable housing provision in the East Midlands is over 2,000 short of the annual target set out in Policy 18 of RPG8 (3,400 dwellings per annum, which represents almost 25% of all dwellings provision).

Table 3.9 Affordable Housing Completed, 2002-03

Local Authority Completed Total Additions to Percentage Percentage dwelling stock 02/03 01/02* Derby 50 580 8.6 9 Derbyshire 110 2323 4.7 3 Leicester 27 894 3.0 19 Leicestershire 214 1866 11.5 8 Lincolnshire 234 2183 10.7 10 Northamptonshire 94 2429 3.9 11 Nottingham 97 822 11.8 13 Nottinghamshire 199 2339 8.5 2 Peak District National 34 136 25.0 1 Park Rutland N/A N/A N/A 6 East Midlands Total 1059 13 572 7.8% N/A The highlighted area indicates above regional average for percentage of affordable dwellings completed as a proportion of total dwellings Table 3.9 in Appendix 3 provides a full breakdown of Local Authority responses and missing data for 2002/03 *County figures comprise totals of districts who responded. Table includes all dwellings developed as a result of s. 106 or set aside agreements as well as those provided by local authorities/registered social landlords. Source: Local Authorities, 2003

3.28 As Figure 3.7 indicates, the Peak District National Park generated the largest percentage (25%) of affordable dwellings as a proportion of all completions, but Lincolnshire generated the largest absolute number of affordable dwellings (234).

Figure 3.7 Affordable Housing as a Proportion of ALL Completions, 2002-03

RPG Target (3,400 affordable dwellings per annum represents almost 25% of all dwelling provision) 30

25 s

on 20 i t e l p m o 15 C l a t o

T 10 of %

5

0

by re er re ire ire m ire rk ds er shi st hi sh sh ha sh Pa an D y ice rs ln on ng m al idl erb Le ste co pt tti ha on M D ice in am No ng ati st Le L th tti N Ea or No ict N str Di ak Pe

23 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

3.29 Leicester experienced the most dramatic fall in the proportion of new dwellings that were affordable. Nineteen per-cent of total completions in 2001-02 were affordable dwellings but this figure has fallen to just 3% for 2003-03. A number of factors may explain this: Leicester’s experimental reduction of affordable housing requirements in private sector city centre residential developments. During 2002/03, Leicester temporarily relaxed its policy requiring 30% of homes in projects to be affordable, in order to kick start the housing market in the City Centre and to facilitate regeneration. Furthermore, priority was given to rehabilitation of the existing housing stock through the Approved Development Programme (105 rehabilitated and 27 new build).

3.30 In general, the reduction in the proportion affordable housing makes up of all completions could also be explained by the decline in funding available from the Housing Corporation to Housing Associations. Moreover, the additional costs private developers incur for developing on brownfield sites may mean that a larger proportion of sites have not been able to support their affordable housing quota that would be negotiated as part of a S106 agreement.

3.31 The Regional Housing Board intends to allocate approximately 37% of the AHP funding to the Southern sub-region in 2004-06. This funding recognises the significance of the Milton Keynes South Midlands growth area to the region and the importance of growth and balanced housing markets in other parts of the region. However, a £20 million bid for extra funding from the region to support the provision of affordable housing within the MKSM Growth Area was turned down by the Government.

Average Cost of Housing Units and Land

3.32 As Table 3.10 indicates, in the East Midlands the average price of dwellings increased between 2002 and 2003 (in the same period of the year July-September) by approximately 21%. This represents the third highest regional increase experienced in the UK after the North and Wales.

Table 3.10: Average Dwelling Prices and % Increase by Region, 2002-03

AVERAGE PRICE BY COUNTRY AND REGION Jul-Sept 2002 Jul-Sept 2003 COUNTRY/REGION % INCREASE AVE. PRICE AVE. PRICE ENGLAND & WALES £146,150 £161,665 10.62 NORTH £80,188 £99,718 24.36 WALES £87,255 £105,382 20.77 EAST MIDLANDS £106,366 £128,428 20.74 YORKS & HUMBER £89,057 £106,838 19.97 NORTH WEST £90,709 £105,989 16.85 WEST MIDLANDS £116,072 £133,538 15.05 SOUTH WEST £152,392 £175,128 14.92 EAST ANGLIA £134,051 £153,874 14.79 SOUTH EAST £185,175 £204,453 10.41 GREATER LONDON £248,609 £262,044 5.40 HM Land Registry, 2003

3.33 Table 3.11 summarises information about dwelling prices across the East Midlands. The table illustrates a substantial range of house prices across the region. The highest average

24 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

house prices are in Rutland, at £173, 697. This is contrasted to Derby with the average house costing £97, 242.

Table 3.11: Average dwelling prices: by type of dwelling and strategic authority, (3rd qtr) 2003 £ and Sales

Region/Area Detached Semi Detached Terraced Flat/Maisonette Av. Price £ Av Sales Av Sales Av Price Sales Av Price Sales Price £ Price £ £ £ Derby City 171740 244 89676 443 65256 402 61472 55 97242 City of Nottingham 167994 138 96349 366 75429 473 125248 160 100409 Derbeyshire 176014 1006 90721 1237 72407 1022 94538 128 110637 Leicester 190332 118 104028 408 88493 554 94928 138 104292 Leicestershire 207658 978 117984 1084 95917 690 86330 107 142149 Lincolnshire 159726 1617 96188 1051 78482 964 65092 137 117788 Northamptonshire 212913 1119 119361 1067 97198 1251 83627 260 137664 Nottinghamshire 181183 1198 93794 1356 67991 895 86001 137 116251 Rutland 237076 61 143652 51 123420 36 86400 6 173697 Source: HM Land Registry, 2003

3.34 A comparison of figures presented below and last year’s Annual Monitoring Statement indicates that average land values in the East Midlands are continuing to increase in parallel with a substantial demand for sites. Nottingham currently has the highest average value for housing land at approximately £2,500,000/ha. This is compared to Mansfield where average land values for housing are approximately £1,000,000/ha.

Table 3.12: Average Land Values in the East Midlands, 2003

Region Small Sites Bulk Land Sites for Flats or £ s per ha £ s per ha Maisonettes £ s per ha Lincoln 1,600,000 1,500,000 1,600,000 Mansfield 1,000,000 950,000 950,000 Nottingham 2,500,000 2,250,000 2,500,000 Derby 2,000,000 1,750,000 2,000,000 Leicester 1,750,000 1,850,000 2,200,000 Northampton 2,100,000 2,100,000 2,100,000 Loughborough 2,400,00 2,000,000 2,500,000 East Midlands 1,910,000 1,770,000 1,940,000 Source: VOA Property Market report Autumn 2003

25 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

CONCLUDING REMARKS

3.35 Key conclusions on housing can be summarised as follows:

• House building rates across the region in 2002/03 have been substantially above the annual targets set for the East Midlands region in (draft) RPG 8. However, fluctuations in recording of additions may need to be considered over at least a three – five year period. Furthermore, the general over-achievement of dwelling additions masks sub-regional differences, which may require close review in future years to ensure the balance between brownfield and greenfield housing development is appropriate.

• Low levels of affordable housing have been developed in the East Midlands during 2002/03. However, this may in part reflect a lack of returns from some authorities and the lack of information from all sources providing affordable housing, such as Section 106 agreements. It needs to be highlighted that not all ‘affordable’ housing that is monitored is actually affordable, as it might be let at market rates. Therefore the question whether affordable housing is responding and meeting housing needs remains. In future years consideration of the level of affordable housing provision needs to be tied into the Housing Needs Surveys carried out by Local Housing Authorities.

• Completions of 3 and 4 bedroom dwellings have in general increased significantly more than 1 or 2 bedroom dwellings since the AMS for 2001/02. However, this is based on incomplete data and only includes new builds. Therefore it does not consider conversions or changes to stock through extensions. It is again more important to understand if housing provision is meeting housing needs, rather than the type and size of dwellings built. It may be more meaningful to ensure a mix on single, large developments where PPG 3 seeks a mix of type and sizes is monitored.

• The building rate of dwellings on previously developed land continues to improve, but should remain a priority for future housing development in the region.

• There appears to be sufficient number of outstanding planning permissions across the region, related to the house building rates observed during 2002/03. However, a distinction needs to be made in future monitoring cycles between permissions for small and permissions for large sites to provide a more realistic understanding of ‘supply’. Currently the number of outstanding planning permissions does not provide sufficient detail to draw conclusions on the magnitude of proposed development.

• The East Midlands experienced the third largest UK regional increase in the average cost of housing in the 12 months from July-September 2002 to 2003.

26 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

3.36 The table below summarises comparative information for each housing indicator at regional level:

Indicator 2002/03 2001/02 % Change Density of new housing (dw/ha) 22.6 25.6 -12% New Build house completions 8405 N/A N/A Flat completions 1219 933 +31% Housing completions achieved on previously developed land or through 55.3% 49.3% +6% conversions Affordable housing completions 1059 1171 -10% Outstanding planning permissions for dwellings not yet completed 73,089 69,390 -5% Average cost of housing land 1,873,333 1,103,333 +70% Average dwelling price (2001-2003) 128, 428 87,711 +46% Vacant dwellings (all) 38,330 48,099 -20% Vacant dwellings as a % of total stock 3.1% 7.6% -4.5% Total Additions to stock 17,083 16,117 +6% Net change in housing stock 16,144 15,442 +5%

3.37 Recommendations on future monitoring arrangements for housing policies within RPG 8 are contained in section 8.

27 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

4 Economy

4.01 Draft RPG 8 has been substantially rewritten since the last AMS to take account of the Quality of Employment Land Supply Study (QUELS) (July 2002), the Regional Town Centres Study (March 2003) and the review of the Regional Economic Strategy.

4.02 This section provides analysis on the following regional Economy related policies contained within draft RPG 8, particularly covering employment land development and regeneration issues. Appendix 2 provides a brief overview of the East Midlands economy, which provides context for this section.

• Policy 1 Locational Priorities for Development

• Policy 4 Concentrating development in Urban Areas stating that development should be prioritised within the Principal Urban Areas, and to a lesser extent the Sub Regional Centres

• Policy 21 Regional Priority Areas for Regeneration

• Policy 22 Regional Priorities for Employment Land looks for Local Authorities and Sub-Regional Strategic Partnerships to work together to: − Ensure that, by the allocation and de-allocation of employment land (B1, B2, B8) through the development plan process and selective public investment, there is an adequate supply of land for office and industrial uses available for development in sustainable locations − Bring forward allocated employment sites to meet the specific requirements of potential investors − Monitor gains and losses in the overall supply of industrial and office floorspace

• Policy 23 Regional Priorities for Town Centres and Retail Development

4.03 The Quality of Employment Land Supply Study (QUELS) commissioned by the East Midlands Regional Local Government Association (EMRLGA) and emda, assesses the quantity and quality of employment land supply in the East Midlands region. It also provides an analysis of the current supply of employment land against a strategic long-term market assessment and established regional policy objectives included in Draft RPG8. According to the study there will be a significant decline in demand for industrial floorspace, and a significant increase in demand for office floorspace over the next 10-15 years in the East Midlands. Additional employment land (B1, B2 and B8) is estimated to grow at less than 3 hectares per annum region-wide. However, the sub-regional pattern of office and industrial space is more complex:

• Eastern Sub Area: Limited supply of office space is adequate, if existing allocations in Lincolnshire are developed. There is an over-supply of industrial land in the north of the sub-area. • Northern Sub Area: Inadequate supply of office space, particularly in and around the urban centres. Industrial land is of poor quality and about 25% could be de-allocated. • Peak Sub Area: Office and industrial space is constrained. • Southern Sub Area: Office supply in and around Northampton is limited; elsewhere current supply is adequate given weak demand. Industrial supply is adequate, other than in Northampton where pressure from the storage and distribution industry is starting to restrict other uses.

28 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

• Three Cities Sub Area: Office supply is constrained in Derby, Nottingham and Leicester. There is a particular shortage of sites suitable for science and technology uses. Availability of good quality industrial land is also constrained. • Major Employment Sites: QUELS found that Major Investment Sites (MISs) were not the best way of securing footloose inward investment.

4.04 The indicators to monitor progress in these policy areas are listed below:

Indicators Source RPG RPG Target policy Priority CORE Employment land developed by use class and Local 22 2,4 Meet type of site Authorities local needs Undeveloped employment land commitments Local 23 2,4 As by use class and type of site Authorities above CONTEXTUAL Private sector view VOA’s 23 - Property Market Report Regional comparisons of Nominal Rental DTZ 1, 23 - Growths Research Rental Comparisons of East Midlands’ DTZ 4, 23 - Centres Research Vacant Retail Units in the City Centre PROMIS 4, 23 - Office Rental Values DTZ 1, 4, 23 Research

Employment Land Developed

4.05 Collection of employment Land data has been broken down into B1, B2, B8 and other use classes.

4.06 However, collection of information to date has shown that this level of detail for employment land developed and committed has caused problems and has not been systematically collected from all authorities. Some local authorities have simply not been able to break down totals by the use classes due to allocations being designated for one or two of the use classes. Information below is presented by Use Class, but interpretation needs to be read in conjunction with the notes for each table. Please refer to appendix 4 for a more detailed insight into the data used in figures 4.1 to 4.5.

4.07 As the figure below indicates, overall more employment land was been developed on brownfield sites (117ha) than on greenfield sites (72 ha) across the region in 2002/03.

29 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Figure 4.1 Total Employment land developed by land type (ha), 2002/03

50

45

40

35

30 es r a

ct 25 e H 20

15

10

5

0

y e r e e re e b ir e r r i m ir nd r h t i hi h a a es sh s s gh sh tl De ys ic r ln n n m b e to ti Ru er Le st co p t ha e n m D ic Li No ng ha tti Le rt o N No greenfield brownfield

Source: Local Authorities, 2003

4.08 Tables 4.1 and 4.2 indicate the extent of the sub-regional differences. For example, Leicestershire developed 15ha of greenfield employment sites, compared with 44ha of brownfield sites. In contrast, Lincolnshire developed 15ha of greenfield employment sites compared with 14ha of brownfield employment sites.

Table 4.1 Employment Land Developed (ha) 2002/03 Greenfield

B1 B2 B8 Other6 Total Derby 0.00 0 0 0.32 0.32 Derbyshire 2.6 1.12 2.86 2.82 9.40 Leicester 0.3 5.15 N/A N/A 5.45 Leicestershire 0.33 0 2 13.03 15.36 Rutland 0 0 0 0 0 Lincolnshire 1.7 1.9 8.7 2.47 14.77 Northamptonshire 2 8.55 2.03 3.82 16.4 Nottingham 0 0 0 0 0 Nottinghamshire 2.78 6.975 0 1 10.76 Peak District 0 0 0 0 0 East Midlands 9.71 23.7 15.59 23.46 72.46 Table 4.1 in Appendix 4 provides a full breakdown of Local Authority responses and missing data Not all Districts provided data between April 2002 and March 2003 Data not available for all Districts Source: Local Authorities 2003

6 The ‘other’ category in tables 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 often also refers to B1, B2 and B8, and permissions are often for a combination of these categories.

30 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Figure 4.2: Proportion of Employment Land Developed on Greenfield Sites by County/Unitary Authority, 2002/03

Nottinghamshire Nottingham Rutland 14.8% 0.0% 0.0% Derby 0.4% Derbyshire Northamptonshire 13.0% 22.6%

Leicester 7.5%

Lincolnshire Leicestershire 20.4% 21.2%

Source: Local Authorities, 2003

4.09 Leicestershire has (for the second year running) undertaken the most development of employment sites on brownfield land (44ha), compared with 17 ha in Derbyshire, 14 ha in Lincolnshire, 19 ha in Northamptonshire and 14 ha in Nottinghamshire.

Table 4.2 Employment Land Developed (ha) 2002/03 brownfield

B1 B2 B8 Other Total

Derby 2.68 0 0 3.10 5.78 Derbyshire 1.28 7.94 6.73 0.81 16.76 Leicester 0.17 N/A 0.15 N/A 0.32 Leicestershire 0.81 0.98 8.16 34.04 43.99 Rutland 1.4 0 0 0 1.4 Lincolnshire 4.16 5.73 3.15 0.58 13.62 Northamptonshire 2.83 5.15 5.86 5.3 19.14 Nottingham 0 0 1.2 1.4 2.6 Nottinghamshire 5.14 3 4.99 0.5 13.63 East Midlands 18.47 22.8 30.24 45.73 117.24 Please see Appendix Table 4.2 in Appendix 4 for a full breakdown of Local Authority responses and missing data Not all Districts provided data between April 2002 and March 2003 Data not available for all Districts Source: Local Authorities 2003

31 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Figure 4.3 Proportion of Employment Land Developed on Brownfield Sites by County/Unitary Authority, 2002/03

Nottingham Nottinghamshire Rutland 2.2% 11.6% 1.2% Derby Northamptonshire 4.9% 16.3% Derbyshire 14.3%

Leicester Lincolnshire 0.3% 11.6%

Leicestershire 37.5%

Source: Local Authorities, 2003

4.10 Map 4.1 below illustrates total employment land developed and also gives the proportional breakdown of greenfield/brownfield development by county/unitary authority.

Map 4.1 Total Employment Land Developed (ha) and proportion of greenfield/brownfield land developed by County/Unitary Authority

32 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Employment Land Commitments

4.11 Figure 4.4 below shows total employment land commitments in the East Midlands in 2002/03. Overall the region has committed over 3,000 hectares of land for employment purposes. Just over two thirds of the employment commitments are on greenfield land.

Figure 4.4 Total Employment Land Commitments by land type (ha), 2002/03

800

700

600

500 res a 400 ect H 300

200

100

0

y r re re re d ire ire i am i n h ste h hi h h la erb s s ns gh t D ice ln o ms by ters t tin a Ru er Le s co t in mp gh D ce L a No in ei h tt L rt No No Greenfield Brownfiled

Source: Local Authorities, 2003

4.12 Table 4.3 below summarises the amount of undeveloped employment land as of 31st March 2003.

Table 4.3:Greenfield Employment Land Commitments by Use Class and Type of Site (ha) 2002/03

B1 B2 General B8 Other Total Busines Industrial Distribution s Derby 12 0 0 80.12 92.12 Derbyshire 26.04 49.18 4.88 184.4 264.5 Leicester 0 3.93 9.82 7.47 21.22 Leicestershire 34.45 0 9.58 260.93 304.96 Lincolnshire 71.17 28.6 56.35 579.76 735.88 Northamptonshire 150.83 136.66 134.99 97.66 520.14 Nottingham 31.77 0 0 24.5 56.27 Nottinghamshire 42.49 3 0.59 317.65 363.75 Peak District 0 0 0 0 0 National Park Rutland 6.95 0 1.33 16.32 24.60 East Midlands 375.7 221.37 217.54 1568.81 2383.42 Table 4.3 in Appendix 4 provides a full breakdown of Local Authority responses and missing data. Source: Local Authorities 2003

33 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Figure 4.5a Proportion of Greenfield Employment Land Commitments by County/Unitary Authority, 2002/03

Nottinghamshire Rutland Nottingham 15.3% 1.0% Derby 2.4% 3.9%

Derbyshire 11.1% Northamptonshire 21.8% Leicester 0.9%

Leicestershire 12.8%

Lincolnshire 30.9%

Source: Local Authorities, 2003

4.13 The East Midlands has over 1,000ha of employment land commitments on brownfield sites, which is under half of the employment land commitments on greenfield sites (2,383.42ha). Lincolnshire has the largest area of greenfield land commitments (735.88ha) and Derbyshire has the largest brownfield employment site commitments (287.08ha). There is also a high level of greenfield employment commitments in Northamptonshire. The tables below on employment land commitments refer to local plan commitments as well as planning permissions.

Table 4.4:Brownfield Employment Land Commitments by Use Class and Type of Site (Ha) 2002/03

B1 B2 General B8 Other Total Business Industrial Distribution Derby 0 0 0 134.26 134.26 Derbyshire 32.54 64.17 5.84 184.53 287.08 Leicester 3.68 0.82 0.5 21.66 26.66 Leicestershire 15.97 0.56 40.25 101.97 158.75 Lincolnshire 10.3 19.21 1.96 100.31 131.78 Northamptonshire 66.62 37.5 57.95 68.51 230.58 Nottingham 14.01 9.1 5.24 25.12 53.46 Nottinghamshire 14.63 3.57 0 113.35 131.55 Peak District 0 0 0 0 0 National Park Rutland 2.69 1.30 0 0 3.99 East Midlands 160.44 136.23 111.74 749.71 1158.1 Table 4.4 in Appendix 4 provides a full breakdown of Local Authority responses and missing data.

34 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Figure 4.5b Brownfield Employment Land Commitments by County/Unitary Authority, 2002/03

Nottingham Nottinghamshire 11.4% Rutland 4.6% 0.3% Derby 11.6% Northamptonshire 19.9%

Derbyshire Lincolnshire 24.8% 11.4%

Leicestershire Leicester 13.7% 2.3%

Source: Local Authorities, 2003

4.14 Map 4.2 illustrates total employment land commitments and the proportional breakdown between greenfield and brownfield commitments by County/Unitary Authority.

Map 4.2 Employment Land Commitments (ha) by County/Unitary, 2002/03

35 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Retail Space and Rents

4.15 As Table 4.5 indicates, nominal rental growth rates in the East Midlands are close to the national average and the highest outside London, the South and the East of the country.

Table 4.5 Regional Comparisons Forecasts of Nominal Rental Growths (2003-07)

Region 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Ave (02-07) London 3.3 3.9 5.3 6.0 5.1 4.4 Outer South East 4.1 4.9 5.9 6.5 6.0 5.0 South West 3.5 4.2 5.6 6.3 5.5 4.6 Eastern 3.8 4.6 6.0 6.2 5.7 4.8 East Midlands 2.9 3.5 4.9 5.6 4.7 4.0 West Midlands 2.6 3.2 4.5 5.2 4.3 3.6 North West 2.2 2.8 4.2 4.8 4.0 3.3 Yorks & 1.5 2.1 3.4 4.0 3.2 2.5 Humber North East 1.0 1.5 2.8 3.4 3.4 2.1 All retail 2.9 3.6 4.9 5.5 4.7 3.9 Source: DTZ Research

4.16 There are two major out-of-town retail centres within the East Midlands. The Derbyshire Outlet Mall, also known as the BAA/McArthur Glen Outlet Store opened in 1998 and is close to junction 28 of the M1. Fosse Park is close to the M1 and M69 intersection and contains a variety of high street retailers. Both these out-of-town centres impact on Nottingham, Leicester and Derby. There are also a number of other out-of-town retail warehouses, in the form of retails parks, which compete with development in the urban areas.

4.17 In monitoring retail development, it is useful to consider how retail rental values vary between the three main retail centres (the three cities) and consider how these have changed over the last few years. The most recent information on Prime Zone A rents has been gathered from PROMIS reports (2003). It is interesting to note, as the figure and table below indicate, none of the three main retail centres in the East Midlands have experienced significant rental growth over the last two/three years.

Figure 4.6 Rental Comparisons 2000-2002

250

200

150 Nottingham Leicester 100 Derby

£ per sq foot 50

0 31st 2001 2002 30th June Dec2000 2003 Year

36 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Table 4.6 Retail Rental Comparisons – East Midlands Centres

Rental Comparisons, 2000 – 2002, East Midlands’ Centres Centre Prime Zone A High Street Rents £ per sq. ft 31st Dec 2001 2002 30th June % 2000 2003 change 2000- 2003 Nottingham 220 220 220 220 0 Leicester 200 200 200 200 0 Derby 140 140 150 150 7 Northampton - - 125 130 Lincoln - - 130 140 Mansfield - - 95 95 Chesterfield - - 90 90 Loughborough - - 75 75 Wellingborough - - 65 70 Boston - - 70 70 Kettering - - 60 60 Corby - - 50 50 Grantham - - 60 60 Newark on Trent - - 65 65 Hinckley - 50 Buxton - 42.5 Source: DTZ and Focus

Figure 4.7 Retail Floorspace Rental Values

250

200

150

£ per sq ft 100

50

0

er n d d on ey iel iel t am erby f s ering orby th cest D incol t C uxton ingham ei L Bo an inckl B L hampton esterf borough r H ott Mans h hborough g Ket G N ort C in rk on Trent N oug ell a L ew W N £ per sq ft, 2002 £ per sq ft, 2003

Source: DTZ 2003

37 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

4.18 Rental values remain high in Nottingham who record the highest rental levels amongst key regional centres. It is also important to note that rental values in Lincoln and Mansfield have slightly increased since last year.

4.19 Nottingham is the largest of the three retail centres (at approximately 2.7 million sq ft, Goad, 2000), which is set to continue to expand with the redevelopment and extension of the Broadmarsh shopping centre. Derby also has plans to expand its retail provision with proposed extensions to the Eagle Centre. One of the main objectives of the Leicester Urban Regeneration Company within its Masterplan is to enhance the city’s retail and leisure offer by creating an additional 1 million sq ft of new retail floorspace.

4.20 ODPM have recently published ‘Commercial and Industrial Floorspace Statistics, 2003’ which provides a range of retail, office, factory and warehouse statistics at the district level. Further work will be needed to analyse how these statistics can add value to the Annual Monitoring Statement.

4.21 Vacancy rates within city centres provide a useful indication as to the ‘health’ of the market within city centres (Table 4.7). Derby experiences the highest vacancy levels out of the ‘three cities’. PROMIS suggests that this is because of the high level of vacancy rates within the Castlefields Centre. However, the centre is the subject of a redevelopment proposal, so this could be a temporarily high level of vacancy rate.

Table 4.7 Percentage of Vacant Retail Units in the City Centres of Nottingham, Derby and Leicester (2003)

City Percentage of Vacant Retail Units in the City Centre Nottingham 3.8 (June 2002) Derby 7.9 (July 2003) Leicester 6.9 (July 2003) Source: DTZ 2003

Office Rents

4.22 Table 4.8 below identifies that office rental values are highest within the central areas of Nottingham and Leicester as well as on the edge of Northampton. Relatively high office rents reflect a more favourable business location. Lower rentals remain in smaller towns and peripheral areas like Mansfield and Lincoln. This pattern is almost identical to that of 2001-02.

4.23 In terms of sub-regional performance, office rental values in Northampton, Mansfield and Nottingham have remained unchanged since the last Annual Monitoring Statement. Lincoln and Leicester have experienced some increase of office rental values. Derby is the only strategic planning area to have experienced increases in the rental values of all 3 office types identified by the Valuation Office; this is probably due to the expansion at Pride Park.

38 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Table 4.8 Office Rental Values as at 1st April 2003

Location £/m2/ann £/m2/ ann £/m2/ann Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 02/03 01/02 02/03 01/02 02/03 01/02 Lincoln 70 60 75 65 70 70 Mansfield 80 80 60 60 Nottingham 140* 140* 155* 155* 100* 100* Derby 83* 75* 95* 88* 105* 95* Leicester 140 140* 100 88 100 80 Northampton (type 1 *160 160* 118 118 135 135 edge of town) Type 1 Town centre location. Self contained suite over 1,000sq.m in office block erected in last 10years, good standard of finish with a lift and a good quality fitting to common parts. Limited car parking available. Type 2 As Type 1 but suite size in range of 150sq.m.-300sq.m Type 3 Converted former house usually just off town centre. Good quality conversion of Georgian/Victorian or similar house of character. Best quality fittings throughout. Self contained suite in size range 50sq.m-150sq.m, with central heating and limited car parking *Denotes accommodation with air conditioning Source: VOA Property Market Report Spring 2003

Figure 4.8: Office Rental Values, 2003

180

160

140

120

100 £/m2/ann 80

60

40

20

0 Lincoln Mansfield Nottingham Derby Leicester Northampton (type 1 edge of town) Type 1 office space Type 2 office space Type 3 office space

Source: VOA Property Market Report Spring, 2003

CONCLUDING REMARKS

4.24 Key conclusions on regional development patterns are summarised below:

• More employment land has been developed on greenfield sites than on brownfield sites across the Region. Sub-regional differences are hidden e.g. relatively high levels of proposed greenfield development in Lincolnshire, Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire districts. However, this development needs to be monitored to ensure that a key principle of the RPG - sequential development of development form, is respected.

39 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

• The balance of development between housing and employment needs close monitoring to explore displacement of employment land i.e. whether more employment land is being used for housing provision.

4.25 The table below summarises key changes in use of land between 2001/02 and 2002/03 (ha).

Key Indicators 2002/03 2001/02 Greenfield Employment land developed 72.46 61.31 Brownfield Employment land developed 117.24 84.11 Greenfield employment land committed 2383.42 876.93 Brownfield employment land committed 1158.11 929.49

4.26 To inform regional priorities for development of town centres and retail, it is important to note that rental growth rates in the East Midlands appear to be close to the national average and the highest outside London, the South and the East of the country. None of the three majors cities - Derby, Nottingham and Leicester, appear to have experienced significant rental growth in the last two years. However, rental values remain high in Nottingham that records the highest rental levels amongst key regional centres. It is also important to note that rental values in Lincoln and Mansfield have slightly increased since last year.

4.27 Recommendations on future monitoring arrangements for economy and retail policies within RPG 8 are contained in section 8.

40 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

5 Natural and Cultural Resources

5.01 This section provides analysis on the following relating to environment policy areas contained in RPG 8:

• Policy 27: Protecting and Enhancing the Region’s Natural and Cultural Assets - The cultural assets of the region include listed buildings, conservation areas, historic parks and gardens, registered battlefields, scheduled ancient monuments of local importance.

• Policy 28: Priorities for Enhancing the Region’s Biodiversity - Local Authorities, environmental agencies, developers and businesses should work together to promote a major ‘step change’ increase in the level of the Region’s biodiversity. This should be done by: the achievement of the East Midlands regional contribution towards the UK Biodiversity Action Plan targets; establishment of large-scale habitat creation projects in the priority areas of Lincolnshire, the Region’s Strategic River Corridors and Heathland areas; establishment of a regional project to promote the re-creation of key wildlife habitats in each Natural Area in the East Midlands; establishment of a network of semi-natural green spaces in urban areas; and development and implementation of mechanisms to ensure that development results in no net loss of BAP habitats and that net gain is achieved.

• Policy 29: A Regional Target for Increasing Woodland Cover - Local authorities, environmental agencies, developers and businesses should help to create new areas of woodland to meet a regional target of an additional 65,000 hectares of tree cover by 2021. Opportunities include the National Forest, Sherwood Forest, Greenwood Community Forest, and other forest initiatives.

• Policy 31: Regional Priorities for the Historic Environment – Development plans and other strategies should seek to understand, conserve and enhance the historic environment.

• Policy 33: A Regional Approach to the Water Environment – Development plans and policies of the Environment Agency and other agencies need to take water-related issues into account an early stage.

• Policy 34: Regional Priorities for Strategic River Corridors – Development plans and other strategies of local authorities and other agencies should seek to protect and enhance the natural and cultural environment of the Region’s strategic river corridors of the Nene, Trent, Soar, Welland, Witham, Derwent and Dove, along with their tributaries.

• Policy 36: A Regional Approach to Managing Flood Risk – Development plans and strategies of relevant agencies should include policies to: prevent inappropriate development where there would be an adverse impact on the coastal and fluvial floodplain areas; deliver a programme of flood management schemes; require sustainable drainage.

• Policy 39: Regional Priorities for Energy Reduction and Efficiency - Local Authorities, energy generators and other agencies should promote: a reduction in energy usage at the regional level in line with the ‘energy hierarchy’; the development of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and district heating infrastructure necessary to

41 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

achieve the Regional Target of 511 Mwe by 2010 and 1120 Mwe by 2002; and the benefits of smaller scale grid and non grid connected generation.

• Policy 40: Regional Priorities for Renewable Energy - Development Plans should include policies to facilitate the delivery of the indicative targets for renewable energy.

5.02 The indicators for monitoring these Environment Policy areas are summarised below:

Indicators Source RPG RPG Target priority policy CORE Area of priority habitats English 6,7 28 To meet targets in brought into management or Nature/Regional Appendix 3 of draft created Biodiversity Forum RPG Area of new woodland Forestry 6,7 29 65,000 hectares by created Commission 2021 Number of listed buildings English 2,6,10 31 Decrease from 2001 at risk Heritage/Local levels Authorities Capacity of additional Energy Task 8,9 39 511 MWe by 2010 combined Heat and Power Group/Energy facilities Trends Capacity of additional Energy Task 8,9 40 To meet targets in renewable energy facilities Group/Energy Appendix 4 Trends CONTEXTUAL Planning permissions Environment 2,6,7,9 33 granted contrary to Agency Environment Agency Advice Peak flow trends Environment 7,8,9 36 Agency Flood risk assessments Environment 2,7,9 36 carried out Agency Condition of East Midlands Environment 2,7,9 36 flood defences Agency

5.03 Section 4.3 in RPG 8 covers natural and cultural resources. Policy 27 ‘Protecting and Enhancing the Region’s Natural and Cultural Assets’ acts as an overarching policy for this section. Changes to the revised RPG 8 include revised biodiversity targets (Policy 28). Policies 30 and 31 on landscape and the historic environment have been refocused to make them more regionally specific. The six existing policies on sport, recreation and leisure have been condensed into a new Policy 32. Policies 39 and 40 reflect the results of the consultation exercise on Part A of the Regional Energy Strategy Technical Report.

Area of Priority Habitats Brought into Management and Priority Habitats Created

5.04 DTZ and English Nature set about collecting information on the area of priority habitats brought into management or created in the East Midlands during the middle of October 2003. However, only one response was received from the BAP Officers within the region up until the 12th November. Further data on this indicator has since been received and can be found in appendix 9. This suggests that while this may be an effective indicator for monitoring RPG Policy 28, there are several problems associated with its collection. These include the timing of the reporting request and the lack of coherent data collation and

42 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

reporting mechanisms across the Counties at present. Lack of adequate resources in terms of existing BAP Officers to collate this information contributes to the problem.

5.05 Information from the Regional Biodiversity Forum was collated by English Nature last year, but it proved to be a difficult and time-consuming task. This year English Nature has not had the capacity to provide a similar level of support for this process, given other regional priorities. The issue of a database for BAP reporting at County level has been addressed nationally and a system is now being rolled out across the country. However, it is not yet fully operational in the region. BAP partnerships are relatively under resourced and find servicing external requests difficult. In future more advance warning of the reporting cycle and the installation of the reporting database may make reporting on progress more straightforward.

5.06 Table 5.1 is the response received from the National Forest on this indicator. The National Forest covers parts of both Derbyshire and Leicestershire and there is the risk of double counting if the statistics include information that the National Forest receive from partners in those counties. Thus, to get around this, the information below relates only to the habitats created and managed through the National Forest Tender Scheme - a unique grant scheme for landowners within the Forest area. The National Forest has also created habitats on land they own in a partnership with Leicestershire Wildlife Trust at Kelham Bridge. Again, every effort needs to be made to avoid double counting of data for this indicator.

Table 5.1 Area of priority habitats brought into management and priority habitats created in the National Forest.

County breakdown Key Habitats in the National Forest Derbyshire Leicestershire Wet woodland 0.61 0.82 Lowland wood pasture and parkland 11.23 0 Lowland hay meadows 25.67 created 7.26 created; 4.16 managed Lowland dry acid grassland 0 0 Lowland heathland 0 1.17 ha Eutrophic open waters (including field ponds) 2 new ponds; 1 scrape mgd; 8 4 ponds mgd new scr; 3 new ponds; 5 ponds mgd Ancient or species-rich hedgerows 11.12 km 2.4 km managed; managed; 0.6 km planted 10.28 km planted Field margins 0 0 Ancient semi-natural woodland 1 extended 1 extended Rough grassland inc wet grassland around ponds etc 15.94 mgd 5.25 mgd Plantation /secondary woodland exc ASNW Wet grassland/floodplain grazing marsh Other Source: National Forest, 2003

43 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

New Forests and Woodlands

5.07 The Government is committed to a major expansion of England’s woodlands and its priorities are set out in the ‘England Forestry Strategy’ (1998). The East Midlands is preparing a Regional Forestry Framework to integrate forestry development with broader social and economic development objectives. The East Midlands is characterised by low level of woodland cover when compared to other regions. However, creation of new woodlands can stimulate the local economy through tourism and forestry related employment, and can contribute to the development of biomass energy crops.

5.08 There is an ongoing programme of woodland creation within the East Midlands. The Forestry Commission holds data on the National Inventory of Woodland and grants are provided for new woodland planting.

5.09 In the year to the 31st March 2003, 435 hectares of grant-aided new planting took place on non-Forestry Commission woodland in the East Midlands. No new planting was undertaken on Forestry Commission woodland in the region. However, this must be viewed in relation to the fact that only 41 hectares of new planting on Forestry Commission land was undertaken in the whole of England during this period.

5.10 The Forestry Commission’s activities in the East Midlands are divided between two districts. These are the Sherwood and Lincolnshire Forest District and the Northants Forest District. From the start of this year there has been new planting undertaken on land that will come into the Forestry Commissions management over the next five years.

5.11 However, these figures must be contrasted to the figure of 800 hectares of new woodlands created in the region in the year ending 31st March 2002. The figure for the current year represents approximately 50% reduction on the previous year, and is a long way from the target of 65,000 ha of new woodland created by 2021.

Cultural Assets

5.12 The Regional Cultural Strategy provides the wider context on tourism and sport for the East Midlands. The cultural assets of the region include Listed buildings, Conservation Areas, historic parks and gardens, registered battlefields, Scheduled Monuments of national importance as well as a large number of non-designated archaeological sites and non-listed buildings of local importance. Cultural assets in the region are also wider than just historical assets and include sports facilities (halls, racetracks, playing fields, swimming pools etc.), theatres and concert halls.

Grade I and II* Listed Buildings at Risk

5.13 The English Heritage Building at Risk Register 2003 identifies that 13 entries have been removed from the Register and six have been added in the past year. The condition of 13 entries has improved but 8 have risen to a higher risk category. Although English Heritage grants have contributed to the overall improvements recorded in the region’s Register (three of those removed and three improved), negotiation and persuasion remain the key to success.

5.14 A separate pilot survey of scheduled monuments at risk in the East Midlands has reviewed the vulnerability of all scheduled ancient monuments in the region. This has indicated that more than a third of these, comprising earthworks and buried remains as well as structures that are included in the Building at risk Register, are in need of management action to prevent deterioration, loss or damage.

44 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

5.15 The East Midlands, with 4.5% of its entries at risk sits fairly evenly amongst the other regions (8.5% in the North East compared to just 2.1% in the East) and has reduced the proportion of its entries at risk since 1999.

Figure 5.1 Number of Grade I and Grade II** listed buildings and Scheduled Ancient Monuments at risk by GO region for 2003 and 1999.

9

8

7

6

% 5

4

3

2

1

0 East East of London North East North West South East South West West Yorks hire Midlands England Midlands 2003 1999

Source: English Heritage, 2003

Grade II Listed Buildings

5.16 A questionnaire was sent to each of the local authorities in the region to identify the number of Grade II listed buildings at risk. However, it is acknowledged that the wording of the question has led to some confusion. Only Grade I and II* buildings are included on the national ‘English Heritage Buildings at Risk Register' (occasionally Grade II buildings will be included if they are a Scheduled Monument). English Heritage therefore believes that the Buildings at Risk figures supplied by the individual local authorities must relate to a local scheme rather than the English Heritage scheme. There is also lack of agreement around the accuracy of these figures. According to the English Heritage, as some of the local authorities do not have Conservation Officers, it is not clear how figures are collated and buildings are assessed.

5.17 However, there is still some value in viewing these figures. Table 5.2 shows that 6.5% of all grade II Listed buildings are considered ‘At Risk.’ Leicestershire, with 544 of its 4011 Grade II listed buildings at risk, largely fuels this figure and accounts for over 25% of the total Grade II listed buildings at risk in the region.

45 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Table 5.2 Grade II Listed buildings at Risk

Authority Number of Total Number % of grade II Grade II listed of Grade II listed buildings at risk listed buildings buildings at risk Derby 16 338 4.7 Derbyshire 193 4,613 4.2 Leicester 18 313 5.8 Leicestershire 544 4011 13.6 Lincolnshire 300 5662 5.3 Northamptonshire 35 1890 1.9 Nottingham 89 736 12.1 Nottinghamshire 352 6023 5.8 Peak District 214 2743 7.8 East Midlands 2113 32352 6.5 Table 5..2 in the Appendix provides a breakdown of these figures by Local Authority Source: Local Authorities, 2003

Listed Buildings

5.18 Listed buildings are defined as being of special interest that need every effort to preserve them. There are 29, 588 listed buildings, in all three grades, in the region. This represents 7.8% of the national total7. Figure 5.3 shows the proportion of Listed Buildings by county within the East Midlands. The chart shows that Lincolnshire has 24% (6,969) while Nottinghamshire has just 15% (4,576) of all listed buildings within the East Midlands.

Figure 5.3: Proportion of listed buildings by East Midlands County

Nottinghamshire 15%

Northamptonshire Derbyshire 22% 20%

Leicestershire (incl Rutland) Lincolnshire 19% 24%

Source: English Heritage, 2003

7 This is low compared to the land area- 12% of the whole- and probably reflects the comparatively low historic densities of population within the region.

46 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Energy Production in the East Midlands

5.19 The Government published an Energy White Paper in February 2003. Regional policies on energy are underpinned by the ‘energy hierarchy’ advocated by the Local Government Association’s position statement ‘Energy Services for Sustainable Communities’ (1999): reduce the need for energy; use renewable energy; any continuing use of fossil fuels to be clean and efficient for heating; and co-generation.

5.20 Policies on energy in the revised RPG have also been informed by the Study ‘Energy Issues and the Review of the RPG for the East Midlands’ (January 2003) leading to the production of an Energy Strategy by April 2004. This study recommended that: policies be included in the RPG to reduce the need for energy at the Regional level; Combined Heat and Power (CHP) capacity should be significantly increased; and minimum regional targets for renewable energy should be set for 2010 and 2020.

5.21 Parts of the East Midlands have locational advantages over others for energy production. For example, the Trent Valley has easy access to the Grid and to cooling water and to fossil fuel supplies. Some former power stations and colliery sites may be suitable for reuse for new forms of power generation such as clean coal technology. There is also considerable potential for co-firing and for cleaner burning in existing power stations. The Government is also committed to ensuring that renewable energy sources make an increasing contribution to UK energy supplies and has set an objective to increase the contribution of electricity supplied from renewables to 10% by the end 2010. According to the consultation document, ‘Towards a regional energy strategy’ renewable energy sources in the East Midlands make only a minor contribution to the region’s electricity generating capacity. Table 5.3 below illustrates the County Area Targets for Electricity Generation from Renewables in the East Midlands for 2010.

Table 5.3: Regional County Area Targets for Electricity Generation from Renewables 2010

Renewable Energy Technology Derbyshire Leicestershire Lincolnshire Northamptonshire Nottinghamshire Overall Target for 2010 Capacity Electricity Capacity Electricity Capacity Electricity Capacity Electricity Capacity Electricity Capacity Electricity (Mwe) (GW h/y) (Mwe) (GW h/y) (Mwe) (GW h/y) (Mwe) (GW h/y) (Mwe) (GW h/y) (M w e) (GW h/y) Offshore W ind 400 1056 400 1056 Onshore W ind 36 94 22 58 42 110 12 31 10 26 122 319 Marine (W ave/Tidal) Biomass-W et Agric Wastes 1.6 12.7 1.2 9.3 1.1 9.1 0.6 5.3 0.6 5.3 5.1 41.7 Biomass- Poultry Litter 15 5 118.35 5 15 118.3 Biomass- Energy Crops 10 75 20 149 10 75 6 45 46 344 Hydro 2.8 12.7 7.8 26.4 10.6 39.1 Solar - PV 0.5 0.43 0.4 0.34 0.3 0.26 0.3 0.26 0.5 0.43 21.72 Landfill G as 8.5 71 18 150 7 59 14 116 5 42 52.5 438 Anaerobic Digestion 4.2 33.1 3.4 26.9 2.4 18.9 3.6 20.5 4.8 37.9 18.4 137.3 TOTAL 53.6 223.93 55 319.54 472.8 1402.26 40.5 248.06 34.7 183.03 671.6 2495.12

Coal Mine Methane Overall Target for 2010 100 700

1 Country Areas include Unitary Authorities 2 Derbyshire figures include a target for the Peak District National park including those areas outside the Region. Specify PDNP target for each technology are set out in the Draft Regional Energy Strategy 3 Mega W att electrical capacity 4 Giga W att - hours per year 5 For poultry litter a scheme would generally need to ave a capacity of above 7MW , and so only one scheme has been shown in the target. Although Northamptonshire has been given as a suitable location for a poultry litter plant, it is debatable in which country area a scheme would best be sited and it may be that developers put forward plans for a scheme in another area. The targets should not be seen to imply that such proposals are inappropriate 6 Biomass figures include Forestry Residues Source: Draft RPG 8

47 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

5.22 Figure 5.4 below illustrates that the East Midlands has the second lowest quantity of sites generating electricity from renewable sources in England. With 36 sites, the East Midlands is only superior to the North East which has 20 sites. The North West and the South West are currently leading the way with 81 and 80 sites respectively. However, the number of sites is not necessarily a proxy for electricity generation because it does not take account of the size or capacity of the sites. Figure 5.5 below quantifies the actual amount of renewable energy generated from these sites.

Figure 5.4 Nos of Sites generating electricity from renewable sources, Dec 2002

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 East Midlands East North East North West London and South West West Yorkshire and the South East Midlands the Humber

Source: Energy Trends, 2003

Figure 5.5 Generation of electricity from renewable sources, 2002 (GWh)

1,400

1,200

1,000

800 GWh 600

400

200

0 East East North East North West London and South West West Yorkshire Midlands the South Midlands and the East Humber

Source, Energy Trends, 2003

48 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

5.23 Figure 5.5 also reinforces the analysis drawn from Figure 5.4 regarding the under performance of the East Midlands relative to the other regions in terms of generation of electricity from renewable energy. Again, the East Midlands only out performs the North East, with the East of England, London and the South East generating the most electricity from renewable sources.

5.24 Figure 5.5 also illustrates that the number of sites generating electricity from renewable sources is not always a good proxy for the amount of electricity produced. This is because although the North West and South West have the greatest number of renewable energy generating sites they do not necessarily generate the most electricity.

5.25 Figure 5.6 below identifies the capacity of sites generating electricity from renewable energy. Once again, the East Midlands falls short of the other regions on this indicator. The capacity and the number of sites generating electricity from renewable energy are an obvious obstacle to overcome if the region wants to expand its utilisation of renewable sources.

5.26 The capacity of sites generating electricity from renewable sources in 2002 in the East Midlands was 75.3 MW. This is an estimated 27.3 MW of additional capacity of sites generating electricity from renewable energy since 2001. Comparison with last year's figures shows that the East Midlands has lost two sites generating hydro electricity and four sites generating electricity from landfill gas. However, there are five additional sites generating electricity from other biofuels and wastes which accounts for the rise in capacity.

Figure 5.6 Installed capacity of sites generating electricity from renewable sources MW (December 2002)

511 RPG Target, 511 MWe by 2010 250

200

150 MW

100

50

0 East Midlands East North East North West London and South West West Midlands Yorkshire and the South East the Humber

Source: Energy Trends, 2003

5.27 Combined Heat and Power (CHP) systems involve the simultaneous generation of heat and power to achieve high overall efficiencies and to utilise heat that would be otherwise be wasted in other electricity generation systems. According to the ‘Towards a Regional

49 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Energy Strategy” report very little CHP has been installed in the East Midlands in recent years, mainly due to the widening gap between gas and electricity prices. For the regional targets to be met (511MWe by 2010 and 1120MWe by 2020) new legislation or the scrapping of New Electricity Trading Arrangements (NETA), and additional financial incentives are required within the next 2 years. However, it must also be noted that any newly approved schemes would be unlikely to come on stream before 2008 at the earliest.

5.28 Figure 5.7 illustrates that the East Midlands has just 6% of England’s Combined Heat and Power Schemes. Electrical capacity in 2001 was 249MWe and heat capacity was 396MWth. In 2002 electrical capacity was 258MWe and heat capacity was 419 MWth. This means that between December 2001 and December 2002 there was an additional 9 MWe of electricity and 23 MWth of heat capacity at Combined Heat and Power Schemes in the East Midlands.

Figure 5.7 Proportion of total Combined Heat and Power schemes in England by region 2002

Yorkshire and the Humber West Midlands 11% 10% East Midlands 6%

South West East 10% 6%

North East 14%

South East 20%

North West 7%

London 16%

Source: Energy Trends, 2003

Regional Priorities for the Water Environment

5.29 Water Resources for the Future: A Strategy for the East Midlands (Environment Agency, 2001) sets out the regional priorities for water resource management. Water resources are a key issue for the region. Much of the region’s surface water is utilised during the summer months and much of the groundwater is subject to an unacceptable abstraction regime.

5.30 River environments are a very important resource and wildlife habitat for the region. There is significant potential to promote the enhancement of the strategic river corridors to link BAP habitats and to assist with improving bi-diversity across the region.

50 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Planning Permissions Granted Contrary to Environment Agency Advice

5.31 There are a variety of reasons why the Local Planning Authority may grant approval for planning permissions contrary to the Environment Agency advice. These include:

• previous permissions setting a precedent • agency objection outside the consultation period • social (need for facilities e.g. hospital, infrastructure) • economic (need for jobs/ housing) and • site availability

5.32 There are also a variety of reasons why the Environment Agency may object to the planning permission. These include; area at risk of flooding, lack of appropriate Flood Risk Assessment, impact on floodwater storage, culverting, risk to flood defence or site liable to erosion.

5.33 Table 5.4 and Figure 5.8 below identify the number of planning permissions that have been sent to the Environment Agency, but have already been granted contrary to the Agency’s advice. It is important to note that the Environment Agency advised against 31 planning applications only within Lincolnshire. This includes 19 planning applications for South Holland District Council. The latter figure needs to be considered in conjunction with the total 91 planning applications sent to the Agency in 2003/03 by South Holland 8.

5.34 For the East Midlands, as a whole, the main reason for the Environment Agency objection was the lack of appropriate Flood Risk Assessments. The main reason for the planning permission being granted was not known since the Environment Agency did not receive a response from the LPA.

Table 5.4 Planning permissions granted contrary to Environment Agency advice (01/04/02 to 31/03/03)

Derbyshire 3 Leicester 1 Leicestershire 2 Lincolnshire 31 Northamptonshire - Nottingham 2 Nottinghamshire 4 East Midlands 43 Please see Appendix Table 5.5 for a full breakdown of data by local authorities Source: Environment Agency, 2003

8 In each of these 19 cases the Agency objected to the lack of a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) being carried out in line with PPG 25. However, South Holland District Council contest this figure and stated that on three occasions the Agency did not reply in time to meet the LPA deadline and on one occasion South Holland District Council did not have any record of the Agency’s objection.

51 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Figure 5.8 Planning permissions granted contrary to Environment Agency advice (01/04/02 to 31/03/03)

Nottingham Nottinghamshire 5% 9% Northamptonshire 0% Derbyshire 7% Derby 0% Leicester 2%

Leicestershire 5%

Lincolnshire 72%

Source: Environment Agency, 2003

River Peak Flow Trends

5.35 Extensive national and regional flooding and the potential impact of climate change have heightened the importance of flooding and land drainage as a fundamental future planning issue. The East Midlands needs to play close attention to flooding, not only because of its extensive Lincolnshire coastline, but also because of its tidal and fluvial flood plains. However, data for this indicator was not available for the current monitoring cycle.

Flood Risk Assessments

5.36 There are potentially two aspects to flood risk assessments carried out. There is limited data available on which local planning authorities have considered the risks for flooding within their development plans and have included statements such as “the council will not permit development where this would intensify the risk of flooding”. In addition a major reason for the Environment Agency objecting to planning applications is the lack of a required flood risk assessment. We can therefore monitor the number of planning applications submitted without the necessary flood risk assessments.

5.37 Flood risk assessments are potentially carried out at all levels (planning policy, development plans and individual applications). If the work is done once at the policy stage it saves the Environment Agency requiring individual applicants to do it for each specific application. The Environment Agency approves the risk assessments but this process is in its early days and the information is scarce.

52 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Condition of East Midlands Flood Defences

5.38 Flood defences and structures are measured by the Environment Agency against a scale ranging from very good to very poor for those defences managed by either the Environment Agency or third parties. The Environment Agency has spoken to their Flood Defence staff about how to measure the condition of Flood Defence Assets. The Environment Agency are currently in the process of migrating all Flood Defence information into a new database. As part of this process major data clean up exercises are taking place. The Environment Agency is therefore reluctant for current asset condition information to be used in this report, as there is the potential for considerable change. The data clean up and improvement exercise is due to complete in March 2004 to meet Environment Agency reporting schedules, and will therefore be available in future years.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

5.39 A summary of data for this section is difficult to deduce. In many cases, it has not been possible to compare 2002/03 figures with 2001/02 figures because of the variance in indicators used. There are also significant gaps within the current data. This means that it is difficult to establish an accurate picture of the region. Therefore, a summary of the existing data and a comparison with the last Annual Monitoring Statement would not necessarily be an accurate reflection of the region.

5.40 The following key findings have been drawn from this section:

• 435ha of non Forestry-Commission woodland has been planted in the East Midlands, all of which is on non-Forestry Commission woodlands. • Based on the Regional Environment Strategy new targets for bio-diversity, waste reduction and management, renewable energy and energy efficiency have been included in the revised RPG. • A new approach to managing flood risk has also been developed. • More than a third of ancient monuments in the region, comprising earthworks and buried remains as well as structures that are included in the Building at Risk Register are in need of management action to prevent deterioration, loss or damage • The East Midlands has the second lowest quantity of sites generating electricity from renewable sources in England, however, it is the capacity of these sites to generate electricity which is more important than their number. • The capacity of sites generating electricity from renewable sources in 2002 in the East Midlands was 75.3 MW. This is an estimated 27.3 MW of additional capacity since 2001. From a comparison with last years Annual Monitoring Statement it appears that the East Midlands has lost two sites generating hydro electricity and four sites generating electricity from landfill gas. However, there are five additional sites generating electricity from other biofuels and wastes which accounts for the rise in capacity. • The East Midlands has just 6% of England’s Combined Heat and Power Schemes. However, this is broadly in line with the region’s population and energy consumption.

5.41 Recommendations for future monitoring of the natural and built environment are contained in section 8.

53 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

6 Minerals, Aggregate Production and Waste Management

6.01 This section provides analysis of the following two policy areas contained within RPG8:

• Policy 37: Regional Priorities for Aggregates - Development Plans should: identify and where necessary safeguard sites suitable for facilities for the recycling and reprocessing and transfer of materials including construction and demolition materials; incorporate the aggregate apportionment figures agreed at the regional level; identify and safeguard sufficient environmentally acceptable sources to maintain an appropriate level of supply; make provision for a progressive reduction in the proportions and amounts of aggregates from the Peak District National Park and Lincolnshire Wolds AONB; indicate areas within which sites needed for land won minerals should be safeguarded from development that would sterilise future exploitation; identify and safeguard opportunities for the transportation of minerals by rail, water or pipeline, where appropriate to do so, including the maintenance of existing railhead and wharfage facilities, the provision of new facilities and the safeguarding of access to them; and identify the proposed uses to which former aggregates extraction sites should be put.

• Policy 38: Regional Priorities for Waste Management - Local Authorities, national, regional and local bodies should promote a package of policies and proposals that will result in zero growth in all forms of controlled waste by 2016. All waste collection authorities should achieve a minimum target of 50% for recycling and composting of municipal solid waste by 2015. Waste local plans should include policies and proposals to promote sustainable waste management by the development of the additional waste management capacity, taking into consideration: the Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) for each waste stream; socio-economic implications; the principle of regional self-sufficiency; the proximity principle; and the waste hierarchy.

6.02 The indicators for monitoring these two policy areas are summarised below:

Indicators Source RPG RPG Target priority policy CORE Amount of aggregates produced RAWP 8 37 To meet revised regional apportionment targets CONTEXTUAL Amount of recycled and RAWP 8 37 To meet revised regional secondary aggregates used targets Amount of controlled waste Environment 8 38 Zero growth by 2016 at the produced Agency/RTAB regional level Proportion of household waste Waste Collection 8 38 A minimum of 50% by all recycled and composted Authorities/ Waste Collection RTAB Authorities by 2015 Proportion of waste diverted Waste Disposal 8 38 A decrease to meet from landfill Authorities/ national targets to reduce RTAB land fill Capacity of additional waste Waste Disposal 8 38 To meet regional targets in recovery facilities Authorities/ figures 2 & 3 (draft RPG8) RTAB

54 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

6.03 The three policies within RPG8 (January 2002) on minerals have been condensed into a new policy 37. Policy 38 on waste reflects RTABs response to the Regional Waste Strategy Technical Report.

6.04 The East Midlands region provides a significant proportion of the UK’s mineral production, including coal, aggregates, such as sand and gravel, limestone, sandstone, igneous rock, fluorspar, baryte and significant quantities of gypsum, high purity limestone, dolomite and also oil and gas.

Minerals

6.05 The fundamental measure in mineral planning terms is the MPA Landbank. However, figures within MPA Landbank have not been updated since 31st December 2001. MPG6 requires all MPAs to maintain a seven-year landbank for sand and gravel. Table 6.1 breaks down East Midlands Mineral Sales for 2001. The footnotes to the table identify that the East Midlands Region was the only commercial provider of Fluorspar in the UK in 2001.

Table 6.1 East Midlands Mineral Sales 2001 (Tonnes)

Barytes (A) 66 000 Fluorspar (B) 50 000 Gypsum (C) 1 700 000 Fireclay 253 000 Other clays 2 101 000 of which: bricks, pipes and tiles 1 412 000 cement 690 000 (A) UK total - a significant proportion of which was produced in the East Midlands

(B) UK total - all from the East Midlands (C) UK total - of which well over 50% from East Midlands. In addition Ratcliffe on Soar Power Station produced 358, 000 tonnes of desulphogypsum

Source: EMAWP, 2003

6.06 The Government has released national guidance on apportionment, which at a regional level is fixed, but sub-regional apportionment is open to debate. There is also scope (in future monitoring cycles) to look at apportionment levels within other regions. The indicative forecasts for the total demand of all aggregates in England between 2001-2016 is illustrated in table 6.2 below:

55 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Table 6.2 Draft National and Regional Guidelines for Aggregates Production, 2001-2016 (million tonnes)

Guidelines for land- Assumed level of supply from won provision other sources Region Sand and Crushed Marine Alternati Net Gravel Rock Sand and ve imports Gravel Materials to England South East *** 176 22 127 207 50 East of England 195 7 21 90 16 East Midlands 163 455 0 70 0 West Midlands 153 86 0 62 4 South West 90 320 8 98 0 North West 64 174 3 84 55 Yorks and Humber 68 185 3 145 0 North East 23 91 11 82 3 England 932 1340 173 838 128 ** recycled and secondary materials *** the standard region plus Greater London. Source: ODPM

6.07 Regional level information on the volume of Aggregates Produced by type is available on a calendar basis. Table 6.3 below identifies Aggregate sales for 2002. The region's largest volume of sales was in Limestone. Table 6.2 in appendix 6 gives the results of the AM2001 Survey and table 6.3 in the same appendix gives a breakdown of East Midlands Sales in 2001.

Table 6.3 East Midlands Aggregates and non Aggregate Sales 2002 (Provisional Figures)

Mtonnes Rock Limestone 25.2 Sandstone 0.2 Igneous Rock 14.3 Total 39.7 Sand/Gravel 10.9 Total 50.6 Source EMAWP Survey

Recycled and Secondary Aggregates

6.08 Information on secondary and recycled aggregates is not available at regional or MPA level. Very many attempts have been made. Although the national figures (by Symonds under contract to ODPM) were scaled down to regional level, the margins were so large (+/- 55%) as to be practically meaningless. The ODPM are currently commissioning a survey for 2003, and are in consultation with the MPAs, regional bodies, and the Environment Agency.

56 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Monitoring Waste

6.09 Waste data and targets for managing waste are defined in two ways:

• by material type: non-hazardous, inert and hazardous • by point of origin; household, municipal, commercial/industrial, construction/demolition and clinical.

6.10 For the purposes of land-use waste planning operations, facilities and disposal are largely considered by material type. However, given that some facilities are controlled through contract by local authorities, waste data is considered by point of origin and may include several material types. For example, some waste would be considered as hazardous if it came from an office but not if it originated from a house. This is one of the many reasons why waste data can appear confusing and can lead to the double counting of some waste. Household waste data is segregated out as a category as its data is likely to be the most accurate year on year, as it comes from Local Authority figures.

6.11 Problems that have been experienced include figures being inputted on the questionnaires for the number of sites but no figure being recorded for the capacity of the sites and the capacity of the site being inputted but the actual amount of waste processed at that facility has not been inputted. Discrepancies such as these have led to a reduction in the value and usefulness of the data supplied.

6.12 Two further reasons make monitoring waste problematic:

• Commercial confidentiality of waste management company operations. • Some sites do not have an original application because of their age and therefore may not have an idea of capacity and some sites operate by certificate of lawful use and likewise might not have any original documentation about capacity and throughputs.

6.13 The basis for the waste strategy in the region is to adopt a hierarchical approach to waste management in order:

• to reduce the amount of waste that society produces • to make the best use of the waste that is produced • to choose waste management practice which minimises risks of immediate and future environmental pollution and harm to human health.

6.14 The targets and the policies of the RPG are developed concomitantly to these objectives. The waste strategy will be developed following the publication of a technical report in January 2003 (Development of a Regional Waste Strategy for the East Midlands).

6.15 The region’s human and economic activities generate waste, which must be managed in accordance with the principles of sustainable development. The Regional Technical Advisory Board (RTAB) brings together the key interests within the East Midlands to advise on waste issues.

6.16 Most analysis of waste in the region comes from the Environment Agency’s Strategic Waste Management Assessment for the East Midlands. This assessment is conducted every four years, and a full update is due in 2004, which will inform the next AMS. Where possible we have used the most recent data available. Local Authorities are mainly responsible for supplying the data on household waste.

57 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

6.17 Figure 6.1 illustrates household and municipal waste per capita head. It should be noted that the tonnage of waste does not always correlate with the impacts that a particular waste has. For instance, clinical, hazardous and low level radioactive waste can have planning impacts far in excess of the tonnage of the waste. Therefore any waste data comparisons with population should be treated with a little caution especially if trying to project that data into the future. (Missing data has not been submitted by the relevant authorities)

Figure 6.1: Household and Municipal Waste per capita (KG per head)

700

600

500

400 KG 300

200

100

0 e e e t y re re ir ir m ir c d rb i er i h h a an nds e sh st s h sh tri l a y ce sh ns is ut D b i er ln to ing m dl st co tt a R er Le n p h Mi D ice m No ng t Li ha ti Peak D as Le rt ot E o N N Household waste per head Municipal waste per head

Source, Local Authorities 2002/3 & Census 2001

Amount of controlled waste produced

6.18 Existing Environment Agency data shows that the East Midlands region produced approximately 16 million tonnes of controlled waste in 1998/99. A summary of this is given in Table 6.2. Of this: • about 48% (including 2% special waste) was commercial/industrial waste and • 38% was construction and demolition waste. • 14% was municipal waste • Agricultural waste, although not a controlled waste, represents another principal waste stream, with estimated arisings of 5.34 million tonnes in 1998/99.

58 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Table 6.4 Principal waste streams arisings within the East Midlands in 1998/99 (in tonnes)

MSW C&I (not Special C&D Sub total Agricultural Total incl. special Waste waste) (C&I M waste) Derbu yshire 494,226 1,445,020 147,980 1,411,050 3,498,276 1,384,100 4,882,376 Lneicestershire 498,314 1,210,799 37,201 1,386,510 3,132,824 748,800 3,881,624 Lincolnshiri e 247,113 794,372 16,628 926,385 1,984,498 1,561,200 3,545,698 Ncorthants 329,995 947,186 27,814 901,845 2,206,840 1,018,700 3,225,540 Nottinghamshire 602,351 3,039,145 40,855 1,509,210 5,191,561 629,500 5,821,061 Totali 2,172,000 7,436,523 270,477 6,135,000 16,014,000 5,342,300 21,356,300 %S of sub total 14% 46% 2% 38% 100% %o of total 10% 35% 1% 29% 75% 25% 100% u Source: Development of a Regional Waste Strategy for the East Midlands

6.19 Municipal Solid Waste arisings data for 2001/2 has been published by DEFRA and show that municipal waste arisings in the region have increased from 2.172 million tonnes in 1998/99 to 2.406 million tonnes in 2001/2 as shown in Table 6.3 below

Table 6.5 – Municipal Solid Waste arisings in the East Midlands 1996/97 to 2001/02 (in thousands of tonnes)

Household waste from: 1996/7 1997/8 1998/9 1999/00 2000/01 2001/2 Regular household collection 1443 1487 1438 1433 1489 1470 Other household sources 9 30 52 65 49 70 Civic amenity sites 381 397 372 354 304 344 Household recycling 128 149 174 217 277 300 Total household waste 1961 2063 2036 2069 2120 2183 Non household sources (excl. 52 38 94 108 93 137 recycling) Non-household recycling 5 9 42 48 77 86 Total municipal waste arisings 2018 2109 2172 2226 2290 2406 Source: DEFRA Municipal Waste Management Survey 2001/02

6.20 The Government has set local authorities targets for waste recycling/composting and recovery and, in 2003, passed legislation requiring that all Authorities recycle 30% of household waste by 2010, although the regional target is 50% by 2015.

6.21 This increased emphasis on recycling rather than landfill will require significant investment in new and upgraded waste management facilities within the region. Leicester City Council has entered into a PFI waste management contract with Biffa for 25 years. A £30 million waste treatment centre is currently being built at Beaumont Leys in the City, which will enable the Council to achieve a 40% composting and recycling target.

6.22 Table 6.4 presents the actual and likely MSW tonnages required to meet policy targets for Local Authorities within the East Midlands (a medium growth rate scenario).Table 6.5 illustrates the amount of controlled waste produced in the East Midlands in the period 2002/03. However, due to missing data (as highlighted) and some data inaccuracies, commentary is unavailable for this indicator at present. This is discussed in further detail below.

59 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Table 6.6 Actual and likely MSW tonnages required to meet policy targets for Local Authorities within the East Midlands (a medium growth rate scenario)

Year Derbys. Leics. Lincs. Northants. Notts. Total

Statutory Household Recycling/Composting Targets1 and 3 Actual Recycling Rate 1998/99 1 27,797 51,382 23,164 27,840 45,171 175,354 2003/04 Target 66,204 122,378 55,170 66,307 107,584 417,644 2005/06 Target 106,503 196,870 88,752 106,668 173,071 671,865 2010 possible target 1 197,214 198,845 98,607 131,680 240,360 866,705 2015 possible target 1 228,756 230,648 114,378 152,740 278,802 1,005,323 National Recovery (including household waste recycling and composting) Targets for MSW1 and 3 2005 Target4 242,956 244,966 121,478 162,222 296,109 1,067,732 2010 Target 314,485 317,086 157,243 209,982 383,287 1,382,083 2015 Target 493,746 497,830 246,873 329,675 601,766 2,169,890 Diversion Requirements For MSW - EC Landfill Directive Targets (relate to 1995 MSW arisings)2, 3 and 6 1995 MSW 427,073 430,605 213,536 285,157 520,506 1,876,876 arisings total (estimate) 5 2010 Diversion6 227,131 229,010 113,565 151,655 276,822 998,183 2013 Diversion 309,356 311,914 154,678 206,557 377,035 1,359,540 2020 Diversion 423,106 426,605 211,553 282,508 515,671 1,859,443 Source: Development of a Regional Waste Strategy for the East Midlands

Waste Management Methods

6.23 According to data provided by the local authorities, approximately sixteen percent of household waste in the East Midlands is now either recycled or composted. Leicestershire is currently recycling the most (23%) of its waste compared with other local authorities. However, the region still has a long way to go if it is to meet its target of 50% by 2015.

Table 6.7 Proportion of household waste that is recycled or composted

Authority Amount of Amount of Amount of Household Percentage of Municipal Waste Household waste household waste waste recycled household which is classed as Recycled Composted and composted waste recycled household waste Derby 118,000 12,500 3,000 15,500 13 Derbyshire 367,286 36,872 13,846 50,718 14 Leicester UA 146,025 14,813 2070 16,883 12 Leicestershire 336,076 40,813 35,224 76,037 23 Lincolnshire 330,467 32,489 17,775 50,264 15 Northamptonshire 331,955 34,060 24,588 58,648 18 Nottingham 135,803 5732 1415 7147 5 Nottinghamshire N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Peak District N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Rutland N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A East Midlands Total 1,765,612 177,279 97,918 275,197 16 Source: Local Authorities, 2002/3

60 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Table 6.8 Percentage of household waste recycled 1998/9 to 2001/2 (including composting)

Authority 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/2 2002/3

Derby 11 11 12 12 13 Derbyshire 7.5 8.9 11 11.6 14 Leicester UA 9 10 12 10 12 Leicestershire 10.9 12.5 17.2 17.9 23 Lincolnshire 8.2 12.5 21.5 12 15 Northamptonshire 8.9 11.2 14.3 15.8 18 Nottingham 6 4 4 5 5 Nottinghamshire 7.5 8.5 10.8 11.8 N/A Rutland 11 15 19 19 N/A East Midlands 8.6 10.5 13.1 13.7 16 Source: DEFRA / (Local Authorities 2002/3)

Figure 6.2 Methods of Municipal Waste Management in the East Midlands

100%

90%

80%

70%

60% Landfill

50% Incineration

40% Recycled/ composted

30%

20%

10%

0% 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 Source: Environment Agency

6.24 At District level, recycling performance continues to vary widely, although the East Midlands includes the best-performing local authority – Daventry District Council who topped the national combined recycling and composting rates for 2002/3 at 44.4%. The council has high composting rates (30.1%) but fares less well on purely recycling (14.1%).

61 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Figure 6.3 Proportion of household waste that is recycled or composted

50

RPG Target for 2015 is 50% 25

20

% 15

10

5

0

y e r e e e t d ir e re r ir ir ic n st i hi h am r la nds erb sh e h gh sh t t a D y ic rs lns ns m is dl te o to tin Ru erb Le c p t ha D es n g ak Mi D ic Li m No n st ha tti Pe Le rt Ea o No N

Source, Local Authorities, 2002/3

Waste Processing Methods

6.25 This sub-section analyses three aspects of waste processing in the East Midlands. These are the:

• number and capacity of sites • actual quantity of waste processed • amount of waste going to or diverted from landfill

6.26 It is clear from the tables that certain information is missing. This is either because a questionnaire has not been returned and/or the necessary information has not been inputted into the questionnaire.

Number and capacity of sites

6.27 The following tables (tables 6.9-6.11) present information on the number and capacity of waste processing facilities for household waste, hazardous waste, non-hazardous waste and inert waste.

6.28 It should be noted that the Regional Technical Advisory Body (RTAB) are seeking to commission a study to assess the actual waste treatment/disposal capacity of the Region in order to assess what future infrastructure will be required to meet the Regional Waste Strategy Targets. It is hoped that this survey will flesh-out the information currently absent from the tables below.

62 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

6.29 Additional information on waste can be found in a report produced by the Environment Agency using 2001 data (www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subjects/waste).

Table 6.9 Household waste

Waste Separation Composting Thermal Waste Storage Disposal and recycling Facilities Treatment Stations Number Total Numbe Total Numbe Total Number Total Number Total of tonnage r of tonnage r of tonnage of tonnage of tonnage facilities capacity faciliti capacity faciliti capacit facilities capacity facilities capacity es es y Derby 1 N/A 0 0 0 0 1 150 000 0 0 Derbyshire N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Leicester 1 15 000 1 N/A 0 0 2 30 000 2 N/A Leicestershire 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 14 N/A 4 N/A Lincolnshire N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Northamptons 0 0 3 50 000 0 0 10 230 000 8 N/A hire Nottingham 1 N/A 1 N/A 1 N/A 2 N/A 6 N/A Nottinghamsh 20 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 9 1,450,0 ire 00 Peak District N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Rutland 0 0 1 N/A 0 0 2 N/A 0 0 East Midlands 24 15 000 6 50 000 1 N/A 31 410 000 29 1,450,0 00 Source: Local Authorities, 2002/3

Table 6.10 Non hazardous Waste

Waste Composting Thermal Water Storage Disposal Separation and Facilities Treatment Stations Recycling Numb Total Num Total Num Total Num Total Num Total er of tonna ber tonnag ber tonnag ber tonnag ber tonna faciliti ge of e of e of e of ge es capac facili capaci Facili capaci Facili capaci Facili capac ity ties ty ties ty ties ty ties ity Derby 1 N/A 0 0 0 0 1 150 000 0 0 Derbyshire N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Leicester N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Leicestershire 11 N/A 5 N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A N/A Lincolnshire N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Northamptonshire 16 806,0 7 120,00 0 0 23 N/A 12 11,60 00 0 0,000 Nottingham N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Nottinghamshire N/A N/A 5 N/A N/A N/A 22 0 9 1,450 ,000 Peak District N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Rutland 0 0 1 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 East Midlands 28 N/A 18 N/A N/A N/A 47 N/A 21 13,05 0,000 Source: Local Authorities, 2002/3

63 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Table 6.11 Inert Waste

Waste Separation and Waste Storage Stations Disposal recycling Number of Total Number of Total Number Total facilities tonnage facilities tonnage of tonnage capacity capacity facilities capacity Derby 0 0 0 0 0 0 Derbyshire N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Leicester N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Leicestershire 11 N/A N/A N/A 13 N/A Lincolnshire N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Northamptonshi 12 496,000 7 200,000 21 N/A re Nottingham N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Nottinghams 11 N/A N/A N/A 9 N/A hire Peak District N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Rutland 2 N/A 0 0 2 N/A East 36 496,000 7 200,000 45 N/A Midlands Source: Local Authorities, 2002/3

Waste Processing

6.30 The following tables (6.12 to 6.15) present information relating to waste processing for household waste, hazardous waste, non-hazardous waste and inert waste.

Table 6.12 Household Waste

Waste Compostin Thermal Waste Disposal Separation g Facilities Treatment Storage and Stations Recycling Derby N/A N/A N/A 140 000 N/A Derbyshire N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Leicester 9900 2070 0 21 908 129 142 Leicestershire 11 079 N/A N/A 109 945 N/A Lincolnshire N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Northamptonshire 34 060 24 588 0 73 549 273 307 Nottingham N/A N/A N/A N/A 130 071 Nottinghamshire 0 0 0 0 1 450 000 Peak District N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Rutland N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A East Midlands 55 039 26 658 N/A 205 402 1 982 520 Source: Local Authorities, 2002/3

64 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Table 6.13 Non Hazardous Waste

Waste Compostin Thermal Waste Disposal Separation g Facilities Treatment Storage and Solutions Recycling Derby N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Derbyshire N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Leicester N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Leicestershire N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Lincolnshire N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Northamptonshire 590 00 97 300 N/A N/A 750,000 Nottingham N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Nottinghamshire 0 0 0 0 1 450 000 Peak District N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Rutland N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A East Midlands 590 000 97 300 N/A N/A 2 200 000 Source: Local Authorities, 2002/3

Table 6.14 Inert Waste

Waste Waste Disposal Separation Storage and Solutions Recycling Derby N/A N/A N/A Derbyshire N/A N/A N/A Leicester N/A N/A N/A Leicestershire N/A N/A N/A Lincolnshire N/A N/A N/A Northamptonshire N/A N/A 435 000 Nottingham N/A N/A N/A Nottinghamshire N/A N/A 360 000 Peak District N/A N/A N/A Rutland N/A N/A N/A East Midlands 0 0 795 00 Source: Local Authorities, 2002/3

Table 6.15 Hazardous Waste

Thermal Disposal Treatment East Midlands 30 000 62 000

Landfill

6.31 The following table presents information relating to the amount of household waste being sent to landfill.

65 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Table 6.16: Household Waste sent on to landfill

Waste Composting Thermal Waste Storage Separation and Facilities Treatment Stations Recycling Derby N/A N/A N/A 130 000 Derbyshire N/A N/A N/A N/A Leicester 1 493 N/A 0 16 172 Leicestershire 1 877 N/A N/A 83 187 Lincolnshire N/A N/A N/A N/A Northamptonshire N/A N/A N/A 57 719 Nottingham 5732 1415 80 859 22 106 Nottinghamshire N/A N/A N/A N/A Peak District N/A N/A N/A N/A Rutland N/A N/A N/A N/A Source: Local Authority Data, 2003/3

CONCLUDING REMARKS

6.32 It has not always been possible to compare 2002/03 figures with 2001/02 figures because of the variance in indicators used. There are also significant gaps within the current data, especially on waste.

6.33 The key findings to be drawn from this section include:

• The East Midlands Region was the only commercial provider of Fluorspar in the UK in 2001. • The region's largest volume of sales [in aggregates] is in limestone for 2002. • The Government has released national guidance on aggregates production apportionment, which at a regional level is fixed, but subregional apportionment is open to debate

6.34 In terms of waste processing and management: • It would appear that up to sixteen per-cent of household waste in the East Midlands is either recycled or composted. However, the region still has a long way to go, if it is to meet its target of 50% by 2015. Meeting the Landfill Directive targets for diversion of biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) from landfill is of utmost importance. This will be facilitated through the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS). The Environment Agency will be the monitoring authority for LATS and it is expected to start in 2005. • The increasing emphasis on recycling rather than landfill may require significant investment in new and upgraded waste management facilities within the region. • There is a requirement to improve the quality of the data relating to waste management in the region. It should be noted that, along with the other Regional Assemblies, EMRA will be seeking to agree a concordat with the Environment Agency in order to improve the compatibility of the SWMAs with the AMS and future RSS reporting requirements.

6.35 Technical recommendations relating to the future monitoring of aggregates and waste data are contained in section 8.

66 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

7 Transport

7.01 This section provides analysis on the following Transport policy areas contained within RPG 8:

• Policy 41: A Regional Traffic Growth in the East Midlands: Local Authorities, public and local bodies, and service providers should work together to achieve a 50% reduction in the predicted growth of traffic, such that by 2021 the level of traffic at the regional level is less than 11% above the figure for 2001. This should be achieved by promoting measures to: • reduce the need to travel • restrict unnecessary car usage • manage the demand for travel • significantly improve the quality and quantity of public transport • encourage cycling and walking for short journeys.

• Policy 42: A Regional Strategy for Behavioural Change: The Regional Planning Body, public and local bodies and service providers need to work together to encourage a reduction in the need to travel and to change public attitudes towards car usage and public transport. Measures should include: • workplace and school travel plans • quantity of public transport partnerships • travel awareness programmes • pilot projects promoting innovations in tele-working and personalised travel plans.

• Policy 46: Regional Heavy Rail Investment Priorities – The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA), Local Authorities, Public Bodies and train operating companies should work to achieve an increase in rail passenger kilometres at the Regional Level towards the national target of 50% by 2010.

• Policy 47: Regional Priorities for Bus and Light Rail Services – Local Authorities, public bodies and service providers should work in partnership to increase the level of bus and light rail patronage at the Regional level towards the national target of 12% by 2010.

• Policy 48: Regional Priorities for Integrating Public Transport

• Policy 49: Regional Trunk Road Investment Priorities

• Policy 50: Regional Major Highway Investment Priorities

• Policy 51: A Regional Freight Modal Shift – The SRA, service providers and local authorities should work together to ensure that a minimum of 30 extra 500 tonne freight trains per day start or finish in the East Midlands by 2010. This rate of growth should be continued in future years.

• Policy 52: Development of a Regional Freight Strategy

7.02 The indicators for monitoring these Transport policy areas are summarised below:

67 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Indicator Source RPG RPG Target Priority Policy CORE Level of traffic growth Department for 3,4,9 41 Traffic levels at the Transport regional level in 2021 less than 11% above the figure for 2001 Level of rail passenger SRA 3,4,5,9 46 An increase at the regional kilometres level towards the national target of 50% by 2010 Level of bus and light Local Transport 3,4,5,9 47 An increase at the regional rail patronage Authorities/ level towards the national Department for target of 12% by 2010 Transport Number of people killed Local Transport 3,10 49,50 A decrease at the regional or seriously injured in Authorities/ level towards the national road accidents Department for target of 40% by 2010 Transport Number of 500 tonne SRA 3,4,5,9 51 An increase from 113 to freight trains starting or 143 by 2010 finishing in the EM CONTEXTUAL Travel Plans in place Local Authorities 4,5,8 42 Integrated Ticketing Local Authorities 3,4,5,8 48 Schemes

Level of Traffic Growth in the East Midlands

7.03 The Department for Transport (DfT) has recently revised its methodology for calculating the volume of motor vehicle traffic. As a result, previous statistics (for the period up to 2000) are not comparable with the most recent data.

7.04 Using the revised methodology, the DfT estimate that road traffic grew in the East Midlands by 22.7% between 1993 and 2002, an average of 2.5% per annum. This figure is higher than the national average and is in excess of estimates made at the time. The M1 Multi Modal Study predicted traffic growth at around 1% per annum within the study area, although this was calculated using a previous version of the TEMPRO transport model developed prior to this new information becoming available.

7.05 In the light of the revised data, it is considered that the traffic growth reduction target of 11% between 2001 and 2021 in Policy 41 of Draft Revised RPG8 is even more challenging than originally anticipated.

68 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Table 7.1 Motor vehicle traffic by road class for the East Midlands: 1999 – 2000 and 2001 - 2002

Billion Vehicle Kilometers Non built-up major Built-up major Minor roads Year Motorway Trunk Principal Total Trunk Principal Total Non Built- All Built- up roads up 1999 6.8 8.1 5.5 13.6 1.0 3.9 4.8 4.4 7.0 36.7 2000 6.8 8.1 5.6 13.7 1.0 3.9 4.8 4.2 7.1 36.6 Source DfT

Billion Vehicle Kilometers Rural Urban Minor roads Year Motorway Trunk Principal Total Trunk Principal Total Rural Urban All roads 2001 6.2 8.3 6.2 14.5 1.0 3.8 4.8 5.9 6.7 38.0 2002 6.3 8.5 6.4 14.9 1.0 3.8 4.8 6.1 6.9 39.2 Source: DfT

Table 7.2 Traffic increase on major roads1, 2 - Government Office Region and Country: Between 1993 - 2002

Region % change 1993-2002 North East 19.4 North West 19.6 Yorkshire & the Humber 20.7 East Midlands 22.7 West Midlands 19.6 East 20.5 London 2.8 South East 24.4 South West 23.2

England 20.0 Wales 21.0 Scotland 19.9

Great Britain 20.0 Source: DfT 1 Motorways and A roads 2 Traffic figures have been revised between 1993 and 2002. Previous data not comparable.

Note: The volume of traffic is expressed as vehicle kilometers, which is calculated by multiplying the Annual Average Daily Flow by the corresponding length of road.

Motor vehicle flows

7.06 Motor vehicle flows for motorways within the East Midlands are higher than the national average, but flows on major roads and minor roads in the East Midlands are less than the national average. These figures are useful for providing a baseline against which to monitor whether traffic flows are being reduced in the region.

69 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Table 7.3 Average daily motor vehicle flows (thousand vehicles per day): by major road class

East Midlands England Motorway 96.6 80.7 Major Roads Non built up 13.4 14.3 Built up 13.6 16.1 Minor Roads Non built up 0.8 0.9 Built up 1.6 2.0 All roads 3.3 3.7 Average daily flow is the number of vehicles passing a point per year divided by 365. Non built up roads are all those with a speed limit in excess of 40mph Built up roads are all those having a speed limit of 40 mph or less (irrespective of whether there are buildings or not). Source: Department for Transport, 2003

Figure 7.1 Average daily motor vehicle flows (thousand vehicles per day): by major road class

120 s e l c 100 hi e V of

80 1,000s

n i s l ve

e 60 L ow l F y l i 40 a D ge a r e

v 20 A

0 Motorway Non built up Built up Non built up Built up All roads

Major Roads Minor Roads

East Midlands England Source, Department of Transport, 2003

70 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Travel to Work

7.07 The East Midlands has the fourth highest level of bicycle use as a mode of transport to work (3.7%) which is also complemented by relatively high level of journeys to work made on foot (11.2%). However, the East Midlands has the lowest use of trains out of all the regions (0.4%) and also has a considerably high level of car, van, minibus and works van use (76.7).

Table 7.3 Main method of travel to work, Autumn 2001

Percentages

Car, van, Motorbike, minibus, moped, Bus, coach, Other works van scooter2 Bicycle2 private bus Rail2 rail2,3 Foot Other4

United Kingdom 70.4 1.1 3.0 7.6 3.9 2.5 10.8 0.6 North East 70.1 .. 2.1 12.7 0.7 1.9 11.1 0.8 North West 73.5 1.0 2.6 8.4 2.1 0.6 11.1 0.6 Yorkshire and the Humber 70.9 0.9 3.5 11.0 1.2 0.3 11.5 0.6

East Midlands 76.7 1.0 3.7 6.5 0.4 .. 11.2 0.4 West Midlands 77.6 1.0 2.8 7.9 1.4 .. 8.8 0.3

East 77.5 1.5 4.2 3.9 1.5 .. 10.9 0.4 London 41.3 1.6 2.1 10.7 18.8 16.5 8.2 0.9 South East 77.5 1.1 3.8 3.8 2.5 .. 10.7 0.5 South West 74.5 1.6 4.3 4.6 0.8 .. 13.7 0.4

England 69.9 1.2 3.2 7.4 4.3 2.9 10.6 0.5 Wales 78.2 0.9 1.8 5.4 1.1 .. 11.9 0.7 Scotland 68.7 0.4 1.9 11.8 3.3 0.3 12.1 1.4 Northern Ireland 81.4 .. .. 4.4 .. . 11.1 1.1

1 Analyses excludes those on government schemes, those who work from home or in the same grounds or building as their home, and those who work in different places using their home as a base. See Notes and Definitions 2 For some regions, sample sizes are too small to provide a reliable estimate. 3 Underground, light railway and tram. 4 Includes taxi as main method. Source: Labour Force Survey, Office for National Statistics; Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Northern Ireland

Figure 7.2 Main method of travel to work

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% North East North West Yorkshire East West East of London South East South West and the Midlands Midlands England Humber Car, Van, Minibus Motorbike, moped, scooter Bicycle Bus, coach, private bus Rail Other Rail Foot Other Source: Labour Force Survey, Autumn 2001

71 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Travel to school

7.08 The region as a whole is performing relatively well compared to the other regions in the UK in relation to the number of children travelling to school by car. The East Midlands, along with the West Midlands, has the third lowest level of pupils travelling to school by car at just 27%. The region is still being outperformed by London (22%), the North East (22%) and Yorkshire and the Humber (25%). Currently, the worst performing region for this indicator is the South East with 37% of school children making trips to and from school by car.

Table 7.4: Trips to and from School by Main Modes of Transport 1999- 2001(national travel survey, ODPM)

Percentages and miles

Age 5 to 16 Average length (miles)

Walk Car Bus2 Other Age 5 to 10 Age 11 to 16

Great Britain 48 29 18 4 1.4 2 .9 North East 53 22 23 2 0.8 3 .0 North West 43 31 22 3 1.4 2 .5 Yorkshire and the Humber 58 25 15 2 1.0 2 .4

East Midlands 45 27 25 3 1.4 3.0 West Midlands 56 27 17 - 1.7 2 .3

East 44 36 12 8 1.7 3 .4 London 50 22 20 8 1.1 3 .2 South East 45 37 13 4 1.6 3 .2 South West 41 34 18 7 1.9 3 .8

England 48 30 18 5 1.4 3 .0 Wales 45 25 28 2 1.1 3 .0 Scotland 57 19 23 1 1.1 2 .7

1 By region of residence. See Notes and Definitions. 2 Including school bus. Source: National Travel Survey, Department for Transport

7.09 Figure 7.3 below is a positive indicator for the East Midlands in relation to RPG target 41 and last year’s AMS. The most recent data from the ODPM shows that the proportion of children travelling to school by car has fallen by 3% to 27%. This will contribute to (albeit slowly) achieving a 50% reduction in the predicted growth of traffic. The reduction in trips to school by car has been mirrored by an increase of 6% in bus use. While journeys made by bus are still more favourable than journeys made by car they are still less favourable than trips made to school by walking. The same time period has seen a 3% reduction in the number of children walking to school, which can also account for the increased use of bus transport in the region.

72 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Figure 7.3: Trips to and from School by main Modes of Transport 1999- 2001(national travel survey, ODPM)

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% North East North West Yorkshire East West East of London South East South West and the Midlands Midlands England Humber Walk Car Bus Other Source: National Travel Survey

Travel plans in place

7.10 A travel plan is typically a package of practical measures to encourage workers or those who travel to school by car to choose alternatives to single-occupancy car use, and to reduce their need to travel for their work. A plan should be tailored to a particular site and include a range of measures which will make a positive impact at that site. These could include setting up a car-sharing scheme; providing cycle facilities; negotiating improved bus services; offering attractive flexible-working practices; or offering part subsidies, restricting and/or charging for car-parking; setting up video conferencing facilities to cut business travel.

7.11 Table 7.5 and Figure 7.4 below illustrate travel plans in 2003. The region as a whole has 75 businesses and 133 schools with travel plans in place.

73 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Table 7.5: Travel Plans in Place

Local Authority Number of Percentage of Number of Percentage of businesses in the the workforce schools in the pupils attending LTP area with a employed by a LTP area with a a school with a Company company with a School Travel Travel Plan Travel Plan Travel Plan Plan Derby 11 N/A 6 5 Derbyshire 6 10.44 11 3.51 Leicester 20 0.00 0 0.00 Leicestershire 13 5.70 24 9.80 Lincolnshire 0 0.00 9 1.90 Northamptonshir 0 0.00 34 N/A e Nottingham 25 18.00 11 13.00 Nottinghamshire N/A N/A 25 15 Peak District N/A N/A N/A N/A Rutland 0 0 13 42 East Midlands 75 N/A 133 N/A NA = Not Available Source: Local Authorities, 2003

Figure 7.5: Travel Plans in Place

40

35 s

e 30 s s e n i 25 bus / s 20 hool c s 15 of r e b

m 10 u N 5

0 e e y re r re re m r ct b te i ir hi i nd r hi s sh sh hi ha s r la e r n ns m ist De bys te ol o ing ut r eci pt tt D R e L ces nc D i No ingha eak Li ham tt P Le rt o No N Number of businesses in the LTP area with a Company Travel Plan Number of schools in the LTP area with a School Travel Plan Source, Local Authorities, 2003

7.12 Table 7.5 indicates that Nottingham is the strongest performer in terms of the quantity of travel plans in place with 18% of the workforce employed by a company with a travel plan and 13% of pupils attending a school with a travel plan in place. Derbyshire has a relatively high percentage of its workforce employed by a company with a travel plan yet it has a relatively low number of businesses with a travel plan in place. This implies that travel plans in Derbyshire have mainly been adopted by large businesses.

74 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Regional Strategy for Behavioural Change

7.13 The following indicators are used to inform the regional strategy for behavioural change:

• Journeys by public and private transport • Level of bus and light rail patronage • Level of rail passenger kilometres

7.14 The Department for Transport and the Strategic Rail Authority is currently researching rail passenger kilometres at a sub-regional level.

Level of Bus and Light Rail Patronage

7.15 Information on local bus patronage is difficult to access at the local level, as there are commercial restrictions on the release of operator level data in small areas. There is also a problem of accuracy at a local level, with so many boundaries between shire counties and Unitary Authorities, particularly in the East Midlands. The operators allocate total patronage to individual areas but have great difficulty with cross boundary services. Regional-level data have been published for the distance buses travel up to 2001-02. Figure 7.6 below illustrates bus vehicle kilometres which acts as a proxy for bus patronage.

Table 7.6 Bus Vehicle Kilometres- GO region and Country 2001/02

Region 2001/02 (Millions) North East 177 Noth West 334 Yorkshire and the Humber 249 East Midlands 170 West Midlands 239 East of England 185 London 380 South East 185 South West 183 England 2,138 GB 2, 636

Source: PSV Operators (taken from DfT Regional Transport Statistics 2002)

7.16 Figure 7.6 indicates the relatively low level of bus patronage in the region as compared with other regions.

75 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Figure 7.6 Bus Vehicle Kilometres- GO region and Country 2001/029

400

350

300

s 250 m K n o i l l 200 Mi

. of o 150 N

100

50

0 North East North West Yorkshire East West East of London South East South West and the Midlands Midlands England Humber

Source: DfT Regional Transport Statistics, 2002

Light Rail

7.17 There is only one light rail system in the East Midlands, which is not yet open. The Nottingham Express Transit System (NET) runs from Nottingham station to Hucknall via the City Centre, and has a number of park and ride sites along the route. NET will be operational in 2004.

Number of People killed or seriously injured in Road Accidents

7.18 The number of people killed or seriously injured in road accidents is used to inform priorities for regional trunk road investment and major highway investment. Lincolnshire currently has the highest number of fatalities or serious injuries due to road accidents in the East Midlands. This is largely due to a high incidence of road accidents involving car drivers and passengers. On the other hand, Leicester has the lowest level of fatalities and serious injuries due to road accidents in the region.

9 The 2002-03 data are due to be published next month – this will feed into the final AMS.

76 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Figure 7.7: Number of People Killed or Seriously Injured in Road Accidents

700

600

500 le

p 400 o e P f o . 300 o N

200

100

0

ed d ed d ed d ed d ed d ed d ed d ed d ill ure ill ure ill ure ill ure ill ure ill ure ill ure ill ure K inj K inj K inj K inj K inj K inj K inj K inj ly ly ly ly ly ly ly ly us us us us us us us us rio rio rio rio rio rio rio rio Se Se Se Se Se Se Se Se Derby Derbyshire Leicestershire Leicester Lincolnshir Northamptonshir Nottingha Rutland

Bus/ Coach drivers and passengers Goods vehicle drivers and passengers Pedestrians Cyclists Motorcyclists and passengers Car drivers and passengers Source: Local Authorities, 2003

A Regional Freight Strategy

7.19 The indicator used to inform regional freight strategy is the number of 500 tonne freight trains starting or finishing in the East Midlands.

7.20 The State of Freight report has not been updated (and is not likely to be in full) since the last AMS (March 2003). Therefore, there is no additional information available to assess progress on this indicator. However, the EMRA is committed to work with the SRA and others in the future to provide updated information on regional freight movements.

7.21 According to the State of Freight report10, rail carries 10 per cent of the tonnage of land freight moving to, from, within, or through the region. This equates to 12 per cent of tonne kilometres, measured along the entire journey of the freight, not just the portion within the Midlands. Furthermore, rail carries 16 per cent of freight that passes through the region, which means that it makes a significant contribution to reducing strategic traffic on the roads.

7.22 The West to East Midlands Multi-Modal Study (W2EM MMS)11 also provides an analysis of the potential for and justification for transference (loads from road to rail or water). The report discusses the rail freight terminal demand in both West and East Midlands and provides forecasts to 2020.

7.23 The analysis in the East Midlands has addressed the demand to and from the combined three counties' area of Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire and Derbyshire. The analysis by commodity excludes the demand for coal and coke (as its market for carriage by rail is

10 Produced by Sinclair Knight Merz. 11 WSEM MMS, Freight Report, Jacobs Consultancy for the Government Office for the East Midlands, August 2003.

77 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

forecast to fall dramatically) and for construction (which is to increase by nearly 50%). It concludes that the principal growth market in the East Midlands is for Food, Drinks and Agricultural products. According to the report, international container traffic would receive a significant benefit should there be a programme of Gauge Enhancement. The forecast under Gauge Enhancement is for a significant increase by 839,000 tonnes per year.

7.24 It is also important to note that the absence of an East Midlands terminal for International Containers currently results in rail appearing to under-perform in this market. However, needs may be serviced by the existing West Midlands depots for transhipment. Continuous growth and demand for increased capacity justifies an East Midlands depot that could benefit both areas in terms of accessibility.

Integrated Public Transport

7.25 This sub-section provides data on integrated ticketing systems, used to inform priorities for integrating public transport. Ticketing schemes give public transport users the opportunity to buy a single ticket for use on routes controlled by different operators and may also allow for a switch between different modes of transport hence allowing for a seamless journey.

7.26 Derbyshire has the highest number of integrated ticketing schemes covering 57 operators. However, this does not indicate whether this means public transport in Derbyshire is more or less integrated than other parts of the region. From the data currently available Northamptonshire has the least number of Integrated Ticketing schemes in the region but additional data collection and analysis is needed before further conclusions can be drawn.

Figure 7.8: Integrated Ticketing Schemes

Total Integrated Ticketing Schemes Nottinghamshire Rutland in the East Midlands = 13 8% 8% Nottingham 8% Derby 0% Northamptonshire 8%

Derbyshire 45% Lincolnshire 23%

Peak District Leicestershire Leicester 0% 0% 0%

Source: Local Authorities, 2003

78 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

CONCLUDING REMARKS

7.27 A significant number of indicators that were used in the last Annual Monitoring Statement are not available for the current year. Some indicators have also changed and therefore new baselines need to be set. The ability to make comparisons over time is limited. As previously discussed, a considerable number of indicators were previously provided from the State of Freight report which has not been updated since the last monitoring period.

7.28 The indicators that are directly comparable between the time periods are shown in the table below.

Indicator Last AMS Current AMS % trips to & from school by walking 48 45 % trips to & from school by car 30 27 % trips to & from school by bus 19 25 % trips to & from work by walking 12 11 % trips to & from work by car 74 77 % trips to & from work by bus 7 7

7.29 Key findings which have been drawn from this section include:

• It is estimated that road traffic grew in the East Midlands by 22.7% between 1993 and 2002, an average of 2.5% per annum. It is considered that the traffic growth reduction target of 11% between 2001 and 2021 in Policy 41 of Draft Revised RPG8 is even more challenging than originally anticipated. • Overall, the use of public transport to get to work is relatively low in the East Midlands region. • In terms of travel to work, the East Midlands has the fourth highest level of bicycle use as a mode of transport to work, however, this is still very low. • The East Midlands has a relatively high level of journeys to work made on foot. • At the same time, the Region has the lowest use of trains out of all the regions (due probably to the size of settlements across the region). • The most recent data from the ODPM shows that the proportion of children travelling to school by car has fallen. The reduction in trips to school by car has been mirrored by an increase in bus use. • The region as a whole has 75 businesses and 133 schools with travel plans in place. • Growth opportunities exist in rail freight. The principal growth market is for Food, Drink and Agricultural products, Construction and International Containers (under Gauge Enhancement).

7.30 Technical recommendations to improve future monitoring arrangements for the transport strategy are included in Section 8.

79 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

8 Key Findings and Issues for Consideration

8.01 This section presents:

• Key findings summarising highlights and trends under the various policy themes presented in the report • Assessment of the current indicators framework • Technical implications for future monitoring requirements

8.02 A number of issues need to be borne in mind when considering the key findings highlighted in this report and identifying emerging implications to inform policy development:

• Collection of data and associated methodological issues. Errors in data collection may conceal year on year changes • Interpretation and analysis of certain indicators may need to take place on a 3-5 year basis to offer any meaningful conclusions • For some indicators monitoring will need to become more robust and consistent • Monitoring systems to assess qualitative concepts and review processes put in place to implement key policies contained in the Regional Planning Guidance will need to be considered by the East Midlands Regional Assembly • The type of information that needs to be collected to inform trends in certain policy areas e.g. use of employment land, needs to be reconsidered • Annual updating of data which is not easily accessible needs to be reconsidered

KEY FINDINGS

8.03 During the preparation of the second AMS for the East Midlands the following key findings have emerged:

Housing

• Low levels of affordable housing appear to have been developed in the East Midlands during 2002/03. However, this may in part reflect a lack of returns from some authorities and the lack of information from all sources providing affordable housing, such as Section 106 agreements. Not all ‘affordable’ housing being monitored could actually be considered affordable if it is let out at market rates. The key question to be asked in order to assess progress towards meeting the objectives of the Regional Planning Guidance is whether affordable housing is meeting housing needs. This could be tied into the Housing Needs Surveys carried out by Local Housing Authorities

• House building rates across the region in 2002/03 have been substantially above the annual targets set for the East Midlands region in (draft) RPG 8. However, fluctuations in recording of additions need to be considered over at least a three-year period to provide robust evidence. The general over-achievement of dwelling additions masks sub-regional differences, which will require close attention in future years to ensure the balance between brownfield and greenfield housing developments is appropriate and that developments are targeted according to need.

80 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

• Completions of 3 and 4 bedroom dwellings have in general increased significantly more than 1 or 2 bedroom dwellings since the AMS for 2001/02. However, this is based on incomplete data as it only includes new builds and therefore does not consider conversions or changes to stock through extensions. It is again more important to explore whether housing provision is meeting housing needs, rather than the type and size of dwelling built.

• The figure for building of dwellings on previously developed land continues to improve, but should remain a priority for future housing development in the region.

• There appears to be sufficient number of planning permissions across the region, related to the house building rates observed during 2002/03. However, a distinction needs to be made in future monitoring cycles between permissions for small and permissions for large sites to provide a more realistic understanding of supply. Currently the number of outstanding planning permissions does not provide sufficient detail on the magnitude of proposed development.

Economy

• Overall, more employment land has been developed on greenfield sites than on brownfield sites across the Region, although sub-regional differences are hidden. E.g. there are relatively high levels of proposed greenfield development in some districts of Lincolnshire, Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire.

• The balance of development between housing and employment development needs to be closely monitored to understand whether there is displacement of employment land for housing provision, causing more employment sites to be developed on greenfield sites.

• Policies for regional priorities for the development of town centres and retail need to consider that rental growth rates in the East Midlands appear to be close to the national average and the highest outside London, the South and the East of the country. Rental values are highest in the three cities, particularly Nottingham. However, a slight increase in rents in peripheral centres like Lincoln and Mansfield may indicate that development is accelerating outside the existing main centres.

Natural Resources and the Built Environment

• 435ha of non Forestry-Commission woodland has been planted in the East Midlands, all of which is on non-Forestry Commission woodlands.

• Based on the Regional Environment Strategy new targets for bio-diversity, waste reduction and management, renewable energy and energy efficiency have been included in the revised RPG.

• A new approach to managing flood risk has been developed.

• More than a third of ancient monuments in the region, comprising earthworks and buried remains as well as structures that are included in the Building at risk Register, are in need of management action to prevent deterioration, loss or damage.

81 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

• The East Midlands has the second lowest quantity of sites generating electricity from renewable sources in England, however, it is the capacity of these sites to generate electricity which is more important than their number.

• The capacity of sites generating electricity from renewable sources in 2002 in the East Midlands was 75.3 MW. This is an estimated 27.3 MW of additional capacity since 2001. Comparison with last year's Annual Monitoring Statement indicates that the East Midlands has lost two sites generating hydro electricity and four sites generating electricity from landfill gas. However, there are five additional sites generating electricity from other biofuels and wastes which accounts for the rise in capacity.

• The East Midlands has just 6% of England’s Combined Heat and Power Schemes, although this is broadly in line with the region’s share of population and energy consumption.

Waste and Aggregates

• The East Midlands Region was the only commercial provider of Fluorspar in the UK in 2001.

• The regions largest volume of sales [in aggregates] is in Limestone for 2002.

• The Government has released national guidance on aggregates production apportionment, which at a regional level is fixed, but subregional apportionment is open to debate.

• Sixteen per-cent of household waste in the East Midlands is either recycled or composted. However, the region still has a long way to go, if it is to meet its target of 50% by 2015. Furthermore, the increasing emphasis on recycling rather than landfill may require significant investment in new and upgraded waste management facilities within the region.

Transport

• It is estimated that road traffic grew in the East Midlands by 22.7% between 1993 and 2002, an average of 2.5% per annum. It is now considered that the traffic growth reduction target of 11% between 2001 and 2021 in Policy 41 of Draft Revised RPG8 is even more challenging than originally anticipated.

• Overall, the use of public transport to get to work is relatively low in the East Midlands. Car is the most preferred mode of transport to work. The East Midlands has the fourth highest level of bicycle use as a mode of transport to work.

• The most recent data from the ODPM shows that the proportion of children travelling to school by car in the region has fallen. The reduction in trips to school by car has been mirrored by an increase in bus use.

• Growth opportunities exist in rail freight despite the forecasted further decline in the carriage of coal and coke by rail. The principal growth market is for Food, Drink and Agricultural products, Construction and International Containers (under Gauge Enhancement).

82 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

PROGRESS TOWARDS MEETING RPG OBJECTIVES

8.04 The table below summarises evidence provided by the data collected on progress made towards meeting the 10 RPG priorities. It needs to be acknowledged that trends need to be observed over a period of time to reveal robust evidence. However, there is some indication that in certain areas it is difficult to draw conclusions. This may be due to missing or incomplete data and/or new indicators and methods of measurement developing. It may also be due to the various (opposite) directions taken by different indicators measuring progress made in a policy area. Key: z Moving towards meeting RPG objective z No change z Moving away from meeting RPG objective z Difficult to conclude

10 RPG PRIORITIES Indicators Progress towards meeting RPG priorities 1. To address social exclusion, through 1. Housing Completions (all, by type and size) z housing the regeneration of disadvantaged 2. Housing completions achieved on previously areas and reducing regional developed land or through conversions zcost of land and housing inequalities in the distribution of 3. Affordable Housing 4. Outstanding planning permissions employment, housing, health and 5. Vacant dwellings by tenure other community facilities 6. Cost of land and housing

2. To protect and where possible 1. Density of new housing z housing enhance the quality of the 2. Housing Completions environment in urban and rural 3. Reductions in housing stock z employment land areas so as to make them safe and 4. Vacant dwellings by tenure 5. Employment land developed (development on attractive places to live and work 6. Undeveloped land commitments greenfield vs brownfield 7. No of listed buildings at risk need to be monitored) 8. Planning permissions granted contrary to Environment Agency Advice z flood risk 9. Flood risk assessments carried out 10. Condition of East Midlands flood defences

3. To improve the health of the Region’s 1. Affordable housing completions residents, for example through 2. Housing completions by type and size z housing improved air quality, the availability of 3. Outstanding planning permissions for z employment land good quality housing and access to dwellings not yet completed leisure and recreation facilities 4. Cost of land and housing z cost of land and 5. Reductions in housing stock housing 6. Vacant dwelling by tenure 7. Level of traffic growth z traffic 8. Level of rail passenger kilometres 9. Level of bus and light rail patronage 10. Number of people killed or seriously injured in road accidents 11. Number of 500 tonne freight trains starting or finishing in the East Midlands 4. To promote and improve economic 1. Density of new housing prosperity, employment opportunities 2. Housing completions z housing and regional competitiveness 3. Housing completions achieved on previously z cost of land and developed land or through conversions 4. Affordable housing completions housing 5. Housing completions by type and size

83 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

6. Outstanding planning permissions for dwellings not yet completed z employment land 7. Cost of land and housing z traffic 8. Reductions in housing stock 9. Vacant dwellings by tenure 10. Employment land developed 11. Undeveloped employment land commitments 12. Level of traffic growth 13. Level of rail passenger kilometres 14. Level of bus and light rail patronage 15. Number of people killed or seriously injured in road accidents 16. Number of 500 tonne freight trains starting or finishing in the East Midlands 17. Travel Plans in place

5. To improve accessibility to jobs, homes 1. Level of rail passenger kilometres and services across the Region by 2. Level of bus and light rail patronage z traffic developing integrated transport, 3. Number of 500 tonne freight trains starting or z use of public transport ensuring the improvement of finishing in the East Midlands opportunities for walking, cycling and 4. Travel Plans in place the use of high quality public transport 5. Integrated Ticketing Schemes

6. To achieve effective protection of the 1. Density of new housing environment by avoiding significant 2. Housing completions achieved on previously z new housing density harm and securing adequate mitigation developed land or through conversions z priority habitats where appropriate, and to promote the 3. Area of priority habitats brought into conservation, enhancement, sensitive management or created z woodland created use and management of the Region’s 4. Area of new woodland created natural and cultural assets 5. Number of listed buildings at risk z listed buildings at risk 6. Planning permissions granted contrary to Environment Agency Advice 7. To adopt the principle of no net loss of 1. Area of priority habitats brought into priority habitats, wherever possible management or created z priority habitats managing and developing habitats so as 2. Area of new woodland created z woodland created to enhance bio-diversity within the 3. Planning permissions granted contrary to Region Environment Agency Advice z listed buildings at risk 4. River Peak flow trends 5. Flood risk assessments carried out z flood risk 6. Condition of East Midlands flood defences 8. To promote the prudent use of 1. Density of new housing resources, in particular through 2. Housing Completions on previously developed z new housing density patterns of development and transport land or conversions zcapacity of heat and that make efficient and effective use of 3. Capacity of additional combined Heat and existing infrastructure, optimise waste Power facilities power facilities minimisation, reduce overall energy use 4. Capacity of additional renewable energy zcapacity of energy and maximise the role of renewable facilities energy generation 5. River Peak Flow Trends facilities 6. Amount of aggregates produced z waste 7. Amount of recycled and secondary aggregates used z traffic 8. Amount of controlled waste produced 9. Proportion of household waste recycled and composted 10. Proportion of waste diverted from landfill 11. Capacity of additional waste recovery facilities 12. Travel Plans in place 13. Integrated Ticketing systems 9. To take action to reduce the scale and 1. Capacity of additional combined Heat and impact of future climate change, in Power facilities zcapacity of heat and particular the risk of damaged to life 2. Capacity of additional renewable energy power facilities and property from flooding, especially facilities through the location and design of new 3. Planning permissions granted contrary to zcapacity of energy development Environment Agency Advice facilities

84 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

4. River Peak flow trends 5. Flood risk assessments carried out z flood risk 6. Condition of East Midlands flood defences 7. Number of 500 tonne freight trains starting or finishing in the East Midlands 10. To promote good design in development 1. Density of new housing to achieve high environmental 2. No of listed buildings at risk z housing density standards and optimum social benefits. 3. Level of traffic growth z traffic 4. Level of rail passenger kilometres 5. Level of bus and light rail patronage 6. Number of people killed or seriously injured in road accidents

ASSESSMENT OF THE CURRENT INDICATORS FRAMEWORK

8.05 In terms of the current indicators framework (see Table 2.1), there remains a number of gaps where data has not been collected. The text makes specific reference to the reasons as to why indicators have not currently been included and a proxy indicator has, in most cases, been used. The outstanding indicators, for which data has not been successfully collected, are contained in table 8.1. Appendix 10 also provides suggestions for additional indicators.

8.06 Several key messages have emerged from the consultations involved in drafting the AMS which relate to both existing and potential indicators. Some of these are already highlighted under paragraph 8.02 in this section. These key messages are:

• Indicators need to be relevant to the specific policy objectives and priorities that they seek to address. • Availability and reliability of data need to be considered when selecting indicators to monitor progress. • Indicators become meaningful i.e. start telling a story, when they are analysed over a period of time. • Consistency of data is of paramount importance in monitoring trends over time. • It is useful to distinguish indicators between CORE, CONTEXTUAL and PROCESS indicators. Better and more use of PROCESS indicators in reporting progress at sub-regional level is very important, in particular in order to safeguard key elements of the sequential approach to development. • Indicators need to be interpreted to make strong links with contextual information.

8.07 These messages imply that the following actions need to be considered prior to the preparation of the next AMS:

• Identification, development and agreement on indicators need to be closely tied and relevant to the policy assessed and the key RPG priority (p.5) served by the indicator. • Agreement on methods of collecting relevant data and establishing baselines for new indicators should be seen as a key task and criterion in selecting indicators. • The RPB will have a role to play in considering the conformity of Local Development Frameworks (LDFs), which will have their own monitoring requirement, with the RSS. The links between local and regional monitoring need to be carefully investigated.

8.08 The following table lists indicators for which data has not been successfully collected.

85 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Table 8.1 Outstanding Indicators

INDICATORS COMMENTS ECONOMY Land Developed for Retail Use No comprehensive monitoring of retail developments exists. GOAD and Retail Land Lost to Other data sets provides a reliable indication of the amount of retail Uses floorspace within centres, but this data is restricted to centres above a certain size. NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES Grade II Listed Buildings at English Heritage have advised us that there is no such thing as a Risk ‘Grade II listed building at Risk’. However, information has been collected from the Local Authority questionnaires and its value should be investigated. Area of priority habitats Attempts were made to collect this information in partnership with brought into management or English Nature but much was not accessible within the time frame. created River Peak Flow trends The Environment Agency has been investigated data availability for this indicator but its value to the Annual Monitoring Statement is now uncertain. Flood Risk Assessments As above. Condition of East Midlands As above. Flood Defences MINERALS AND WASTE Capacity of additional Waste The AMS gives a guide to the capacity of waste recovery facilities in the region. However, due to the lack of responses and the inconsistency in the reporting method the validity of the data is questionable. TRANSPORT Level of traffic growth This indicator is reflected in the Motor Vehicle Flows statistics that appear in the AMS. The DfT data conceals significant variations across the region by type of road and geographic area. Level of bus patronage Bus patronage data is very unreliable, and hence bus vehicle kilometres have been included as a proxy. In future years, the East Midlands Regional Assembly may wish to consider using ‘boardings’ data, which is set out in LTP’s annual progress reports. Level of rail passenger The SRA have informed us that this data is not available for the kilometres East Midlands. The SRA, Department for Transport and the Transport office of GO-EM have all been contacted for alternatives but without success. Level of Light Rail Patronage This data will be accessible for the next Annual Monitoring Statement. Number of 500 tonne Freight The SRA have informed us that they can not provide this data. This Trains starting or finishing in information was obtained from the ‘State of Freight’ report, which the East Midlands- has not been updated since the last AMS was published.

8.09 Table 8.2 below provides a summary of the policy areas that are currently covered by the framework of indicators. The Table also provides a commentary on whether the current indicator is adequate for monitoring the policy area to which it refers. Recommendations to the East Midlands Regional Assembly on how their monitoring framework could be more useful are also made.

86 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Table 8.2 Analysis of Current Policy Areas Covered by Indicators

RPG 8 Policy Area Coverage Comment on Current Indicators 3 Promoting Better Ensure design standards are The current indicator – density of new Design consistently high across all development – is not adequate. Qualitative development forms information could be gathered on design standards or ensuring development adheres to design guidance – see notes on monitoring below. 17 Regional Housing Housing Provision Rates Data sources are complete. Provision Need to ensure provision is analysed in relation to other regional priorities. 18 Regional Priorities Policy for Provision of a Mix Policy and indicator of mix of dwellings above for Affordable of Dwellings, Size, Type, site level (i.e. by district or above) needs Housing Affordability and Location justification.

Affordability - rural/ urban information could be of value.

Location - in relation to sequential approach and Principal Urban areas warrants investigation. 20 A Regional Target % of Additional Dwellings Consider assessing the quantity of previously for Re-Using on Previously Developed developed land available in each district through Previously Land urban capacity studies in order to assess the Developed Land validity of the 60% target for each district / and Buildings for Strategic area. Housing 22 Regional Priorities Joint Working to Ensure Net Amount of Employment Land developed for Employment Appropriate Allocation and during the time period specified. Land De-Allocation of The current divide between use class is not Employment Land to Meet possible or valuable because of GDO rights. Specific Requirements of Need to study relationship to local / Sub-Area Potential Investors need and QUELS findings. Need also to measure the impact of employment land development and commitments on the number and type of jobs developed – however, difficult to track through the planning system. 23 Regional Priorities Land Brought Forward For Need to monitor established - baseline required - for Town Centres Retail and Leisure Use - GOAD data could be considered, although GOAD and Retail Monitor Changes in Retail is restricted to certain settlements which have Development Floorspace reached a size threshold.

28 Priorities for Increase in the Region's Current monitoring arrangements have not been Enhancing the Biodiversity towards UK able to produce this information because there is a Region's Bio- Biodiversity Plan - Large lack of consistent data collection and reporting diversity Scale Habitat Creation in mechanisms across the Counties. Natural Areas 29 A Regional Target Area of New Woodland 9 for Increasing Created Woodland Cover 31 Regional Priorities Number of Listed Buildings Need to consider if there can be greater for the Historic at Risk consistency of Grade II data from Las. Environment 36 Flooding Planning Permissions East Midlands Regional Assembly and the Granted Contrary to Environment Agency need to consider including a Environment Agency Advice more specific indicator to monitoring flooding within the region, or focussing on monitoring

87 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

policy 36 . 36 A Regional Flood Risk Assessments A better indicator of development in relation to Approach to Carried Out, Condition of flood risk is required. Managing Flood East Midlands Flood Further work developing these indicators is Risk Defences, Peak Flow Trends warranted. Number and Size of Flood Management Schemes may not in itself be sufficient. 37 Regional Priorities Amount of Aggregates Cannot collect 100% of data on secondary for Aggregates Produced and Amount of aggregates, but partial information as a proxy for Recycled and Secondary indicator is valuable. Aggregates Used

38 Regional Priorities Proportion of Household Data collected where possible. There are data for Waste Waste Recycled and analysis issues relating to double counting and Management Composted and Proportion information about capacity of some sites that may of Waste Diverted from not be possible to resolve. Landfill and Capacity of Continuing work necessary. Additional Waste Recovery Facilities 39 Regional Priorities Capacity of Additional 9 for Energy Combined Heat and Power Reduction and Facilities Efficiency 40 Regional Priorities Capacity of Additional 9 for Renewable Renewable Energy Facilities Energy 41 A Regional Traffic Level of Traffic Growth Indicators relevant to RPG need to be agreed. Growth Reduction Target 42 A Regional Strategy Travel Plans in Place Investigate value and completeness of data on for Behavioural travel plans as an indicator. Change 46 Regional Heavy Level of Rail Passenger Investigate sources of data with SRA. Rail Investment Kilometres Priorities 47 Regional Priorities Level of Bus and Light Rail Investigate sources of data with Department for for Bus and Light Patronage Transport. Rail Services

48 Regional Priorities Integrated Ticketing Systems Clearer definition of what an integrated ticketing for Integrating system is, and whether indicator demonstrates Public Transport more or less integration.

49,50 Regional Trunk Number of people killed or This indirect indicator requires long term data to Road Investment seriously injured in road inform RPG. Priorities accidents 49,50 Regional Trunk Level of Trunk Road This indirect indicator requires long term data to Road Investment Development inform RPG. Priorities

51 A Regional Freight Number of 500 tonne Freight From findings of Regional Freight Study but Modal Shift Target Trains Starting or Finishing questioned by the SRA and others - needs in the East Midlands revisiting.

88 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

TECHNICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE MONITORING

8.10 Prior to the preparation of the next AMS and future monitoring arrangements, the following considerations should be given:

Housing

• More consistent monitoring of affordable and better designed housing. The questionnaire does not currently allow for local authorities to distinguish between situations where the total of affordable housing is actually zero, or where information does not actually exist. • Monitoring the number of additional dwellings that have been granted permission against the number of housing completions will in the future provide a more accurate picture of whether house building rates across the region are meeting housing needs. • There needs to be clearer monitoring of student housing and how it distorts completions figures. • The Local Authority Questionnaire needs to be revised to ensure that housing density information can be captured in a more consistent and comprehensive manner. • Further indicators need to be introduced to monitor other aspects of better design i.e. design that helps to promote quality of life, reduce crime and supports community safety and vitality, although recognising that authorities are under pressure to provide the information currently required. Ensuring authorities adopt CABE definitions of good design when approving planning applications could be one way in which design elements could be monitored. Alternatively authorities could monitor the proportion of new dwellings and conversions that are developed to the Secured by Design standards, that is they have British Standard Locks to all doors and windows, natural surveillance, alarms and lighting, so that as far as is possible crime is designed out. A further alternative is to monitor the rate at which housing is upgraded to the Government’s Decent Home Standard. • Monitoring should take place of the number of additional dwellings that have been granted permission, rather than all ‘substitutions’ (which may or may not increase the number of dwellings on a site) or changes of house type/sizes. • The level of affordable housing completions and the amount of Housing Corporation funding in the region should be carefully monitored to inform housing and regeneration policies. Monitoring the supply of affordable housing should be carried out with reference to the scale of need for affordable housing (3,400 dwellings a year). Housing Needs Surveys undertaken by Local Housing Authorities could provide additional information on indicators of housing stress, such as referrals under homelessness legislation, enforced overcrowding, enforced migration. • Monitoring the responses to the Housing Needs surveys would also help to build the bridges between needs and provision. • Monitoring of affordable housing should also relate to completions from all sources and in particular the Regional Housing Strategy resources, rather than just the activities of the Housing Corporation. Housing secured through Section 106 Planning Obligations should also be monitored for the affordable housing total. • Analysis of data on an annual basis needs to be undertaken with caution - analysis on the basis of 3-5 year trends will provide a better evidence-based approach to assess and explain impact. Examples include vacant dwellings.

89 East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 2002/03 Annual Monitoring Statement

Economy and Retail

• In future monitoring arrangements, analysis and comparisons between use classes i.e. employment land developed and employment land committed should also explore the potential for each type of use class. For example, data and discussion around the total employment land commitments can include analysis of the potential for each use class e.g. 10ha of employment land may be available, of which 8ha could be for B1, 4ha for B2 and 7ha for B8. • There is a need to be clear about whether all planning authorities included all local plan commitments and planning permissions within their employment land commitments. A consistent approach to data collection needs to be ensured so that findings on employment land commitments can be compared. • Floorspace data for the three cities in the East Midlands needs to be collected on an annual basis. Floorspace data will help provide information for ODPM’s core indicators 4a and 4b. ODPM have recently published “Commercial and Industrial Floorspace Statistics, 2003” which provides a range of retail, office, factory and warehouse statistics at the district level. Further work is needed to analyse how these statistics can add value to the Annual Monitoring Statement.

Natural and Cultural resources

• Assessments of landscape character protection could provide information about the nature of development in different parts of the region. Information relating to the character of the countryside has not been included within the AMS. However, quality of the landscape could be measured through the countryside character assessment, which is being piloted by the Countryside Agency in the East Midlands. The coverage of landscape character assessments carried out in the region could be used as an indicator. EMRA and the key partners in this area of work needs to pay close attention to the work being undertaken by the Environment Agency on landscape character assessments. • Need to extend the monitoring of cultural assets and increase links with the Regional Cultural Strategy. • A consistent approach to monitoring Grade II Listed buildings needs to be adopted. • Need to question whether monitoring planning permissions contrary to Environment Agency advice is actually useful for monitoring flood risk.

Aggregates and Waste

• The waste questionnaire be revised to ensure consistent collection of waste data • There is also scope (in future monitoring cycles) to look at aggregates production apportionment levels within other regions. • RTAB, RAWP, Quarry Products Association and the National Federation of demolition contractors and the British Aggregates Association need to work together at a national level on monitoring aggregates in the regions.

Transport

• A closer working relationship between EMRA, GOEM and the Strategic Rail Authority to monitor regional transport policies will improve the monitoring and planning process in the region.

90 Appendix 1- Consultations

1.01 During the drafting of this report the following people have commented:

• Peter Williams – East Midlands Regional Assembly • Richard Cooper – Nottinghamshire County Council • Roger Howes – Nottinghamshire County Council • Peter White – Derbyshire County Council • Alison Adams – Government Office for the East Midlands (transport) • Steve Hallsworth – Environment Agency • Brian Welch – Strategic Rail Authority • Alaster Henderson – Forestry Commission • Ian Paterson – Countryside Agency • Peter Williams – Leicestershire County Council • Ann Plackett – English Heritage • Jon Whitaker – Derbyshire County Council • Felicity Manning – Leicestershire County Council • Graham Gardner – Nottingham City Council • Sonia Haughan – Derby City Council • Kirsty Draper - Corby Borough Council • Madeline Dymond – Lincolnshire County Council • Matthew Berry - Northamptonshire County Council • Sarah Geddes – Northampton Borough Council • Simon Warner – Northamptonshire County Council • Steve Calvert – Nottinghamshire County Council • Roger Caisley – Derbyshire County Council • Ian Thomas – EMAWP

Appendix 2- An overview of the East Midlands Economy

2.01 This appendix looks at some of the key facts and figures for the region. These have been taken from ‘The East Midlands: The State of the Regions Economy’ which was produced by DTZ Pieda Consulting for the East Midlands Development Agency.

Benchmarking the region against European comparators • Employment in the region’s rural areas has grown by 30% since 1985, and real GVA change in the rural areas has exceeded EU and England averages since 1982. • There is some evidence that the East Midland’s largest cities are failing to have the same input into the regional economy as other large cities in comparable regions. Only Nottingham has exceeded the EU average in terms of output growth since 1982. Labour market competitiveness • The labour market of the East Midlands presents a mixed picture. On the positive side the region displays high levels of employment and economic activity alongside low claimant count and other measures of unemployment. However, the large number of relatively poorly qualified workers is a significant impediment to economic growth. • Below average earnings in the region are contributing to the leakage of higher qualified individuals, as they seek higher paid employment opportunities elsewhere. Social Exclusion • Poverty in the East Midlands is below the national average. Infrastructure • The region is well connected nationally by both road and rail, which is a crucial factor in determining a region’s growth potential. The East Midlands has substantial international transport infrastructure and the East Midlands Airport is expanding both its passenger and freight operations. Economic Base • The region has experienced an expansion of population over the 1981-2000 period. Growth in Population, while creating problems in terms of the need for more housing land (and potential conflicts with environmental objectives), nevertheless provides a signal of economic success. • The economic structure of the region remains heavily reliant upon manufacturing, particularly lower value activities, whilst the East Midlands service sector is underdeveloped and lacks high value growth sectors. This implies that the region is vulnerable to structural adjustment as the trend towards service activities continues. Inward Investment • The East Midlands has performed relatively poorly in attracting foreign direct investment projects and employment, especially within the context of the UK’s strong global performance. Innovation • Business formation and self-employment rates are both used as an indicator of entrepreneurship. The East Midlands lags behind the national average on both indicators. Future Economic Prospects • The economic forecasts for the region are reasonably strong with a forecast Gross Value Added growth rate of 2.26% per annum between 2002-2012. However, this is expected to be below the UK average of 2.4% per annum. • All sectors, other than mining, are forecast to experience increases in GVA. • The East Midlands is forecast to experience a healthy average annual increase in employment of 0.3% per annum between 2002-2012. However, this is expected to be below the UK average of 2.4% per annum. Appendix 3- Detailed Housing data

Appendix Table 3.1 Housing density

Authority Dwellings Gross area Housing Built on of Land Density completed Developed (dwellings sites (ha) /ha) Derby1 256 8.47 30.2 Amber Valley 75 2.32 32.3 Bolsover 71 2.34 30.3 Chesterfield 558 10.21 54.7 Derbyshire Dales 54 2.16 25.0 Erewash* N/A N/A N/A High Peak 545 26.91 20.3 N E Derbyshire 92 2.78 33.1 South Derbyshire* N/A N/A N/A Derbyshire Total 1395 46.72 29.9 Leicester 121 1.06 114.2 Blaby 166 4.13 40.2 Charnwood 128 5.08 25.2 Harborough N/A N/A N/A Hinckley & Bosworth 434 11.26 38.5 Melton N/A N/A N/A NW Leicestershire 113 3.12 36.2 Oadby & Wigston N/A N/A N/A Leicestershire Total 841 23.59 35.7 East Lindsey 56 2.1535 26.0 Lincoln 46 0.73 63.0 North Kesteven 1504 69.41 21.7 South Holland 229 7.7 29.7 South Kesteven 524 26.2 20.0 West Lindsey N/A N/A N/A Lincolnshire Total 2359 106.2 22.2 East Northamptonshire 606 81.22 7.5 Kettering 105 5.32 19.7 South Northamptonshire* N/A N/A N/A Wellingborough 243 8.41 28.9 Northamptonshire Total 954 94.95 10.0 Nottingham 416 7.8 53.3 Ashfield 624 20.8 30.0 Bassetlaw 124 9.44 13.1 Gedling N/A N/A N/A Mansfield N/A N/A N/A Newark & Sherwood 398 16.17 24.6 Rushcliffe 338 10.97 30.8 Nottinghamshire 1484 57.38 25.86 Peak District National Park N/A N/A N/A Rutland 17 1 17 East Midlands 7843 347.16 22.59 * Figures were inserted for number of dwellings but not for area of land. Therefore, the district was excluded from the figures to give a more accurate reflection of the region. 1 refers to density of sites wholly completed in the last 12 months on sites over 10 dwellings

Appendix Table 3.2 Net Housing completions

Authority Completions Reductions Net Completions Derby 580 107 473 Amber Valley 284 22 262 Bolsover 232 126 106 Chesterfield 558 50 508 Derbyshire Dales 97 5 92 Erewash 199 25 174 High Peak 362 8 354 NE Derbyshire 245 199 46 South Derbyshire 630 49 581 Derbyshire Total 2607 484 2123 Leicester 894 63 831 Blaby 194 0 194 Charnwood 448 6 442 Harborough 304 7 297 Hinckley & Bosworth 757 15 742 Melton 175 0 175 NW Leicestershire 395 20 375 Oadby & Wigston 72 1 71 Leicestershire Total 2345 49 2296 Boston 421 N/A 421 East Lindsey 628 14 614 Lincoln 285 0 285 North Kesteven 731 N/A 731 South Holland 709 6 703 South Kesteven 561 1 560 West Lindsey 341 0 341 Lincolnshire Total 3676 21 3655 Corby 180 0 180 Daventry 435 1 434 East Northamptonshire 606 5 601 Kettering 220 4 216 Northampton 581 0 581 Suoth Northamptonshire 993 4 989 Wellingborough 175 6 169 Northamptonshire Total 3190 20 3170 Nottingham1 822 28 794 Ashfield 685 99 586 Bassetlaw 533 31 502 Gedling 219 17 202 Mansfield 373 N/A 373 Newark & Sherwood 572 14 558 Rushcliffe 339 1 338 Nottinghamshire Total 2721 162 2559 Peak District National Park 136 0 136 Rutland 112 5 107 East Midlands 17083 939 16144 1all figures in this return exclude housing built specifically for students as this is not included in the structure plan provision

Appendix Table 3.3 Housing completions by type

Authority Houses Flats Total Derby N/A N/A N/A Amber Valley 252 0 252 Bolsover 207 13 220 Chesterfield 468 71 539 Derbyshire Dales N/A N/A N/A Erewash N/A N/A N/A High Peak 246 7 253 NE Derbyshire1 220 25 245 South Derbyshire N/A N/A N/A Derbyshire 1393 116 1509 Leicester 342 177 519 Blaby 175 17 192 Charnwood 341 78 419 Harborough N/A N/A N/A Hinckley & Bosworth 630 88 718 Melton 108 56 164 NW Leicestershire 358 14 372 Oadby & wigston 71 0 71 Leicestershire 1683 253 1936 Boston 398 19 417 East Lindsey N/A N/A N/A Lincoln 270 0 270 North Kesteven N/A N/A N/A South Holland 685 24 709 South Kesteven 504 20 524 West Lindsey N/A N/A N/A Lincolnshire 1857 63 1920 Corby N/A N/A N/A Daventry2 394 41 435 East Northamptonshire 496 46 542 Kettering 150 70 220 Northampton N/A N/A N/A South Northamptonshire N/A N/A N/A Wellingborough N/A N/A N/A Northamptonshire 1040 157 1197 Nottingham Total 298 244 542 Ashfield 624 0 624 Bassetlaw 328 37 365 Gedling 190 19 209 Mansfield N/A N/A N/A Newark & Sherwood 449 16 465 Rushcliffe 201 137 338 Nottinghamshire 1792 209 2001 Peak Disrict NPA N/A N/A N/A Rutland N/A N/A N/A East Midlands 8405 1219 9624 1Estimated breakdown 2 Excludes exception sites

Appendix Table 3.4 Housing completions by size

Authority 1 2 3 4+ Total Bedroom Bedrooms Bedrooms Bedrooms Derby Total N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Amber Valley N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Bolsover 5 46 79 90 220 Chesterfield 93 54 172 220 539 Derbyshire Dales N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Erewash N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A High Peak 4 26 113 110 253 NE Derbyshire 10 40 150 45 245 South Derbyshire N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Derbyshire Total 112 166 514 465 1257 Leicester 63 178 148 130 519 Leicester Total 63 178 148 130 519 Blaby 13 58 101 20 192 Charnwood 47 80 165 127 419 Harborough N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Hinckley & Bosworth 16 177 249 276 718 Melton 45 61 40 18 164 NW Leicestershire 14 39 103 216 372 Oadby & wigston 0 0 71 0 71 Leicestershire Total 135 415 729 657 1936 Boston N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A East Lindsey N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Lincoln 0 46 80 144 270 North Kesteven N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A South Holland 19 129 306 255 709 South Kesteven 10 17 192 305 524 West Lindsey N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Lincolnshire Total 29 192 578 704 1503 Corby N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Daventry1 18 98 112 207 435 East Northamptonshire 35 74 121 312 542 Kettering 30 62 87 41 220 Northampton 53 137 92 73 355 South Northamptonshire N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Wellingborough N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Northamptonshire Total 136 371 412 633 1552 Nottingham 27 384 112 19 542 Ashfield N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Bassetlaw 20 60 63 222 365 Gedling 9 46 58 96 209 Mansfield N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Newark & Sherwood 17 45 98 305 465 Rushcliffe 30 161 73 74 338 Nottinghamshire Total 76 312 292 697 1377 Peak District NPA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Rutland N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A East Midlands 578 2018 2785 3305 8686 1excludes exception sites

Appendix Table 3.5 Vacant dwellings

Authority Private Registered Local Vacant Stock % Sector Social Authority total Vacant Landlord Vacant Vacant Derby Total 3481 311 282 4074 100529 4.1 Amber Valley 1721 85 0 1806 51497 3.5 Bolsover 1212 64 115 1391 32727 4.3 Chesterfield 1360 69 256 1685 45229 3.7 Derbyshire Dales 0 0 0 0 0 Erewash 0 0 0 0 0 High Peak 43 19 51 113 38260 0.3 NE Derbyshire1 0 0 1216 42220 2.9 South Derbyshire 642 11 82 735 35469 2.1 Derbyshire Total 4978 248 1720 6946 245402 2.8 Leicester Total 4216 157 501 4874 117978 4.1 Blaby 858 10 37 905 37574 2.4 Charnwood 1300 50 150 1500 63433 2.4 Harnborough 675 0 41 716 31795 2.3 Hinckley & Bosworth 460 7 26 493 42848 1.2 Melton N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NW Leicestershire 1261 42 81 1384 37325 3.7 Oadby & Wigston 400 0 6 406 22049 1.8 Leicestershire Total 4954 109 341 5404 235024 2.3 Boston 0 0 0 0 0 East Lindsey 2252 119 0 2371 63447 3.7 Lincoln 909 22 167 1098 38692 2.8 North Kesteven 922 8 84 1014 42261 2.4 South Holland 1006 12 50 1068 35134 3.0 South Kesteven 0 0 0 0 0 West Lindsey 0 0 0 0 0 Lincolnshire Total 5089 161 301 5551 179534 3.1 Daventry 0 0 0 0 0 East Northamptonshire 893 33 0 926 33717 2.7 Kettering 1120 0 61 1181 36615 3.2 Northampton 0 0 0 0 0 South Northamptonshire 0 0 0 0 0 Wellingborough 908 2 96 1006 31612 3.2 Northamptonshire Total 2921 35 157 3113 101944 3.1 Nottingham Total2 2942 65 730 3737 121241 3.1 Ashfield 1355 33 355 1743 49016 3.6 Bassetlaw 834 45 383 1262 46840 2.7 Gedling 0 0 0 0 0 Mansfield 0 0 0 0 0 Newark & Sherwood 0 0 0 0 0 Rushcliffe 1424 138 64 1626 44034 3.7 Nottinghamshire Total 3613 216 802 4631 139890 3.3 Paek District NPA 0 0 0 0 0 Rutland 0 0 0 0 0 East Midlands 32194 1302 4834 38330 1241542 3.1 1a breakdown between types was not available 2 totals include “other public sector”

Appendix Table 3.7 Dwellings built on previously developed sites

Authority Additional Additional Total % Housing dwellings built dwellings on Additions to built on on previously brownfield dwelling brownfield undeveloped land Stock land or through sites conversions Derby 207 373 580 64.3 Amber Valley 95 189 284 66.5 Bolsover 144 88 232 37.9 Chesterfield 38 520 558 93.2 Derbyshire Dales 37 60 97 61.9 Erewash 45 154 199 77.4 High Peak 158 204 362 56.4 NE Derbyshire 58 187 245 76.3 South Derbyshire 207 423 630 67.1 Derbyshire Total 782 1825 2607 70.0 Leicester 170 724 894 81.0 Blaby 127 67 194 34.5 Charnwood 103 345 448 77.0 Harborough 210 94 304 30.9 Hinckley & Bosworth 376 381 757 50.3 Melton 44 131 175 74.9 NW Leicestershire 256 139 395 35.2 Oafby & Wigston 50 22 72 30.6 Leicestershire Total 1166 1179 2345 50.3 Boston 280 141 421 33.5 East Lindsey 443 185 628 29.5 Lincoln 120 165 285 57.9 North Kesteven 616 115 731 15.7 South Holland 534 175 709 24.7 South Kesteven 194 367 561 65.4 West Lindsey 277 64 341 18.8 Lincolnshire Total 2464 1212 3676 33.0 Corby 169 11 180 6.1 East Northamptonshire 165 441 606 72.8 Kettering 77 143 220 65.0 Northampton 159 422 581 72.6 South Northamptonshire 752 241 993 24.3 Wellingborough 42 133 175 76.0 Northamptonshire Total 1364 1391 2755 50.5 Nottingham 9 813 822 98.9 Ashfield 243 442 685 64.5 Bassetlaw 205 328 533 61.5 Gedling 82 137 219 62.6 Newark & Sherwood 273 299 572 52.3 Rushcliffe 190 149 339 44.0 Nottinghamshire Total 993 1355 2348 57.7 Peak District National Park 59 77 136 56.6 Rutland 53 59 112 52.7 East Midlands 7267 9008 16275 55.3

Appendix Table 3.8 Outstanding planning permissions

Authority Number of new dwellings with outstanding planning permission Derby 1620 Amber Valley 1789 Bolsover 1940 Chesterfield 945 Derbyshire Dales 1281 Erewash 168 High Peak 1383 NE Derbyshire 906 South Derbyshire 2764 Derbyshire Total 11176 Leicester 3782 Leicester Total 3782 Blaby 862 Charnwood 3956 Harborough 992 Hinckley & Bosworth 1616 Melton 301 NW Leicestershire 1016 Oadby & Wigston 336 Leicestershire Total 9079 Boston 1135 East Lindsey 3123 Lincoln 1516 North Kesteven 6119 South Holland 2464 South Kesteven 5376 West Lindsey 2301 Lincolnshire Total 22034 Corby N/A East Northamptonshire 2468 Kettering N/A Northampton 5921 South Northamptonshire 1584 Wellilngborough 865 Northamptonshire Total 10838 Nottingham Total 3741 Ashfield 992 Bassetlaw 2040 Gedling N/A Mansfield 2098 Newark & Sherwood 3111 Rushcliffe 1120 Nottinghamshire Total 9361 Peak District NPA 501 Rutland 957 East Midlands 73 089

Appendix Table 3.9 Affordable dwellings

Authority Affordable Total Additions % Dwellings to dwelling Completed stock Derby 50 580 8.6 Amber Valley N/A N/A N/A Bolsover 28 232 12.1 Chesterfield 0 558 0.0 Derbyshire Dales 0 97 0.0 Erewash 0 199 0.0 High Peak 0 362 0.0 NE Derbyshire 8 245 3.3 South Deryshire 74 630 11.7 Derbyshire Total 110 2323 4.7 Leicester 27 894 3.0 Blaby 26 194 13.4 Charnwood 65 448 14.5 Harborough N/A N/A N/A Hinckley & Bosworth 73 757 9.6 Melton N/A N/A N/A NW Leicestershire 40 395 10.1 Oadby & Wigston 10 72 13.9 Leicestershire Total 214 1866 11.5 Boston N/A N/A N/A East Lindsey 161 628 25.6 Lincoln 17 285 6.0 North Kesteven N/A N/A N/A South Holland 52 709 7.3 South Kesteven 4 561 0.7 West Lindsey N/A N/A N/A Lincolnshire Total 234 2183 10.7 Corby N/A N/A N/A Daventry* 36 435 8.3 East Northamptonshire 4 606 0.7 Kettering 14 220 6.4 Northampton N/A N/A N/A South Northamptonshire 15 993 1.5 Wellingborough 25 175 14.3 Northamptonshire Total 94 2429 3.9 Nottingham Total 97 822 11.8 Ashfield 90 676 13.3 Bassetlaw 26 533 4.9 Gedling 16 219 7.3 Mansfield N/A N/A N/A Newark & Sherwood 58 572 10.1 Rushcliffe 9 339 2.7 Nottinghamshire Total 199 2339 8.5 Peak District National Park 34 136 25.0 Rutland N/A N/A N/A East Midlands 1059 13 572 7.8 *does not include 15 completions on exception sites

Appendix 4- Detailed economy data

Appendix Table 4.1- Amount of greenfield employment land developed

Authority B1 B2 B8 Other Total Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield Derby1 0 0.32 0.32 Amber Valley 0.48 0.25 0.15 0.88 Bolsover 0.79 0.56 1.35 Chesterfield 1.23 1.1 2.33 Derbyshire Dales 0 0 0 0 0 Erewash 0 0 0 0 0 High Peak 0 North East Derbyshire 0.1 0 0 0 0.1 South Derbyshire 1.12 0.95 2.67 4.74 Derbyshire 2.6 1.12 2.86 2.82 9.4 Leicester 0.3 5.15 5.45 Blaby 0 0 0 7.19 7.19 Charnwood 0 0 0 0 0 Harborough 0 Hinckley & Bosworth 0 0 Melton 0 0 0 0 0 NW Leicestershire 0.33 0 2 5.84 8.17 Oadby and Wigston 0 0 0 0 0 Leicestershire 0.33 0 2 13.03 15.36 Boston 0 East Lindsey Lincoln 0 North Kesteven2 1.7 2.47 4.17 South Holland 1.9 8.7 0 10.6 South Kesteven West Lindsey 0 Lincolnshire 1.7 1.9 8.7 2.47 14.77 East Northamptonshire1 0.11 0.3 0.61 1.05 2.07 Kettering 1.89 7.53 1.42 10.84 South Northamptonshire 0.72 0.72 Wellingborough 0 0 0 2.77 2.77 Northamptonshire 2 8.55 2.03 3.82 16.4 Nottingham 0 0 0 0 0 Ashfield 3.7 3.7 Gedling 0.375 0.375 Mansfield 0.25 2.9 0 0.2 3.35 Newark & Sherwood 0.23 0 0 0 0.23 Rushcliffe 2.3 0 0.8 3.1 Nottinghamshire 2.78 6.975 0 1 10.76 Peak District Rutland 0 0 0 0 0 East Midlands 9.71 23.7 15.59 23.46 72.46 Where no input as been made into the questionnaire the table above shows a blank. When a zero has been entered into the questionnaire this is illustrated with a zero in the table. 1 The ‘other’ column refers to mixed B1, B2 and B8 2 Where more than one use class occurs the predominant use has been used

Appendix Table 4.2 - Amount of brownfield employment land developed

Authority B1 B2 B8 Other Total Brownfield Brownfield Brownfield Brownfield Derby1 2.68 3.1 5.78 Amber Valley 0.22 0.5 0.72 Bolsover 1.46 1.46 Chesterfield 1 4.74 5.74 Derbyshire Dales 0 0 0 0 0 Erewash 0 1.32 4.55 0 5.87 High Peak 0 North East Derbyshire 0.28 0.2 0 0 0.48 South Derbyshire 1.68 0.81 2.49 Derbyshire 1.28 7.94 6.73 0.81 16.76 Leicester 0.17 0.15 0.32 Blaby 0.7 0 0 0 0.7 Charnwood 0 0 0 0 0 Harborough2 0.11 0.38 3.01 3.5 Hinckley & Bosworth 27.85 27.85 Melton 0 0 0 0 0 NW Leicestershire 0 0.6 8.16 1.34 10.1 Oadby and Wigston2 0 0 0 1.84 1.84 Leicestershire 0.81 0.98 8.16 34.04 43.99 Boston 0 East Lindsey 0 Lincoln 0 North Kesteven 0.15 1.13 2.66 3.94 South Holland 2.3 1.8 0 0 4.1 South Kesteven3 1.71 2.8 0.49 0.58 5.58 West Lindsey 0 Lincolnshire 4.16 5.73 3.15 0.58 13.62 East Northamptonshire2 0.5 0.93 0.45 1.83 3.71 Kettering 1.616 4.22 1.08 6.916 South Northamptonshire 0.71 4.33 5.04 Wellingborough2 0 0 0 3.47 3.47 Northamptonshire 2.826 5.15 5.86 5.3 19.14 Nottingham 0 0 1.2 1.4 2.6 Ashfield 2.4 3.9 6.3 Gedling 1.09 1.09 Mansfield 0.43 0.6 0 0 1.03 Newark & Sherwood 0 0 0 0 0 Rushcliffe 4.71 0.5 5.21 Nottinghamshire 5.14 3 4.99 0.5 13.63 Peak District 0 0 0 0 0 Rutland 1.4 0 0 0 1.4 East Midlands 18.47 22.8 29.04 44.33 117.24 Where no input as been made into the questionnaire the table above shows a blank. When a zero has been entered into the questionnaire this is illustrated with a zero in the table. 1Please note that B1 development constitutes permissions that relate to B1 only. The 'Other' total includes all other development that was related to permissions for B1, B2 & B8 inclusive. With these it is not possible to differentiate between the different use classes and so some B1 development will be included in this total (as well as B2 & B8) 2 The 'other' column refers to mixed B1, B2 and B8 3 Where more than one use class occurs the predominant use has been used

Appendix Table 4.3- Amount of employment land commitments on greenfield land

Authority B1 B2 B8 Other Total Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield Derby1 12 80.12 92.12 Amber Valley6 78.4 78.4 Bolsover1 4.44 39.5 43.94 Chesterfield 5.13 21.89 27.02 Derbyshire Dales2 0 0 0 6.9 6.9 Erewash 0 0 0 0 0 High Peak1 14.85 14.85 North East Derbyshire 15.36 12 4.88 0 32.24 South Derbyshire 1.11 15.29 44.75 61.15 Derbyshire 26.04 49.18 4.88 184.4 264.5 Leicester2 0 3.93 9.82 7.47 21.22 Blaby2 5.43 0 3.48 29.89 38.8 Charnwood 0 0 0 55.84 55.84 Harborough1 53.44 53.44 Hinckley & Bosworth 11.22 11.22 Melton2 0 0 0 30 30 NW Leicestershire 27.67 0 6.1 80.54 114.31 Oadby and Wigston 1.35 0 0 0 1.35 Leicestershire 34.45 0 9.58 260.93 304.96 Boston 14.52 67.77 82.29 East Lindsey 2 135.55 137.55 Lincoln 30.73 30.73 North Kesteven 30.65 133.53 164.18 South Holland 23.6 28.6 56.2 59.73 168.13 South Kesteven5 83.7 83.7 West Lindsey 0.4 0.15 68.75 69.3 Lincolnshire 71.17 28.6 56.35 579.76 735.88 East Northamptonshire2 0 0.85 5.22 21.27 27.34 Kettering2 136.44 127.43 125.87 0.7 390.44 South Northamptonshire 14.39 8.38 3.9 26.67 Wellingborough 0 0 0 75.69 75.69 Northamptonshire 150.83 136.66 134.99 97.66 520.14 Nottingham1 31.77 0 0 24.5 56.27 Ashfield1 115.7 115.7 Gedling 0 Mansfield4 23.9 96.47 120.37 Newark & Sherwood 18.59 0 0.23 61.01 79.83 Ruhcliffe 0 3 0.36 44.47 47.83 Nottinghamshire 42.49 3 0.59 317.65 363.73 Peak District 0 Rutland1 6.95 0 1.33 16.32 24.6 East Midlands 375.7 221.37 217.54 1568.81 2383.42 Where no input as been made into the questionnaire the table above shows a blank. When a zero has been entered into the questionnaire this is illustrated with a zero in the table. 1Available employment land that has not had the split of usage yet determined or it has not been possible to differentiate between the different use class or where it is a mixed use development has been entered into the 'Other' section. 2Figures presented in the questionnaire gave a breakdown for planning permissions & adopted local plan allocations. For this exercise they have been merged together (see section 7 for further details). 4 breakdowns of minimum hectares were presented in the questionnaire but only overall totals were used. This is to aid consistency in the reporting procedure. 5Employment land statistics relate to allocations in the 1995 adopted local plan. 6This is an estimated breakdown of a mixed brownfield/greenfield development.

Appendix Table 4.4- Amount of employment land commitments on brownfield land Authority B1 B2 B8 Other Total Brownfield Brownfield Brownfield Brownfield Derby1 134.26 134.26 Amber Valley6 47.4 47.4 Bolsover1 9.14 59.83 68.97 Chesterfield 0.44 43.95 44.39 Derbyshire Dales2 0 3.17 0 17.39 20.56 Erewash 29.41 0.5 0 0 29.91 High Peak1 30.86 30.86 North East Derbyshire 2.69 4.22 3.13 0 10.04 South Derbyshire 3.19 2.71 29.05 34.95 Derbyshire 32.54 64.17 5.84 184.53 287.08 Leicester2 3.68 1.62 4.69 16.67 26.66 Leicester 3.68 0.82 0.5 21.66 26.66 Blaby2 9.8 0.26 3.2 13.26 Charnwood 0 0 0 6.65 6.65 Harborough1 38.1 38.1 Hinckley & Bosworth 45.23 45.23 Melton 0 0 0 0 0 NW Leicestershire 3.03 0.3 40 8.6 51.93 Oadby and Wigston2 3.14 0 0.25 0.19 3.58 Leicestershire 15.97 0.56 40.25 101.97 158.75 Boston 3.54 0.01 3.55 East Lindsey 0.05 0.05 Lincoln 31.06 31.06 North Kesteven 4.1 0.16 25.5 29.76 South Holland 1.2 19.21 1.8 2.52 24.73 South Kesteven5 23.1 23.1 West Lindsey 1.41 18.12 19.53 Lincolnshire 10.3 19.21 1.96 100.31 131.78 East Northamptonshire2 10.32 0.31 6.58 3.05 20.26 Kettering2 32.83 34.81 44.02 2.82 114.48 South Northamptonshire 23.47 2.38 7.35 33.2 Wellingborough3 0 0 0 62.64 62.64 Northamptonshire 66.62 37.5 57.95 68.51 230.58 Nottingham1 14.01 9.1 5.24 25.12 53.46 Nottingham 14.01 9.1 5.24 25.12 53.46 Ashfield1 52.3 52.3 Gedling 0 Mansfield4 9.9 0.1 36.29 46.29 Newark & Sherwood 3.23 3.47 0 16.26 22.96 Ruhcliffe 1.5 0 0 8.5 10 Nottinghamshire 14.63 3.57 0 113.35 131.55 Peak District NP 0 Rutland 2.69 1.3 0 0 3.99 East Midlands 160.44 136.23 111.74 749.71 1158.1 Where no input as been made into the questionnaire the table above shows a blank. When a zero has been entered into the questionnaire this is illustrated with a zero in the table. 1Available employment land that has not had the split of usage yet determined or it has not been possible to differentiate between the different use class or where it is a mixed use development has been entered into the ‘Other’ section. 2Figures presented in the questionnaire gave a breakdown for planning permissions & adopted local plan allocations. For this exercise they have been merged together 3The ‘other’ section includes a 39.9 ha site that is part of a mixed greenfield/brownfield development. 4 A breakdown of minimum hectares were presented in the questionnaire but only overall totals were used. This is to aid the consistency in the reporting procedure 5Employment land statistics relate to allocations in the 1995 adopted local plan 6 This is an estimated breakdown of a mixed brownfield/greenfield development

Appendix 5- Detailed Natural and Cultural Resources Data

Table 5.1 Number of Grade 1 and Grade 2** listed buildings and Scheduled Ancient Monuments at risk by list and schedule category (1999 - 2003).

Region List Register % entries SAMs Total % entries entries grade at risk not Register entries in grade 1 1 and II* listed entries Register and II*

East Midlands 2003 2,833 127 4.5 18 145 10.6 1999 2,811 144 5.1 17 161 11.3 East of England 2003 5,218 109 2.1 19 128 9.3 1999 5,184 90 1.7 18 108 7.6 London 2003 1,860 96 5.2 6 102 7.4 1999 1,777 98 5.5 7 105 7.3 North East 2003 1,044 89 8.5 34 123 9 1999 1,037 89 8.5 29 115 8 North West 2003 1,985 131 6.6 31 162 11.8 1999 1,962 133 6.7 24 157 11 South East 2003 5,553 138 2.5 78 216 15.7 1999 5,441 138 2.5 95 233 16.3 South West 2003 7,005 151 2.2 19 170 12.4 1999 6,862 158 2.3 26 184 12.9 West Midlands 2003 2,718 144 5.3 39 183 13.3 1999 2,666 155 5.8 34 189 13.2 Yorkshire 2003 2,153 115 5.3 29 144 10.5 1999 2,134 153 7.1 23 176 12.3 Total 2003 30,369 1,100 3.6 273 1,373 Total 1999 29,874 1,158 3.8 270 1,428 Movement from 1999 495 -58 -0.2 3 -55 Source: English Heritage Register of buildings at risk 2003

Table 5.2 Grade II listed buildings at Risk

Authority Number of Grade II Number of Grade % of grade II listed buildings at II listed buildings listed buildings risk at risk Derby 16 338 4.73 Amber Valley 23 957 2.40 Bolsover 12 348 3.45 Chesterfield 0 237 0.00 Derbyshire Dale 68 1,328 5.12 Erewash 2 199 1.01 High Peak 28 383 7.31 North East Derbyshire 25 456 5.48 South Derbyshire 35 705 4.96 Derbyshire 193 4,613 4.18 Leicester 18 313 5.75 Blaby 23 185 12.43 Charnwood 89 887 10.03 Harborough 199 1,286 15.47 Hinckley & Bosworth 44 313 14.06 Melton 99 651 15.21 N W Leicestershire 89 654 13.61 Oadby & Wigston 1 35 2.86 Leicestershire Total 544 4,011 13.56 Boston 47 454 10.35 East Lindsey 120 1,221 9.83 Lincoln 5 459 1.09 North Kesteven N/A N/A N/A South Holland 51 463 11.02 South Kesteven 31 2,260 1.37 West Lindsey 46 805 5.71 Lincolnshire 300 5,662 5.30 Northamptonshire 35 1,890 1.85 Nottingham 89 736 12.09 Newark & Sherwood 94 1,906 4.93 Ashfield 10 115 8.70 Bassetlaw 119 1,629 7.31 Broxtowe 30 265 11.32 Gedling 17 306 5.56 Mansfield 34 391 8.70 Rushcliffe 48 1,411 3.40 Nottinghamshire Total 352 6,023 5.84 Peak District National 214 2,743 7.80 Park East Midlands 2113 32,352 6.53 Source: Local Authorities, 2003

Table 5.3a Number of sites generating electricity from renewable sources- December 2002

Region Hydro Wind & Landfill Other Total Wave Gas Biofuels and Wastes

England 36 48 184 145 413 East Midlands 8 … 18 10 36 East - 6 37 15 58 North East … 9 5 6 20 North West 7 15 34 25 81 London - - 31 8 56 South East … … 17 South West 15 10 22 33 80 West Midlands 6 - 20 14 40 Yorkshire and … 8 17 17 42 the Humber Wales 27 20 10 4 61 Scotland 128 36 12 5 181 Northern Ireland 28 10 … 6 44 Other sites 3 4 - 7 UK Total 222 118 206 160 706 Source: Energy Trends Table 5.3b Generation of electricity from renewable sources, 2002 (GWh)

Region Hydro Wind & Landfill Other Total Wave Gas Biofuels England 41.1 346.5 2,362 2,618.10 5,367.60 East Midlands 7.4 … 161.1 107.1 275.6 East - 14.7 650.7 650.4 1,315.90 North East … 20.4 42.2 136.5 199.1 North West 3 116.8 451.3 91.2 662.3 London - - 412.6 625.1 1,094.30 South East … … 56.6 South West 28.3 104.6 255.9 125.8 514.6 West Midlands 2.4 - 207.5 543.9 753.9 Yorkshire and … 90 180.5 281.5 552 the Humber Wales 276.2 376.3 113 19.1 784.6 Scotland 4,455.40 406.1 157 80.1 5,098.70 Northern Ireland 10.9 125.3 … 47.7 183.9 Other sites 4.3 1.9 - - 6.2 Total 4,788.00 1,256.10 2,632.00 2,765.00 11,441.10 Solar photovoltaics 2.7 UK Total 11,443.80 Source: Energy Trends

Table 5.3c Installed capacity of sites generating electricity from renewable sources MW (December 2002)

Region Hydro Wind & Landfill Other Total Wave Gas Biofuels and Wastes

England 38.3 145.6 419.9 508 1,111.70 East Midlands 7.1 … 33.6 34.6 75.3 East - 5.9 114.6 104.7 225.2 North East … 11.5 7.3 25.5 44.3 North West 2.5 49.3 77.5 36.8 166 London - - 72.8 92.5 175.7 South East … … 10.4 South West 26.8 42.3 42.9 49.6 161.5 West Midlands 2 - 38 104.4 144.4 Yorkshire and the … 36.6 33.2 49.5 119.3 Humber Wales 168.5 161.3 20.6 3.2 353.7 Scotland 1,354.10 185.7 26.2 28.6 1,594.50 Northern Ireland 10.1 41.5 … 7.1 58.8 Other sites 6.3 0.8 - - 7.1 Total 1,577.30 534.9 466.6 160 3,125.70 Solar photovoltaics 4.2 UK Total 3,129.90 Source: Energy Trends

Table 5.4 Overview of Combined Heat and Power schemes in 2002

Region Number Electrical Heat Fuel Used Electricity Heat of Capacity Capacity GWh Generated Generated schemes MWe MWth GWh GWh England 1,331 3,832 7,789 86,219 19,048.00 42,910 East Midlands 83 258 419 5,105 1,320 2,313 East 83 249 413 4,263 1,064 2,188 North East 180 205 575 5,371 986 2,826 North West 90 536 1,145 11,110 2,867 5,532 London 219 1,016 1,967 20,926 3,979 11,240 South East 262 785 1,749 20,585 4,444 9,536 South West 133 102 234 2,260 397 1,434 West Midlands 129 96 256 2,476 437 1,217 Yorkshire and 152 585 1,030 14,124 3,554 6,624 he Humber Wales 85 743 3,164 25,876 4,214 14,180 Scotland 95 143 440 5,175 852.00 3,334 Northern Ireland 32 25 91 617 122 314 Total 1,538.00 4,742 11,484 117,887 24,236.00 60,738 Source: Energy Trends

Table 5.5 Planning permissions granted contrary to Environment Agency advice (01/04/02 to 31/03/03)

Authority No of planning permissions Derby Amber Valley Bolsover Boston 5 Chesterfield Derbyshire Dales ex Peak District National Park Erewash 1 High Peak 1 NE Derbyshire Blaby South Derbyshire 1 Leicester 1 Charnwood Harborough Hinckley & Bosworth 1 Corby Melton 1 NW Leicestershire Oadby & Wigston East Lindsey 1 Lincoln 1 South Holland 19 South Kesteven North Kesteven 4 West Lindsey 1 East Northamptonshire Kettering South Northamptonshire Wellingborough Nottingham 2 Ashfield Bassetlaw 2 Gedling 1 Newark & Sherwood 1 Broxtowe Rushcliffe Peak District National Park Daventry Northampton Mansfield Source: Environment Agency

Appendix 6– Detailed Minerals, Aggregate Production and Waste Management Data

Table 6.2 AM 2001 Survey: National Collation

East Midlands Exports Imports Sand/Gravel Crushed Rock Total Sand/Gravel Crushed Rock Total South West 10 10 © © South East 114 1,727 1,841 25 158 183 London 1,516 1,516 East of England 613 4,165 4,778 472 117 589 West Midlands 480 4,241 4,721 302 519 821 North West 4 4,896 4,900 23 1 24 Yorks & Humber 1,487 1,483 2,970 530 578 1,108 North East 130 130 5 94 99 South Wales 2 1 3 44 44 North Wales 108 108 1 2,700 18,277 20,977 1,357 1,541 2,898 Domestic Sales 7,346 12,907 20,253 Total consumption 8,703 23,151 23,151 ©= Confidential *produced and sold in East Midlands Source: EMAWP, 2003

Table 6.3 East Midlands Sales 2001

000 tonnes Sand/Gravel Rock Derbyshire 1,585 11,798 (a) Peak Park 7,827 (a) Leics./Rutland 1,403 18,039 Lincolnshire (d) 2,902 2,075 (e) Northants 758 299 Nottinghamshire 3,711 29 Total 10,357 40,116

Of which aggregates Derbyshire 1,585 8,372 (b) Peak Park 4,490 (b) Leics./Rutland 1,403 16,105 Lincolnshire (d) 2,902 1,909 (e) Northants 758 288 Nottinghamshire 3,502 26 Total 10,149 31,240

Non Aggregates (d) Derbyshire 2336 © Peak Park 3337 © Leics./Rutland 93 2,064 Lincolnshire (d) 165 (e) Northants 11 Nottinghamshire 209 3 Total 302 8,8,876 (a) includes 0.216Mt part of which is from Peak Park (b) includes 0.115 Mt part of which is from Peak Park © includes 0.101 Mt part of which is from Peak Park (d) of which all is limestone/dolomite/chalk except 0.103Mt (e) includes chalk

Table 6.9: Amount of Municipal Waste Handled within the East Midlands (Tonnes)

Authority Municipal Waste Derby 128 000 Derbyshire 400 963 Leicester N/A Leicestershire 371,933 Lincolnshire 339,724 Northamptonshire 354,989 Nottingham 155,651 Nottinghamshire N/A Peak District N/A Rutland N/A East Midlands Total 1,751,260 Source: Local Authorities

Appendix 7- Detailed Transport Data

Table 7.1:Number of people killed or seriously injured in road traffic accidents

Number of Goods Child Adult Child Adult Motorcyclists Car drivers Total Road Bus/Coach vehicle pedestrian pedestrian pedal pedal and and users drivers and drivers and cyclists cyclists passengers passengers passengers passengers

Derby Killed 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 KSI 2 0 13 27 3 12 23 33 113 Derbyshire Killed 0 3 1 6 0 0 16 31 57 KSI 6 24 25 53 10 24 171 291 604 Leciestershire Killed 0 4 0 5 0 2 15 41 67 KSI 0 24 13 22 1 7 67 234 368 Leicester* Killed 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 4 KSI 0 4 0 37 0 6 10 15 72 Lincolnshire Killed 1 3 0 13 0 1 12 67 97 KSI 15 27 20 38 7 21 111 473 712 Northamptonshire Killed 0 2 2 10 1 1 8 36 60 KSI 0 25 32 39 12 23 98 287 516 Nottingham Killed 0 0 1 16 0 0 5 16 38 KSI 8 18 49 141 8 39 95 208 566 Notinnghamshire Killed N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A KSI N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Peak District Killed N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A KSI N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Rutland Killed 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 6 9 KSI 0 2 1 3 0 2 9 21 38 East Midlands Killed 1 12 4 53 1 7 57 199 334 KSI 31 124 153 360 41 134 584 1562 2989 Source: Local Authorities, 2003 (KSI = Killed or Seriously Injured) *Figures were not broken down between child and adult pedestrians/cyclists. The total figure was entered under the ‘Adult’ category

Table 7.2: Integrated Ticketing Schemes

Local Authority Number of Number of Number of bus Number of train Integrated operators the passengers that operators who Ticketing schemes cover used the scheme used the scheme Schemes in 2002 in 2002 operating in the LTP area Derby 0 0 0 0 Derbyshire 6 57 N/A N/A Leicester 2002 0 0 0 0 Leicestershire 0 0 0 0 Lincolnshire 3 5 N/A N/A Northamptonshire 1 2 N/A N/A Nottingham 2 0 N/A N/A Nottinghamshire Peak District N/A N/A N/A N/A Rutland 1 1 N/A 0 East Midlands 13 90 N/A N/A Local Authorities, 2003 Appendix 8- Sources of data- References

Regional Energy- Energy Trends- September 2003- Updated Quarterly http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/inform/energy_trends/2003/sep_03.pdf

Towards a Regional Energy Strategy (East Midlands Assembly), Consultation Document, June 2003 http://www.eastmidlandsassembly.org.uk/index.asp?pg=energy/index_2.html

Regional Transport- Department for Transport- November 2002 (Updated Annually) - Next Updated November 27th 2003 http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/downloadable/dft_transstats_50748 3.pdf

Value of Land- The Valuation Office Agency- Property Market Reports- (Updated Biannually)- Spring & Autumn 2003 http://www.voa.gov.uk/publications/index.htm

House Prices- HM Land Treasury-Land registry Property Prices- August 2003- (Updated Quarterly) http://www.landreg.gov.uk/propertyprice/interactive/ppr_ualbs.asp?dataregion=reg&datayear=0&rq =1

Buildings at Risk

English Heritage- building at risk register- 2003- Updated Annually http://accessibility.english-heritage.org.uk/bar/asp/search.asp

Appendix 9 - Data received after the deadline

The following data was received before the final report was submitted but not in time to be able to draw analysis and commentary into the report.

Priority habitats brought into management or created 2002/03 in Leicestershire & Rutland excluding the National Forest

Habitat Management Creation 1. Veteran • 9 notified as SINCs. trees • Approx 10 mature riverside willows pollarded under 2 different habitat management schemes. 3. Wet • 1.3ha created woodland 9. Lowland • 17ha brought into positive • 1.7ha created heathland / management 11. Lowland acid dry grassland 10. Lowland • 8.58ha management calc grassland 13. Cereal • After 3 years 165km of 6m cereal field margins field margins will have been created from CSS agreements starting in 2002. 14. • 39 notified as SINCs • 25.2km planted Hedgerows • 52.2km managed 18. Reedbeds • 1.2ha created 19. Eutrophic • 5 field ponds notified as SINCs • 21 field ponds created or restored standing • 4 field ponds managed waters (including field ponds) 20. • 0.2ha willow coppicing to Mesotrophic benefit marginal vegetation standing waters

Data on areas of Biodiversity was also received from Andy Simpkin from the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust.

Appendix 10 - Policy areas not currently covered by indicators

9.01 Three types of indicator are presented: • Core indicators will closely monitor the policy area to which they refer and are therefore critical for monitoring RPG8 • Contextual indicators provide background information on a policy area • Process indicators refer to setting up and monitoring systems for taking forward developments within the referenced policy area

The Policy areas where new indicators are warranted are:

RPG Policy Area Coverage Approach Recommended Type of indicator 1 - Locational Priorities Ensuring sequential approach to Qualitative information Process for Development the selection of land for Assess list of selected land for development is adopted in development against the priority Development Plans order provided in the RPG. Data collection needs to be built into the Statutory consultee process

2 - Sustainability Criteria Ensuring developments meet Qualitative information gathered Process sustainability checks/list of through consultations with planning criteria authorities 4 - Concentrating Ensure new development is Urban-rural index - Countryside Contextual Development in Urban prioritised in Principal Urban Agency Areas Areas and to a lesser extent in New Developments by area/centre Sub Regional Centres listed in the RPG (committed and developed) 5 - Regional Priorities for Ensure new development Countryside Agency Core Development in Rural strengthens rural enterprise and Areas linkages between settlements and hinterlands 6 - Development in the Strengthen the Role of Lincoln Position of Lincoln in city rankings Contextual Eastern Sub Area as one of the PUAs (Healey and Baker) index

7 - Overcoming Infrastructure improvements Level of activity from ports could be Contextual Peripherality in the between the region and its ports derived from the State of Freight Eastern Sub Area within the sub area report (Sinclar Knight Merz)

8 - Regeneration of the Develop a Sub Regional Spatial EMRA to ensure Sub Regional Process Northern Sub Area Strategy for the Northern Sub Spatial Strategy is Developed and Area as Part of the Next RPG Implemented Review 9 - Spatial Priorities for Secure the Conservation and EMRA to work the Peak District Process Development in the Peak Enhancement of the Peak National Park Authority to monitor Sub Area District development within the Peak District 10 - Spatial Priorities for Reducing in-migration and Travel To Work Areas - NOMIS Core Development Outside the commuting to nearby Peak District National conurbations Park 11 - Managing Tourism Potential Tourism Development Number of Tourist Attractions Contextual and Visitors in the Peak Outside of the Peak District (including Accommodation) Opening Sub Area - Probably need to commission visitor surveys 12 - Spatial Priorities for Strengthen role of Northampton Position of Northampton in City Contextual Development in the as a PUA, pursue regeneration Rankings (Healey and Baker). Southern Sub Area of Corby Monitor Achievements of Catalyst Corby 13 - Development in the Development of a Sub-Regional EMRA to ensure Sub Regional Milton Keynes and South Spatial Strategy to Test Spatial Strategy is Developed and Process Midlands Study Area Proposals for Growth in the Implemented Milton Keynes and South Midlands Study Area 14 - The Nottingham Undertake a Review of the EMRA to ensure a Review of the Derby Green Belt Nottingham Derby Green Belt to Nottingham Derby Green Belt is Process Provide Framework for Conducted Development in the Three Cities Sub Area until 2021

15 - Development in the To Continue to Support the EMRA to monitor progress with the Process Three Cities Sub Area Regeneration of the Three Cities development and implementation of the Strategy 16 - A Sub Regional Develop a Sub Regional Spatial EMRA to ensure a Sub Regional Process Spatial Strategy for the Strategy for the Three Cities Spatial Strategy is Developed and Three Cities Sub Area Implemented

19 - Regional Priorities Joint-Working to Manage the Qualitative information gathered Process for Managing the Release Release of Sites for Housing through consultations to see if they of Land for Housing are working together and sharing knowledge? 21 - Regional Priority Regeneration of PUAs and Sub Index of Multiple Deprivation Areas for Regeneration Areas suffering Deprivation Core

24 - Regional Priorities Monitor Level of Agricultural Amount of Agricultural Land in the Contextual for Rural Diversification Land Region. EMRA to work with the Countryside Agency 25 - Regional Priorities Areas of Potential Tourism Number of Tourists Visiting the Core for Tourism Growth, including Provision of Region, Number of Overnight Stays and Improvements in Tourism Facilities

26 - Regional Priorities Improve Regional Coverage of Level of Broadband Coverage in the Contextual for ICT Broadband and Promote the Region – could build on the Business Take-up of ICT Link sponsored e-business survey

27 - Protecting and Management and Maintenance Level of Natural And Cultural Assets Enhancing the Region's of Natural Environment - in the Region - need to extend Contextual Natural and Cultural Monitor Levels of Natural and monitoring of cultural assets, could Assets Cultural Assets in the Region, to look for example at the Areas of achieve a Net Gain Outstanding Natural Beauty 30 - Priorities for the Undertake a Landscape Ensure a Landscape Character Process Management and Character Assessment Assessment of the Region is Enhancement of the Conducted – EMRA to work with the Region's Landscape Countryside Agency – see monitoring recommendations below 32 - Regional Priorities Develop Sports and Monitor the number of Sports and Contextual for Sports and Recreational Facilities in the Recreational Facilities Developed Recreational Facilities Region 33 - Water Quality Need to monitor changes to water Contextual quality 34 - Regional Priorities Protect and Enhance the EMRA to monitor Development Contextual for Strategic River Strategic River Corridors within River Corridors Corridors

35 - Priorities for the Number of Coastal Zone Number of Coastal Zone Core Management of the Management Plans Management Plans Lincolnshire Coast

43 - Regional Priorities Feasibility Studies in PUAs on EMRA to ensure Feasibility Studies Process for Parking Levies and Traffic Management Measures are Conducted Road User Charging

44 - Regional Car Monitor the number of New Public Core Parking Standards and Private Car Parking Spaces Developed 45 - A Regional Determine Public Transport EMRA to conduct Study into Public Process Approach to Developing Accessibility Criteria Transport Accessibility Public Transport Accessibility Criteria 52 - Development of a Develop a Regional Freight EMRA to ensure Regional Freight Regional Freight Strategy Strategy Strategy is Developed Process

53 - Development at East Develop East Midlands Airport EMRA to work with emda on looking Midlands Airport at the Capacity of East Midlands Process Airport 54 - The Implementation Develop a Regional Delivery EMRA to ensure Regional Delivery Process of the RTS and Implementation Group to and Implementation Group is Implement the RTS Established 55 - Regional Priorities AMS EMRA to ensure the AMS is Process for Monitoring and produced on an annual basis Review